Evidence of meeting #52 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Excuse me, but it is because we were talking about Mrs. Claire L'Heureux-Dubé.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
So, to be clear, I am saying in all honesty that a limit of three meetings is not enough. We will simply look ridiculous because six hours of debate is much too short.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
We will happily support the motion. That must also please the Chair, because holding ten sessions is not insignificant.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I've listened to what Mr. Petit said, and I think he was referring to extra sessions if we have a broader consultation, and I think that's called for.
Earlier I was asking why one year. I question Mr. Ménard on that, because as you know, the judicial advisory committees have been in place since 1988 and they've been changed a number of times. To say it is something earth-shattering that the composition of the judicial advisory committees would be changed—in my opinion a positive change, but that's a matter for debate.... We're all entitled to our opinions on it, but why would we just look at the last year? I think we should look at more than the last year concerning the judicial advisory committees.
Now, if we're discussing just Ms. Jennings' motions and amendments to her motions, I would be prepared to support a motion--if you want unanimous support; if not, it doesn't matter. But if you wanted unanimous support, I would be prepared to support a motion that did not have such a torqued preamble, as we have already discussed—I'm certainly not going to support your preamble—and that calls for the committee to devote two sessions...and carrying on with the rest, as long as it doesn't interfere, as you said, with our priority to deal with Bill C-22.
I'm fine with point 2, with the amendment to change the “three” to “a minimum of two”.
Then finally, in point 3, I would say: “That these additional sessions be dedicated to hearing witnesses who will inform the Committee of the consequences the government's proposed changes will have on the...legal system.”
I think it's presupposing the outcome of the testimony to say "the integrity of the legal system", as if there would be some negative impact on the integrity. We'll draw our conclusions perhaps from the testimony we hear from witnesses, but I'm not prepared to support a motion that's calling for the study of changes that we've made to the judicial advisory committee. I'm fine with studying it, and I've made that clear, but not with a motion that seems to already have drawn its conclusion. I would like to hear the testimony, and then we can all draw our conclusions.
If the opposition members want to genuinely study it, then I would suggest we talk about making those few amendments that leave in place the main goal of studying the judicial advisory committees for a couple of days, at times that do not take away from Bill C-18 or Bill C-22.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes. The amendments I would propose to Ms. Jennings and Mr. Ménard.... Specifically I'm looking at Ms. Jennings' amendment. Mr. Ménard said he was fine with Ms. Jennings' amendment, so I'm looking at her amendment.
The amendments I would make would be to take out the preamble, because I think it's too torqued, and to take out point 1, "that the Government postpone the reform made to the composition", because the changes that have been made to the composition have already been made. So I would take out point 1.
Points 2, 3, and 4 I would leave in place, except to change the “minimum of three” to a “minimum of two”, and to take out the words "the integrity of" in number 3.
So we would have a study of the judicial advisory committees, which I think is what Mr. Ménard is in favour of, but I would take out the language that I think would indicate the committee had somehow already drawn a conclusion.
Conservative
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, as Ms. Jennings' co-mover, I must say that we do not want to withdraw the preamble.
Your colleague requested ten sessions; you want two. We think that we may strike a balance by suggesting three. But if Ms. Jennings is in agreement, we would also agree to withdraw the word “integrity”. Hence, the motion would read:
to hearing witnesses who will inform the Committee of the consequences the government's proposed changes will have on the legal system.
However, there is no question about withdrawing the preamble, whether the government likes it or not.
Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Moore to explain why police officers have been included. If it's not for ideological reasons, why not include nurses or teachers? There are a lot of people in society who have things to say about the legal system.
The government is entitled to have this ideological orientation, but it must not try to make us believe that this is not what it's talking about. They're entitled to want to include police officers, but this is in line with ideological considerations. Otherwise, what's the point of having a police officer participate in appointing a judge to the Canadian Tax Court? How does a police officer have any expertise in that area? So there is an ideological orientation. We are in a democracy, we accept the fact that people do have ideologies, but don't try to make us believe that the government is not acting on the basis of ideological considerations.
Why am I against going back to the 1980s? The problem is not that the government wants to change the nomination process. Yes, the minister is entitled to change the nomination process. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must be consulted.
Moreover, if the Liberals had appointed police officers to the selection committee, I am convinced that my colleague, Richard Marceau, would have tabled this motion. We are not doing this because this is a Conservative government, we are taking this action because we don't think that it is desirable to have police officers, who often begin the process of laying charges, sitting on selection committees. That's what we are debating about.
You have done this for ideological reasons. Otherwise, we are prepared to vote unanimously in favour of appointing nurses, professors, journalists, people who had expertise as well. The government was very careful about expanding the range of people they want to see appointed to this committee, because they want to have police officers who buy into its vision of the legal system. The government is entitled to say that, but it should not take offence when we point this out.
I will not, for any consideration whatsoever, withdraw the preamble, and I hope that I have the support of my Liberal and NDP colleagues.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
We accept Mr. Ménard's motion to withdraw the words “l'intégrité du ” in French, and “the integrity of”, in English, in item 3 of the motion.
February 27th, 2007 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
We could have a debate on this, and I don't think now is the time.
I do reject, though, the premise of some of Mr. Ménard's comments that somehow we can pigeonhole police officers into one category of ideological thought or persuasion. Just as there are lawyers on these judicial advisory committees--do we say that lawyers are of one ideological persuasion? I do not believe you would suggest that. In the same way, the police officer representative on the judicial advisory committee should not be put into one box. So I think that was an unfair thing to say.
Also, on the issue of teachers, journalists, and firefighters, there is the ability to appoint anybody to the judicial advisory committees. There's a spot, as we know, for a representative from the province; a representative from the bar association; and at-large representatives such as teachers, journalists, or anybody else. But we did create a spot just for police officers, because police officers play a part in the judicial system, just as lawyers play a part in the judicial system.
You may disagree with that, and I take it that you do, but I do think it's unfair to suggest that all of the police officer appointees would come with one set of value systems or one set of ideological thought.
Now, as to the motion of Ms. Jennings, I put forward something we could support. Obviously we do not support the preamble, so we will not support the motion.
We're trying to be constructive, so I agree with Mr. Ménard that we should have a study. I agree with him now, as Ms. Jennings has amended his motion, that it should not interfere with what has come from the House, with what this committee is invested with from the House, and that's the responsibility for Bill C-18 and Bill C-22.
So we could have unanimous agreement on this motion, but not if we leave in the preamble or paragraph 1 of the motion.
