Evidence of meeting #73 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Colleagues, thank you very much. We've finished our business. I don't see any further business.
May 31st, 2007 / 9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
It seems to me that this particular rule that Mr. Comartin has been talking about, not just today but in the past, has come up a number of times in this committee, and he felt from this committee that there should be some effort to resolve that. I'm wondering if that shouldn't be done sooner than later. If so, exactly how will we go about that?
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Mr. Thompson, this is a rule that applies to legislation in the House and at committee. Normally we would seek some guidance from the legislative counsel for the House. Our clerks and counsel here are very good, but it's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall sometimes. As you will be a fan of this, we try to look for common sense, rule of law, and some efficacy.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
My point is that it seems as though it comes up so much that it ought to be dealt with. It shouldn't be a hindrance to the work we're trying to do on a regular basis, as it seems to be.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
It does take time, I appreciate that, and there's a certain lack of clarity in the application. I hear you. Thank you.
Ms. Jennings.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Given the points that Mr. Comartin, Monsieur Ménard, and I have made on the issue of whether or not certain amendments are admissible because they fall within the scope of the law, or not, and given the fact that there has been a real struggle within this committee on rulings by the chair as to whether or not certain amendments were admissible, and given the rulings that you've just made on a number of government amendments as being either within the scope of the law or clearly outside the scope of the law, and therefore admissible or inadmissible, I think it would be interesting for this committee, and enlightening perhaps, to actually have our experts--maybe even Monsieur Marleau--come and actually explain by what criteria.
It's not at all clearly explained. I think it might be useful to actually have a mini-course for the members of this committee. And then the committee could decide whether or not it felt that the jurisprudence that's provided in Marleau and Montpetit on the issue of whether it is in the scope or not and how one defines the scope.... If everyone is comfortable, then fine, it's done. If they're not, then this committee might decide that we wish to adopt a motion, to report it to the House suggesting changes to the actual rules, regulations, and procedures of the House.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Good suggestions and good comment, Ms. Jennings. You may be very pleased to know that this issue came up at the fisheries committee, and a briefing paper on the subject was prepared for the fisheries committee. In this connection there's no difference between fish and criminals. That briefing paper could be made available.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Members around the table who would like to see this briefing paper on the subject of the scope of the bill, would you indicate so the clerk can get an idea.
Mr. Comartin. I know Mr. Ménard would love to, and Madam Jennings--it looks like just about the whole committee. Perhaps the clerk could arrange for distribution of that. After that, we can decide whether we want to discuss it further.
Seeing no further business, we can adjourn. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.