Evidence of meeting #77 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 dre.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I don't know. That's what somebody suggested.
We're all suggesting Monday afternoon. In the spirit of cooperation, let's move it forward. We aired everything we needed to hear. That's all this is about. It wasn't about getting into a big discussion about it.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Does everybody rush off to the plane ad hoc on Monday night? I'm prepared to stay. If the House isn't sitting Tuesday, I'm still prepared to be here on Tuesday. My next week is already partly planned, and I don't see the practical need for the rush.
It actually pinches me, because I didn't anticipate having a meeting on Monday to deal with this. It was Tuesday.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Maybe as a bit of a compromise, if we had scheduled Tuesday and Thursday mornings for clause-by-clause, perhaps we could book off three hours for Tuesday morning. I don't anticipate it will take three hours. I anticipate it won't take the full two hours. But I wouldn't want to get to the end of our Tuesday meeting and have one or two clauses to go, then have to carry over to Thursday.
Maybe to accommodate Mr. Ménard's and Mr. Lee's concern, we could ensure that we finish clause-by-clause, if at all possible, on Tuesday. Maybe book from 9 until 12. I'm not anticipating that we'll need the three hours, but just in case. How's that?
Conservative
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Then we're gone.
Right. Thank you, committee.
Now we have ten minutes to deal with Mr. Bagnell's motion.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I can see the Conservatives are very enthusiastic about it.
I simply want to make three points. It may appear a little critical in the wording. First of all, it has nothing to do with the members opposite, because they are great and I enjoy working with them. They're great members, because they don't have anything to do with this part of the policy development.
The second point is that it's not meant to impede on committee time at all. I would have been happy to add extra meetings to do this. I didn't do it in my motion, though, because the last time we added a project one of the parties—
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we in camera at this point? It is committee business.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I only wanted to know if we were in camera or not.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
It's not meant to stop the other work, and I would have been happy to add extra meetings, but the last time we had a motion to do that, one party didn't want to add extra meetings. So that could be discussed.
The primary purpose is the number of the witnesses that we had earlier, and some bills suggested that there was a major change in the policy development process that may have led to a number of the problems. It's similar to having a foundation of a house that's not exactly right; it doesn't matter how much work you have to do in the house, you should fix the foundation.
So I thought it warranted some review into how these bills have been developed from the policy level and reached us in the way they did.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
That the committee embark on a study of the policy development process for the justice bills brought forward by the new government.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed to the motion. I would like to understand it more. Is our colleague questioning the role of the government's priorities committee, the legislation committee, the Privy Council or, like all of us no doubt, the composition of Cabinet? I would like to know which decision-making centre he's attacking more.
Second, I believe I understood that, on our return in September, we will still have to discuss Bill C-27. We still have to debate five bills, if my count is correct. I'm not opposed to this motion, if we can do the work in two or three meetings. I'm never very much in favour of the idea of adding meetings because, obviously, there's a limit to what we can productively do in committee. Perhaps we'll have completed the consideration of Bill C-32. At least that will be done. I wouldn't be surprised if the government continued its strategy of striking other legislative committees.
Perhaps the mover could tell us what decision-making centre he's attacking. If, in his mind, that can be done in one or two meetings, I'm not opposed to the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Bagnell, I found the preamble, at least, a bit vexatious. Maybe you could explain what you mean by that, because I believe the committee has moved a lot of legislation through this committee.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
That was a good question.
The first focus would be primarily on the Department of Justice, because that's where the bills come from. I mean, everyone on the committee has the same intentions, I think, which is to reduce crime, but some of the witnesses who have come forward have said they haven't been consulted in the normal process of developing legislation. Some of the bills, a lot of witnesses have said, have come contrary to achieving the objectives that all the members of the committee want to achieve, which is reducing crime. So how did that occur and how is the legislative process that developed these bills different from how it might have been in the past, as some witnesses suggested?
My concern wasn't with having legislative committees and cabinet and all that; it was more on the process used by the Department of Justice and the government to develop these bills.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.
Madam Jennings, we have five minutes to complete our deliberation on this motion.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I support this motion, particularly in light of the explanation that Mr. Bagnell has given. His motion and the study would lie on the policy development process for justice bills within the Department of Justice in order to gain a better understanding of the normal process.
As he mentioned, we've had a number of key witnesses say that they were always part of a consultative process undertaken by the justice department when they were looking at the possibility of amending legislation or bringing forth entirely new legislation for a new policy. In many instances in the past 16 months, this normal consultation has not happened.