Evidence of meeting #1 for Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Maloney
Yes, we were meeting twice a week when we were dealing with the report, just to get it finalized. We have a deadline of December 8, so we should try to put in as many meetings as we can in order to make that deadline.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Perhaps on Mondays and Tuesdays? Is 5:30 p.m. on Monday a problem for everyone? Could we meet at 5:30 p.m. on Monday and after Question period on Tuesdays?
Liberal
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I have a committee meeting from 3:30 to 5:30 on Tuesdays.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I also have the House leaders meeting at 3:30 on Tuesdays, and it can go for an hour.
Conservative
Art Hanger Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Why don't we make it 5:30 to 7:30, Mondays and Tuesdays, and at least get it out of the way prior to the end of the week. It would just be a continuation of our justice committee meetings.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
So we're talking about Mondays and Tuesdays from 5:30 p.m to 7:30 p.m. Correct?
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Just so we know, Tuesdays will sometimes be impacted by voting, so we'll then just do it after the voting and continue on.
On Tuesdays, I often have a panel discussion, so that's going to be a bit of a problem. Often it's at 5 o'clock, so that won't be a problem, but sometimes there's another one at 5:30. Anyway, I'll work around that.
Conservative
Art Hanger Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
I don't think the committee can help it if you're popular and you get all these panel discussions.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
No, it has nothing to do with being popular. They're just standing panels that happen on Tuesdays. Anyway, I'll try to work around that.
So we're going with Mondays and Tuesdays, from 5:30 to 7:30.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Maloney
Now let's get to the real meat of the issue today.
How do you want to pick up from the draft report we had last time? Do you wish to have a meeting to review all the evidence to date? Would you wish to very briefly go through the report again, starting at the first clause? Or do you wish to pick up approximately from where we were, with whatever clause we left off at?
Mr. Hanger.
Conservative
Art Hanger Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
This was a point of contention the last time around, that the committee was dealing with a portion of the content of the evidence submitted and wasn't dealing with all of it.
This was a discussion that we had in the justice committee as a whole. We discussed the idea that this evidence that was submitted—the statements of many others dealing with other jurisdictions and the like—be incorporated into the report. On that basis, the justice committee as a whole agreed to include that material.
I can read the motion if it isn't before everyone right now. I will do that, actually, so that it's in the record:
...that the subcommittee ensure that all [published] evidence submitted to the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws in the 38th Parliament be [thoroughly referenced] in their report; that the subcommittee consider if additional hearings are needed to clarify previously submitted evidence in the 38th Parliament; that the subcommittee report to the Committee by December 8, 2006; and that the subcommittee have all the powers of the Committee under Standing Order 108(1)a)....
It's basically incorporating some of the evidence that was not submitted the first time around.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Maloney
The concern at the time was that because we were unable to travel outside the jurisdiction, we weren't able to see firsthand or to question or to challenge the evidence given to us from foreign jurisdictions.
What does the committee feel about that? We obviously have instructions from the main committee.
Yes, Ms. Davies.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I know we had a lot of debate about this in the last committee, and I think we got about two-thirds to three-quarters of the way through the draft report. We never actually got to begin our discussions and recommendations.
I don't have a problem if we basically agree first off that the body of the report should reflect “references to the testimony”, to use the words you used, Mr. Hanger. It's not like we're going to put all the testimony in there. We couldn't do that. But if your point is that you want to make sure every point of view that was represented by a whole bunch of different witnesses is somehow referenced and factored into the body of the report, I don't have a problem with that. Maybe we can agree on that.
Beyond that, though, the question will be whether we should then spend the majority of our time focusing on recommendations and seeing where we agree or not. At that point, there may be members who have a majority opinion and there may be some members who have a minority opinion. I would assume that would probably be the two Conservative members.
The report we had before was written in such a way that it was leading to the recommendations. I don't know if that was a point of concern. Maybe it was.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
I would be willing to put that on the table for discussion. We do have a deadline, and I want to make sure we table something. Where there's consensus, there's consensus; maybe there's a majority report, maybe there's a minority report. I don't have a problem with making sure that all of the points of view are in that report.
I don't know if that helps in moving us along so that we can actually focus more energy on looking at recommendations, rather than going line by line. We were getting down to the point of going line by line, and we would never be finished. So if the report is more that this is what people said--this view, this view, this view--I think it will require rewriting, but maybe that's what we should look at doing.