JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, September 28, 2000

• 0907

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. Your first item of business is to elect a chair in accordance with Standing Orders 106(1) and (2).

[Translation]

Honourable members, we have a quorum. Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), the first item of business is the election of the chair. I am ready to entertain motions to that effect.

[English]

I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Clerk, thank you very much. I would like to place in nomination the name of Mr. Andy Scott, who I think has served this committee very well over the past little while and I know will continue to do so.

The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. Myers that Andy Scott take the chair of the committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Andy Scott duly elected chair of the committee and invite him to take the chair.

An hon. member: One election down, one to go.

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): If only it were so easy.

First of all, thank you for the vote of confidence. I don't know what my life would be like if I didn't have a chance to look down and see Mr. Bellehumeur.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Now we move to the election of our vice-chairs. Standing Order 106(2) states that each standing or special committee shall elect a chair and two vice-chairs, of whom two shall be members of the government party and a third a member of the opposition.

Can I have a motion for...? Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I nominate Ivan Grose.

The Chair: Are there any...?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: That being the case, Mr. Grose, welcome back.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you.

The Chair: I would entertain nominations for the second vice-chair position.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I am prepared to nominate Mr. Chuck Cadman.

The Chair: Further nominations? Seeing none, félicitations.

(Motion agreed to)

• 0910

The Chair: That really is all the business we are obliged to conduct.

I would like to re-establish the subcommittee we struck last spring on organized crime, and I will read the motion that caused that committee to be created: that a subcommittee of nine members composed of five Liberals and one member from each of the opposition parties be created to deal with the November 30, 1999, order of reference on organized crime.

So I would entertain a motion in support of re-establishing that committee. Let me add that at that time we named the chair, Mr. DeVillers. So I would entertain a motion to that effect, if it's agreeable.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Cadman. I think I see unanimity.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Our clerk has received a letter with two requests that I'd like to bring to the committee's attention. We've received a letter from Mr. Thompson requesting that Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP and Commissioner McClung of the Correctional Service of Canada be called as witnesses. He's not here today to move that motion, but I just wanted to bring to your attention, as I feel I should, that that letter has been received. We'll discuss that at our first meeting of new business.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Are routine motions deemed to be fully adopted, as was the case with the previous committee?

The Clerk: Since the committee was not dissolved, one can assume that routine motions carry over. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, the purpose of today's meeting is to elect a chair and vice-chair. Therefore,

[English]

the chair mentioned that there will be a business meeting next week, at which time....

The Chair: I assume we have at least two pressing matters. One is the consideration of Bill C-244, for which, if you recall, we went to the House seeking an extension—thank you very much, Mr. Lee, for your assistance—and we received the extension for 30 days to deal with Mr. Strahl's bill. So the first order of business of the committee in a meeting of new business would be to attend to that. Secondly, we should attend to Mr. Thompson's request and at least respond to it, in terms of hearing from the two new commissioners.

I would suggest that we organize a meeting for next week. Everybody will be advised when that is. We are trying to read tea leaves a little bit in terms of what next week might look like, so I think it's probably more prudent to wait till a little later to actually call that meeting, but we'll want to meet next week. I think we're under some time pressure because of the 30-day extension on Bill C-244 to get it done if we can.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Mr. Chairman, I was fascinated by the translation. Mr. Belleheumer apparently asked, are the members of the committee to be resuscitated. I don't think that's what he said.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): A point of order. I was struck, as other colleagues may have been, by the purported recreation of the committee and recreation of the subcommittee. I don't think our standing orders provide for the destruction and collapse and trashing of our committees and subcommittees over the summer at some magical moment. I'm happy to participate in the pro forma recreation. I'm not so sure it was necessary, but I'm happy to do the dance. I'm just not sure our rules provide for the collapse of all our committees and subcommittees over the summer.

If you read the rules carefully—you don't have to read the rules carefully. My understanding is committees collapse on prorogation and dissolution, not summer vacation. Thank you.

• 0915

The Chair: It's probably the wrong choice of words on my part. I'm advised by the clerk that we had to have a meeting to elect a chair and reconstitute the committee. That is my understanding.

Mr. Derek Lee: I think we're just making orange juice from concentrate, but that's okay. For anything beyond that we're wasting our time.

Thank you. I just wanted to make the comment.

The Chair: Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear with respect to Mr. Thompson's letter. Is that a request and a notice of motion or was it simply a letter?

The Chair: It was simply a letter, and the motion has not been put, but here's what I was concerned with. We will have a meeting to discuss business next week. We're under some time constraints, plus we're sharing time for the next little while with some members of our committee who are also looking at organized crime.

What I was really trying to avoid...if the committee wants to hear from the new commissioners, then I would want to establish the fact, make that part of the planning, not plan the rest of the month or two months and then have to deal with a motion to hear from them and sort of put that on top. That's what I was trying to do. I was pre-empting the procedural problem of having to have a day of notice because Mr. Thompson isn't here and then take another day and—

Mr. Paul Forseth: I think—

Mr. Lynn Myers: I'm not finished.

The point is that it would be interesting to have Mr. Thompson come and to hear his reasons as to why he thinks this is appropriate. They may or may not be in the letter, and I guess that was my next question. Is the letter being circulated?

The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: In the spirit of what you are talking about, that's why the method was taken to give intent of the desire that that's the way we want to go, that we not get down to the formal motions, but that it is part of the normal planning, and certainly it's been a long tradition of this committee for commissioners to come. I hope we will be able to take the normal course of planning.

The Chair: And we always do. Essentially because they're new, independent of any other reason, because they're both recent appointments, it's the purview of the committee to do this. At the very least it would be up to the committee to decide not to, if that were the choice. Consequently, rather than have a meeting to discuss future business on Monday or Tuesday and then receive a motion that day for a discussion the next day about other future business, it seemed to me to make more sense to get it all done at once.

Anything else?

That being the case, this meeting is adjourned.