[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 8, 1995
.1535 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Today we'll continue with the clause-by-clause of Bill C-78. We have Mr. Gagnon, parliamentary secretary to the minister, as well as the minister's staff here today for the clause-by-clause. If there aren't any preliminary matters we'll commence.
Clause 1 is simply the name, section, and title, and so we'll proceed to clause 2.
On clause 2 - Definitions
The Chairman: We have two amendments. The first amendment is the Bloc amendment.
Do we have someone proposing that amendment?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): The purpose of my amendment is to replace the RCMP Commissioner with the Minister by deleting lines 7 and 8. Since we are proposing many consequential amendments, it is clear that if the committee supports the principle that the Minister should be responsible instead of the RCMP Commissioner, the other amendments will also be approved. If, however, the committee disagrees with the principle, we will withdraw the remaining consequential amendments as they come up.
It is a very simple amendment: to replace the RCMP Commissioner with the Minister. Indeed, the Bloc believes that if the Commissioner is the one who administrates the program and is also subject to its administration, it gives rise to a conflict of interest, and I would rather have the Minister be responsible.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gagnon, can we have the government's position.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada):Mr. Chairman, we don't agree with this opposition motion. We're of the opinion that the commissioner of the RCMP is in a better position.
[Translation]
The Commissioner would obviously be in a better position to monitor the daily activities of the program which is managed by members of the RCMP. I know that the Bloc has proposed several motions, but we reject the motion proposed by the member for Saint-Hubert.
[English]
The Chairman: Any comments?
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I have the impression that Mr. Gagnon sticks to the party line; so there is no point debating the matter much longer! Mrs. Venne and I would both like the Minister to be responsible. This concern was also shared by our colleague, Mr. Wappel, who is the honourable member for Scarborough-West. He voiced his opinion when Bill C-206 was introduced under private members' business. At that point, Mr. Wappel also suggested that the Minister be responsible rather than the Commissioner.
He explained his position during debate on second reading. I believe that Mr. Wappel, Mrs. Venne, many other people and myself have made convincing arguments, in view of the accountability of government, which is the hallmark of our form of government, to adopt this amendment.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay, do you have a comment?
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I observed that during our hearings there was a concern expressed about the commissioner being the one who administers the program inasmuch as he has the final authority to admit and dismiss witnesses from the program. We heard from the Canadian Police Association, and in that regard specifically we heard from Scott Newark, the executive of that organization, and he explained his concern about it.
We also heard from Mr. Swadron, who deals with the concerns that witnesses have who run into difficulty with these programs. So they both thought there should be a third party involved.
.1540
I would like to ask the officials how it would work. If this amendment was accepted and the commissioner was exchanged for the minister, I would first ask Madame Venne if she would explain how this program would work with that change, and of course I would also like the viewpoint from the officials. How would it change the administration of the program?
The Chairman: I believe your question would go to the officials, but Madame Venne may want to comment on it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I will wait for the government's reply before I comment.
Mr. Gagnon: We don't want to draw a line between the opposition and the government, but we have all recognized the excellent work carried out by Opposition members on this committee. I would like to commend them once more.
I also believe that this bill provides certain guarantees: first, an annual report to Parliament by the Solicitor General; second, the definition of specific eligibility criteria; third, the existence of a public complaints review mechanism; fourth, the Solicitor General's power to give the RCMP Commissioner directives regarding the general direction the program should take. So in my opinion, these four guarantees are reason enough to proceed with the bill.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I would like the officials to address the concerns raised by the Canadian Police Association and the other witness, Mr. Swadron, with regard to their concern about there being a third party responsible and it not being an internal administrative process within the RCMP itself. It seems to me this amendment would go some way toward addressing their concerns in that the minister would be responsible rather than the commissioner.
With respect, I haven't heard an answer to my question. What would be the difference, what would be wrong, what would be bad about accepting this amendment, bearing in mind what concerns were expressed when we heard from those two particular witnesses?
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I defer the answer to one of our officials.
Inspector Robert Lesser (Officer in Charge, Federal Directorate Services Branch, Federal Services Directorate, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Mr. Chair, I think the comments of Mr. Ramsay and the people from the Canadian Police Association have to be taken within the context in which they were given. I think the Canadian Police Association had other things, as well as just the bill, on their mind. There were a number of comments made generally about the internal management of the force and whether or not they had association-type process. I think we have to bear those kinds of comments in mind when we look at the rest of their comments.
I come from only a very limited knowledge base in this particular area, and I ask Mr. Chairman to bear with me, but I wonder if by changing the term ``commissioner'' to ``minister'' there is actually an expectation that the minister will personally make these types of decisions. If that is the case, is it proper for political officials to be making judgments that deal solely with law enforcement? If that's not the case, if it's anticipated that the minister would delegate those decisions down to somebody, most likely within the RCMP, then we're still there with the RCMP making those types of decisions.
The Chairman: Perhaps just to refresh our memory, Mr. Ramsay, there was a comment made that even though the commissioner would make these decisions, he must report either annually or biannually with respect to what is taking place, which brings it into the government forum for responsibility on the government side.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Under this amendment, the act would not be applied differently, but it would be applied by the Minister. Of course, he could always delegate that responsibility to the RCMP Commissioner...
.1545
Of course, we could debate the matter for ever, but given what the Parliamentary Secretary just said, I understand the government's position. I don't think I will try to convince you for very long, since you seem to have made up your mind already.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. If that brings this discussion to a conclusion, perhaps we can have a vote on amendment BQ-1.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: The next amendment is G-1.
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): I move that clause 2 of Bill C-78 be amended by striking out line 4 on page 2 and substituting the following:
- referred to in paragraph 6(1)(c) that applies in
The Chairman: Mr. Gagnon, do you or any of your officials have any comments with respect to that?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Since it is a consequential amendment, I would like an explanation about the main amendment.
[English]
Mr. Regan: Mr. Chairman, this relates to clause 6 and the amendment we're going to propose shortly. In case of an emergency, where a person has not yet signed an agreement, the commissioner would be able to authorize that they be covered by the program for a period of 90 days. Because there will be a change to that clause, this will alter clause 2 accordingly.
The Chairman: Why don't we move to clause 6 and G-2 and deal with the principal amendment there, and then return to G-1?
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: G-2 is similar to BQ-7, and if the Committee adopts G-2, I will withdraw my amendment. The only difference between both amendments is that BQ-7 provides a starting point for the protection period, which is the time of the arrest, whereas G-2 does not provide a starting point for the 90-day period. So I support G-2, unless the government prefers our amendment, BQ-7, and establishes a starting point for the 60-day period.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any comments from the officials with respect to G-2?
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): We don't have that motion on the floor.
The Chairman: I thought Mr. Regan moved it. Will someone move G-2?
Ms Phinney: I move that clause 6 of Bill C-78 be amended first, by striking out line 1 on page 3 and substituting the following:
- 6.(1) A witness shall not be admitted to the and secondly, by adding immediately after line 17 on
page 3, the following:
- (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Commissioner may, in a case of emergency, and for not
more than ninety days, provide protection to a person who has not entered into a protection
agreement.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I asked the government a question and I would like an answer.
[English]
Mr. Warren Black (Senior General Counsel, Legal Services, Solicitor General Canada): In reference to G-2, we are in agreement.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Yes.
[English]
I hope so.
Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, do we have to skip this now and go all the way through this and come back like we did with the previous legislation?
The Chairman: We don't have to skip, but this was the principal matter. The comment was made earlier that G-1 was a consequential amendment dependent on G-2. If G-2 is dealt with, we'll go to G-1 and then continue down the list.
.1550
Mr. Ramsay: But, Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the procedural matter. We don't want to end up having...if we go back now to amendment G-1.
The Chairman: Yes. Then we'll proceed in order of the amendments.
Mr. Ramsay: But in other proceedings we stood it when we didn't proceed with it. Is that not the proper procedure, so that we don't end up with a bill that is questionable?
The Chairman: You're probably right, Mr. Ramsay, but if we deal with G-2 now, we'll go back and deal with G-1. Then we can stand future ones down in the future.
Okay?
Mr. Ramsay: Fine.
The Chairman: Are there any comments with respect to G-2?
Mr. Black: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the question about how the two amendments differ. In amendment BQ-7 the witness seems to be admitted into the program for a period that must not exceed 60 days, whereas in amendment G-2 the witness is not admitted into the program. The commissioner simply provides an individual with protection for a period of not more than 90 days, pending a decision on whether the person should be admitted into the program. Those are the differences between the two, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments with respect to G-2?
Amendment agreed to
Mr. Chairman: Does that eliminate the need to deal with BQ-6 or BQ-7?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I don't know, since it is not numbered, but it's possible.
[English]
The Chairman: We'll return to G-1.
Ms Phinney: Mr. Chairman, please make that clear. Is BQ-6 now gone?
The Chairman: Madame Venne, are you withdrawing BQ-6?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Yes, that's right.
Ms. Phinney: Both or only one?
Mrs. Venne: BQ-6.
Ms. Phinney: Only BQ-6. Okay.
[English]
The Chairman: I believe Mr. Wappel's proposal, L-1, was not moved. It has different wording and it dies here as well.
Are there any further comments with respect to G-1?
Amendment agreed to
Clause 2 as amended agreed to
Clause 3 agreed to
On clause 4 - Establishment
The Chairman: We have one amendment to clause 4, and that is BQ-2.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I had proposed a consequential amendment based on the first one.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you withdrawing it?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Yes.
[English]
Clause 4 agreed to
On clause 5 - Admission to Program
The Chairman: On clause 5, we have amendment BQ-3.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: It's the same, Mr. Chairman. I will also withdraw it.
.1555
[English]
Clause 5 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Now we have BQ-4, which is a new clause 5.1.
Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: BQ-4 concerns the co-accused. In our opinion, the protection program should not be used in plea bargaining. There are other means available, such as the lessening of a sentence. That is really the thinking behind this amendment. I think it is very simple and it speaks for itself. ``A witness shall not be admitted to the program where the witness is charged on an indictment with another accused or defendant, whether or not the witness and the other accused or defendant are tied jointly or separately on the same or different counts. To my mind, that's very clear. It deals with the co-accused. That's all!
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Venne.
Mr. Gagnon, or any one of the officials, any comments on this?
Inspector Lesser: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that. Insofar as a co-accused is concerned, and whether or not a crown would wish to use a co-accused in a court case, that is at the crown's discretion and how best they decide that they can represent their case in court. That in itself really has nothing to do with witness protection.
As far as the matter of whether then an accused who has testified on behalf of the crown and whether or not they would be open for admission into the program is concerned, I would only suggest that if the life is in danger of that person who did give evidence on behalf of the crown, be they a co-accused or otherwise, the crown has a certain liability to look after that person's life.
My understanding of the bill is that there's nothing therein whereby if the co-accused were sentenced to jail this would change. Whatever the court decides as a penalty would rest the same. The only difference might be that if they get sentenced to jail they may get put into solitary confinement, which it's suggested is at times worse than the regular jail sentence, or if eventually they were released or paroled or whatever, they may be afforded certain types of protection based on the fact that they aided the crown.
Again, I would suggest that if we didn't provide protection where there was a threat to life or safety, we would be liable for those types of repercussions.
The Chairman: Any other comments? No one else?
Amendment BQ-4 negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 6 - Admission to Program
The Chairman: Is there a mover for G-3?
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): I'd like to move G-3.
The Chairman: Do the government officials have any comment with respect to G-3?
Mr. Gagnon: No.
The Chairman: Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: G-3 is very similar to one of our amendments. Give me a moment to find it.
[English]
The Chairman: BQ-7.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: BQ-7? There we go! so, it is basically the same. It shares the same objective. If the government prefers the wording of its own amendment, I have no qualms about supporting G-3.
[English]
Amendment G-3 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: So BQ-7 is withdrawn?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: BQ-5 is consequential, so it's withdrawn. So we have clause 6 as amended.
Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 7 - Consideration of factors
The Chairman: We have BQ-8, which is consequential, so that is withdrawn.
.1600
Clause 7 agreed to on division
On clause 8 - Deemed terms of protection agreement
The Chairman: We have amendments BQ-11 and BQ-12. I believe those are the first two.
Amendments BQ-9 and BQ-10 were consequential, so are those withdrawn?
Mrs. Venne: Yes.
The Chairman: Now we'll deal with BQ-11 and BQ-12.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: BQ-11 was inspired by Mr Wappel. You have to give credit where credit is due. G-4 is also quite similar, but we have asked that the Solicitor General be informed of his legal obligations, whereas the government amendment says that he should meet all legal obligations. The wording is different, but the meaning is the same. So, BQ-11 is a lot like G-4 and I have no problem with that. Shall we deal directly with BQ-12 or shall we first settle the matter of BQ-11?
[English]
The Chairman: We'll deal with G-4 first, and then if it's passed, we'll go to BQ-11.
Mrs. Venne: Good.
The Chairman: Do we have a mover for G-4?
Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I so move.
Again, this arose out of the testimony of Mr. Wappel, and it specifically addresses the issues of child custody and obligations with regard to support. I think it's a terrific amendment and I commend the member for suggesting it to us.
The Chairman: May the record show that Mr. Wappel is smiling and blushing.
Are there any other comments with respect to G-4?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: So is BQ-11 withdrawn, then?
Mrs. Venne: Oui.
The Chairman: What about BQ-12?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: One moment, please. We are debating whether clause 8 of Bill C-78 should be amended by replacing line 24, on page 4, with the following:
- the obligations of the protectee,
- (v) to refrain from committing an indictable offense.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gagnon or any of the officials may care to comment.
Mr. Gagnon: I'll defer to one of my officials.
Mr. Black: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's a great deal of difference between what is proposed in this amendment and what already appears in what I believe is now subparagraph 8(b)(iv) as a result of the last amendment, not to commit a criminal act, or to ``refrain from activities that constitute an offence against an Act of Parliament''.
.1605
It's virtually the same, because many of the offences against federal acts of Parliament arise out of the criminal law power under the Constitution. The existing wording probably covers a broader range of offences than simply a criminal act.
They are very close, but I think the provision that now exists in the bill perhaps covers a slightly wider range of offences.
The Chairman: I believe the provision in the act covers summary offences as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: That's exactly right.
[English]
The Chairman: This provision restricts it to indictable offences.
Is the government in favour of this amendment, or is the government opposed to this amendment?
The Chairman: Mr. Wappel, you had a comment?
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My comment is that subparagraph 8(b)(iii), which may be renumbered, is very broad. The protectee is required to refrain from all activities that constitute an offence under any act of the Parliament of Canada, the Criminal Code being only one of those acts and indictable offences being only one type of offence within one act.
So I take it subparagraph 8(b)(iii) subsumes the intent of the mover, which is to refrain from committing an indictable offence. If you agree to refrain from breaching any act of the Parliament of Canada, then obviously you're agreeing to refrain from committing an indictable offence, as defined by the Criminal Code, as Madam Venne said.
Now, if the mover proposes to weaken subparagraph 8(b)(iii) by requiring the protectee only not to commit indictable offences but permitting the protectee to commit summary conviction offences, or to breach other acts of the Parliament of Canada.... If that's her intent, then you would have to amend subparagraph 8(b)(iii) to unleash the protectee - if I could put it this way - from the very broad undertaking the protectee is giving to commit no acts contrary to any act of the Parliament of Canada.
So quite frankly, from my point of view I don't see the necessity of the amendment moved by Madame Venne.
The Chairman: And what is the government's position? Do you agree with Mr. Wappel?
Mr. Black: I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Okay. Any other comments on BQ-12?
Amendment negatived
Clause 8 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 9 - Termination of protection
The Chairman: Was BQ-13 consequential?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: That's withdrawn?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I'll withdraw it.
[English]
Clause 9 agreed to on division.
On clause 10 - Reasons for certain decisions
The Chairman: We have BQ-14, which is consequential?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: That's correct.
[English]
The Chairman: This is withdrawn again, I presume?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I'll withdraw it.
[English]
Clause 10 agreed to on division
On clause 11 - Disclosures prohibited
The Chairman: We have G-5.
Ms Phinney: I'd like to move to amend clause 11 of Bill C-78 by striking out line 9 on page 5 and substituting the following:
- shall knowingly disclose, directly or indirectly, informa-
.1610
The Chairman: Yes, I believe this is for reasons of clarification.
Is that correct, Mr. Gagnon?
Mr. Gagnon: We agree with G-5.
The Chairman: Are there any comments from Madame Venne?
Mr. Hanger.
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): This will be on division.
The Chairman: Okay.
Amendment agreed to on division
The Chairman: Can we have a mover for amendment G-6?
Mr. Regan.
Mr. Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move to amend clause 11 of Bill C-78 by striking out lines 12 to 15 on page 5 and substituting the following:
- Application
- (2) Subsection (1) does not apply
- (a) to a protectee or former protectee who discloses information about the protectee or
former protectee if the disclosure does not endanger the safety of another protectee or former
protectee and does not compromise the integrity of the Program; or
- (b) to a person who discloses information that was disclosed to the person by a protectee or
former protectee if the disclosure does not endanger the safety of the protectee or former
protectee or another protectee or former protectee and does not compromise the integrity of the
Program.
The Chairman: Maintenant en français, monsieur.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Regan: Okay, maintenant en français, monsieur.
[Translation]
Mr. Regan: I'll change it. We will have to add something after... In French, it says...
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Regan: No? Okay. We have a -
The Chairman: I realize that. We have a copy, Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Mr. Regan: You have the corrected copy, then?
The Chairman: I believe we do.
Mr. Regan: In both languages?
The Chairman: In both languages.
Mr. Regan: Good.
The Chairman: Are there any comments with respect to G-6?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Yes. I think it was inspired by Mr. Wappel. That's all I wanted to add.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any comments from the Reform?
Mr. Ramsay: No.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: By passing G-5 and G-6, I think there's no need to go on to L-5 and L-6, which were Mr. Wappel's. They've incorporated those.
Were BQ-15 and BQ-16 consequential, Madame Venne?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Amendments BQ-15 to BQ-22 are all consequential amendments.
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: No.
The Chair: No, except one.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: No? There is one missing? I am sorry. Aren't there 20?
[English]
The Chairman: I believe there are 20.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Up to 20.
The Chairman: All right, up to 20.
[English]
Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to
Clause 14 agreed to on division
On clause 15 - Commissioner's powers
The Chairman: There are no amendments. There are no comments?
All those in favour of clause -
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: I just have a point of information. I would like to know why paragraph 15(a) says:
- whether to admit a witness to the Program in circumstances other than those described in
paragraph (b), the member making the decision shall be an officer of the Force who holds a rank
no lower than Chief Superintendent
.1615
Inspector Lesser: That's the first level or executive level within the force. So there's an extra process other than going into the commissioned rank process. In addition, they'll have to go before a chief's board and some other interviews and determinations to get to the level of chief superintendent. So it puts them at a higher level, not just an entry level. They're well into an officer's rank.
As well, chief superintendents in the smaller divisions would equate to a commanding officer within those smaller divisions. In the bigger divisions, such as in British Columbia, that would equate to the criminal operations officer. So the intent is to make it high enough that it is a significant officer-rank position.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Any other comments?
Clause 15 agreed to
On clause 16 - Annual report
The Chairman: We have BQ-20, Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: As I said earlier, the amendments leading up to BQ-22 are consequential amendments. Under BQ-20, instead of the Commissioner presenting a report to the Minister, it would be the Minister drafting the report himself. So it obviously is a consequential amendment.
[English]
Clause 16 agreed to on division
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to on division
On clause 19 - Actions barred
The Chairman: I believe, Mr. Gagnon, you may have a comment with respect to this clause.
Mr. Gagnon: It has been withdrawn.
The Chairman: In other words, the government is opposed to clause 19?
Mr. Gagnon: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I'm going to do this in French.
[Translation]
In the course of hearings on Bill C-78, several witnesses raised serious objections about clause 19. Officials and the Minister took a second look at clause 19, and we concluded that this clause should be struck from the bill.
Mrs. Venne: The Opposition was also of that opinion. The concept of legal immunity should not be included in this bill and that's why we will not support that clause. I think we should vote against clause 19 in order to strike it from the bill.
[English]
The Chairman: All those in favour of clause 19? All those opposed?
Mr. Hanger.
Mr. Hanger: May I ask for clarification, Mr. Chairman? Are you asking for a vote to support or remove the clause?
The Chairman: It's to defeat the clause. I asked for those in favour; there were none in favour. It's opposed.
Mr. Hanger: I will vote in favour of that clause.
The Chairman: You're in favour of the clause. Mr. Hanger will be recorded as being in favour of that clause.
So then there's no need to go with BQ-22.
Clause 19 negatived on division
Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to on division
.1620
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Bill C-78 as amended agreed to on division
The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended be reprinted as a working copy for the use of the House of Commons at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House of Commons as the eleventh report of the committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: We're all done with Bill C-78. We'll take 10 minutes.
.1622
PAUSE
.1634
The Chairman: We'll proceed.
We have as well Bill 232 for clause-by-clause. I have discussed it with Ms Jennings.
Ms Torsney, you have a comment?
Ms Torsney: Yes. I'd like to seek the support of the whole committee to have an adjournment until the week after we're back. I'd really like to study the testimony of yesterday.
The Chairman: Okay.
It's my understanding as well, Ms Jennings, that you want to talk to some members in the justice department, and that will give you some time.
Mrs. Jennings (Mission - Coquitlam): Yes, thank you.
.1635
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Do we need unanimous consent?
[English]
The Chairman: I believe it only requires a majority.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: We simply need a majority? That's all? Well then, let's do it!
[English]
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The matter is adjourned to a time to be set by the clerk.
Mr. Dupuis requests that we have a very quick steering committee meeting right now. Can we proceed with that matter?
This meeting is adjourned.