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]

Tuesday, April 4, 2000

• 0949

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting of the committee to order.

The first order of business is to seek direction from the committee on the fact that we're currently public. The first item is the budget for at least part of the upcoming year. It's customary to do this in camera. Could I get some direction from the committee? Otherwise we're public.

• 0950

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): It's public money.

The Chair: It was Mr. McKay from the Liberal side who said that.

So on the first order of business, I believe everybody has a copy of the budget. Perhaps the clerk wishes to speak to this.

The Clerk of the Committee: The only item in the budget is witness expenses on the last page. I have projected witnesses for Bill C-17 and Bill C-18, which should be referred to us in the near future. Also, an approximate number of witnesses to begin our study on organized crime...these are all projections on my part. This amount should permit us to continue our work into the fall.

So with what I have, this is what I was able to project.

The Chair: Any discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion to put forward the vote.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Is a vote proposed for organized crime?

The Chair: We can amend it. Basically, what the clerk is putting forward—

The Clerk: For travel we need to submit a special itemized budget, another budget.

Mr. John Reynolds: So it doesn't have to be in this one.

The Clerk: No.

The Chair: Questions, comments? Is anyone prepared to move to adopt this budget for the year?

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second item would be on Bill C-3.

Mr. Maloney, is the government prepared to submit its amendments just yet or should I move to another item?

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): We have them ready. We've discussed some...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Let's have them.

[English]

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Bennett is not in the room at this moment. Perhaps we could stand it down until she returns. There's not a problem; she's here today.

The Chair: I would propose that we provide the amendments to all members of the committee for their perusal.

As you recall, last week when we met it was originally intended that we go to clause-by-clause this afternoon. There was some hope last week that possibly the amendments would be made available to the members of the committee late last week. That wasn't possible in terms of the various administrative things that needed to be done.

Therefore, it is my intention to make the amendments available to all the members of the committee today...to offer the opportunity to members of the opposition, to members of the Liberal side, or to any member who has an amendment that they would like to bring forward themselves. That's up to you. You can make those available to your colleagues or you can wait until we go to clause-by-clause.

In any case, I would intend to begin the clause-by-clause on Thursday of this week. That will give you from now until Thursday to peruse the government's proposed amendments. I think it's fair to say we will certainly not finish on Thursday of this week, but we will at least begin the process. That will also give members the weekend to continue their deliberations in terms of the clause-by-clause into next week.

Mr. John Maloney: Is that a Thursday morning vote?

The Chair: I'm guessing Thursday morning would be preferable to most.

So Thursday morning we would have our regular 9:30 meeting.

The Clerk: We couldn't have another meeting in the afternoon? We could continue.

The Chair: We could continue on Thursday afternoon, if you wish. I seek direction.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: It's whatever the committee wishes. I just want to advise that the amendments are in fact en route right now, so they'll certainly be here by the time the meeting is finished.

The Chair: Any other comments?

Mr. MacKay.

• 0955

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Chair, will we be able to propose further amendments? We're going to get started on Thursday. Presumably, we're not going to get that far into the bill. If there are further amendments that could have been drafted subsequent to that, over the weekend, would those still be accepted?

The Chair: Roger.

The Clerk: The committee can proceed by amending articles and then accepting amendments, if that's the wish. Standing the clause, not moving to adopt any particular clause, gives the committee the opportunity to go back to that clause whenever it wishes to do so.

The Chair: For Mr. MacKay and perhaps other members of the committee, the explanation would be that if we begin a rather lengthy bill on Thursday, we will only get to a certain point in that bill. So I think we all understand that if we stand consideration of a particular clause into the future, and if the committee decides to do so, that's the will of the committee.

However, Mr. MacKay is asking whether or not we can bring in amendments next Tuesday for those portions of the bill that we did not get to consider on Thursday. I'm presuming that's the question.

The Clerk: Let's say the committee starts with clause 2 and there are a certain number of amendments proposed that can be debated. Some of them can be adopted. The next step would be for the committee to adopt clause 2 as amended. I would suggest that the committee forfeit that step and stand the clause. So on the following week, the committee can come back to clause 2, as the last step has not been done.

The Chair: I think we all understand that part. I think Mr. MacKay's question is if we don't get to clause 30, can he bring amendments next week to clause 30?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: I think that's the point and I want it to be clear.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: You made the point that we were supposed to start today. We have another couple of days to sort these amendments out. I would hope that everyone would have them in so we could go rather smoothly as opposed to hit and miss. It's important from an organizational standpoint that we proceed as efficiently as possible instead of bringing them in in dribs and drabs.

The Chair: To be fair, when we discussed this last week I quite deliberately said that we would reserve the right to proceed with clause-by-clause today only to keep everybody on their toes, to make sure that nobody could say we were starting today. So now we have until Thursday.

So for all intents and purposes we've had a week for drafting opposition amendments to the bill. I accept the fact that you have not had a week to look at the government's amendments and that's the reason why we're not proceeding to clause-by-clause this afternoon.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I also hope you'll respect the fact that you have several hundred lawyers in the Department of Justice who have not been able to get a few amendments through to us by last Friday. We are now faced with a situation that we're going to receive those amendments today. We have two days to look at them and respond.

We have two counsel for all the opposition members to draft their amendments to what is probably the most complicated and sophisticated piece of legislation in this Parliament. So I would ask you to keep that in mind too in deciding whether or not you give us another two days to bring forward further amendments.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We do not know what the amendments to be tabled by the Minister will contain. If I remember her testimony correctly, there seemed to be several subjects, including needs and time limits. Since the bill has 197 clauses of which 30 or 35 involve needs and time limits, I understand that the department, with its 100 or so lawyers, could not have the amendments ready for last week. I fully support Peter in saying that he will appreciate that we cannot have the two legislative counsel of the House working for nothing. There may be some amendments—and I am not necessarily speaking for myself, but for opposition members—that they would like to table and that the department will be tabling.

Unless I am mistaken, there does not seem to be any national urgency for this bill. If we have the amendments today, why not start studying all the amendments for all the parties on Monday? We should not be doing the clause-by-clause study on Thursday, but rather start it next week, so that we can have all the amendments of all the parties: those of the government, those of the Conservative Party and those of the Canadian Alliance and those of other Liberals. At that time, we could pass them quickly, because we would know what was ahead.

• 1000

There is sometimes a link between the clauses such that we cannot amend a clause on Thursday or put forward amendments without knowing what is going to happen to the amendment, and providing in clause 30 for what will be done later on. If we were to proceed in this way, that would be a little strange, but if that is how you want to operate, Mr. Chairman, we will go along. I think we should start the clause-by-clause study once the parties have their amendments ready and we have them in hand.

This is a very complicated bill: the Minister said it about 25 times in her testimony last week. I think that is still true today. So I would agree that we start the clause-by-clause study on Monday or Tuesday of next week, but not on Thursday. I would like us to start once we have all the amendments before us.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I would concur with my colleagues here. I would prefer to wait until next Monday or Tuesday to do it. We're also supposed to be looking at C-244, and I know Chuck Strahl has asked us to get to that as soon as possible.

The Chair: It's on today's agenda for future business.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes, I know. Maybe it could be slotted in for Thursday.

Mr. John McKay: What were we still with?

Mr. John Reynolds: C-244.

The Chair: The member asked what we might do on Thursday. We can bring Mr. Strahl to do his explanation of C-244, which is before us now.

Mr. John McKay: Frankly, I don't disagree with colleagues opposite, in the sense that this is a complicated bill and there are a significant number of amendments. I'm not aware of any huge rush to get this back into the House, other than the usual “antsy-ness” of the government House leader. Beyond that, there isn't any compelling good reason.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: We're not in camera, John.

Mr. John McKay: I'm already on the record, so you don't need to quote me.

In this particular instance, I think the opposition actually makes sense.

An hon. member: That's pretty rare.

The Chair: There being no objection, the opposition has made its case eloquently. We will be proceeding with clause-by-clause—I'm guessing it will be Tuesday morning, as against Monday, for purposes of people's planning. Can I assume that we agree on Tuesday morning at 9:30?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. John Maloney: So it's set that we will proceed Tuesday morning. We're not going to...I'd be reluctant to have further delays. Notwithstanding the advice of my good friend here, we'd like to have this moved into the House.

The Chair: The record will show, too, that members of the opposition have argued that we should do this so that all of the amendments would be available to everybody. Consequently, if that argument sticks, I presume now that we're going Tuesday, and all members will see all amendments. When we go to clause-by-clause, we'll have them all in hand. We'll know exactly what we're dealing with.

The clerk reminds me that this means the opposition is agreeing to the distribution of their amendments. That was the argument put forward. I think now that it has been put forward, it's going to be very difficult to move off that position.

When the clerk gets the amendments, he'll distribute them to all members of the committee. When we start on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m., we'll have all amendments in hand.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: When will we see the opposition amendments?

The Chair: Could I get a response from the...?

We have Mr. Cadman's, and they can be distributed. We also have Mr. Bellehumeur's, and they can be distributed. And you will see to it that all members of the committee get them all in advance of next Tuesday because—

Mr. John McKay: I'll do them in the same timely fashion that the government does them.

The Chair: —that means you've been given a week.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, in the same timely fashion that the government does them.

The Chair: I'm saying the government's going to give the committee a week. I don't think you're going to be able to meet that deadline at this point, so you'll do it as best you can.

So that's C-3.

• 1005

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Has the New Democratic Party put forward any amendments?

The Chairman: I have not seen any.

[English]

We haven't received any to date. I'll be asking the clerk to advise them of the decision that was taken today, so that any amendments that they would propose would be available to us and be part of the exercise commencing next Tuesday.

That takes us through the budget and C-3. Maybe we should go directly to C-244 right now, because we've already mentioned it.

Thursday, in our regular time slot at 9:30 a.m., we'll invite Chuck Strahl to come in to give his explanation of his private member's bill, Bill C-244. Are we agreed?

Mr. John McKay: Do we not have Wednesday?

The Chair: Wednesday is already booked. Tomorrow we have the Solicitor General in on the main estimates.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm sorry, I thought that was Thursday.

The Chair: Thursday at 9:30 we will have Chuck Strahl here on C-244. Wednesday afternoon we'll have the Solicitor General on the main estimates. That will do the week, and then we'll start clause-by-clause next Tuesday morning. That will fill us up pretty well.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, is it just the Solicitor General, or is it the four heads that run the departments?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk: It's with the RCMP commissioner, the CSC commissioner, CSIS, and the National Parole Board.

The Chair: Okay, can we move now to the question of our study on organized crime?

[Translation]

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to make a suggestion. It is here, more or less, but there are units known as joint units on the proceeds of crime which are made up of representatives from the RCMP, the Quebec police force, municipal police forces and so on. The specific role of these units is to fight organized crime. There are 13 such units throughout the country: one in each major city. I think that they have first-hand experience with organized crime. Even though they are made up of entities that are on the list, I think it would be a good idea to invite at least one of these units to come and testify.

They have quite an interesting point of view. There are accountants, lawyers and so on. They provide a different dimension.

[English]

The Chair: Basically, you have received the proposed work plan. Essentially, what is being proposed is that the committee—or however we structure this exercise—would first hear from a number of agencies. The staff have identified a number, although I don't think it's intended to be an exhaustive list. As Monsieur Saada has proposed, an addition might be one of the mixed-force units on organized crime that exist across the country. I think how they interact and so on would be an interesting thing for the committee to take a look at.

The fundamental approach that is being proposed by staff is that we would do an immersion in the issue first, and then we would react in a more fulsome way to that immersion. Rather than deciding how to proceed specifically now, we would in fact hear from a number of agencies that would be involved in this first, and then we'd make a second decision as to the form that this particular exercise would take.

Phil, I'm taking it that that's what this suggests.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That is a very wise approach, because the subject can be so broad. We should not forget that we have a deadline of October the 31st, according to the motion, if I remember correctly. That does not leave us much time to cover everything. Consequently, I think we need an initial general immersion, followed perhaps by witnesses from sectors in which we want to take action quickly. When I say take action, I mean discuss quickly and establish priorities, because I do not see how we can do everything, unless we work from now until the summer to complete that by October 31. It is a tremendous amount of work. It is huge.

[English]

The Chair: My instinct is to ask for a subcommittee to be formed to deal with this very specifically in order to give it the kind of focused attention that I think it deserves. Also, my instinct tells me that we probably are going to be looking for an extension if we're really going to do this as well as is expected.

• 1010

I'm trying to get this in order now. Mr. McKay, Mr. Abbot, then Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. John McKay: You hit on one of the issues I was going to raise, which is whether it was going to be a full committee or a subcommittee. Frankly, I'm betwixt and between on the issue of whether it should be a full committee or a subcommittee. I think if it is a full committee, it brings larger weight and greater authority to the actual study. So in that respect, I argue for the full committee. But I also respect that this is an enormous and potentially very significant study that could have far-reaching impact—in some respects, almost beyond the ability of any committee to get a hold of—so I like the notion of starting out with a subcommittee to sort out, if you will, the issue first, then bringing it back before the full committee so it can be studied properly. In that respect, I basically like the addressing of the issue.

The second issue—and I think I need to put this on the table, Mr. Chairman—is your status as chairman for this particular issue. You had another life, and in your other life you were the Solicitor General. A solicitor general is somebody who is privy to the most sensitive information of government, and I would be concerned if while you were in the chair the issue of your status were to come into question when we start to study these issues.

All of these people who would be coming before us were in one way or another directly answerable to your position over the course of which you held that position. I think the appearance is as important as the substance, and I would open it up to debate for all members on both sides, recognizing fully that the work you've done as justice chair has been extraordinary, and I compliment you on that. But in this particular instance, in this particular study, I think the issue of your chairmanship needs to be addressed, and if members feel I'm being overly sensitive or concerned about something that's not appropriate, I'm sure they'll not hesitate to say so. But I would put on the table that the Solicitor General's portfolio is one of the most sensitive portfolios in the entire government. We will be studying things that happened under your watch, and I think that may create conflicts that we can't even anticipate at this point.

The Chair: Well, I have had this discussion with Mr. McKay before, and with Mr. Abbott, and I wouldn't want it to be perceived as prejudicial, mind you, but I don't want what I think is a very important study to in any way be distracted by debate over the appropriateness of my being the chair of that study. So that's one of the reasons—the primary reason—that I think perhaps a subcommittee should do it.

There's another reason on the subcommittee argument, though, so I think that eliminates that debate. I would agree.

The second reason I think the subcommittee is a good idea is the fact that because we are a committee of Parliament, we are not completely autonomous in that context. We may be seized with a bill, we can be asked to redirect our attention from time to time, and as a whole committee that would break into the intensity with which we can look at this. But I think a subcommittee can be set aside and asked to do this. I would hope that most members of the committee would be involved in it. I certainly intend to be a part of it. But at the same time, we won't have to say, okay, now we can set aside two weeks in the middle of this to do this bill or something else. I think we can get more consistency and continuity with a subcommittee.

We're back to Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. I appreciate your response, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I agree with Mr. McKay relative to your position as chair.

• 1015

I would like to argue aggressively in favour of the concept of the subcommittee, primarily because of what will undoubtedly become the sophistication of the study. I believe it's entirely possible that the subcommittee will require its own staff to be able to brief the members, prepare the members for witnesses.

There would be nothing worse than getting expert witnesses, people completely up on the topic, perhaps even participants, either on the enforcement side or the other side, before us without being properly briefed. I'm sure it's the desire of all of the members of Parliament to be able to get to the bottom of this.

It strikes me that while Mr. McKay has suggested that perhaps there would be more weight if it were the entire committee, I agree with you, Mr. Chair, that if we go to a subcommittee structure, we'll be able to do a far more in-depth, thorough, precise, and knowledgeable job.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Yes. I just wanted to perhaps have our minds refreshed with the exact terms of reference that came from the House. I think it might be relevant in making some of these decisions if we could have that before us.

The Chair: Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk: The order of reference is dated Tuesday, November 30. Mr. Bellehumeur, seconded by Mr. Turp, moved that this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime to analyse the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October 31, 2000.

An amendment was proposed by Madame Venne that the motion be amended by inserting the word “effectively” before the word “combat”. The amendment was adopted, and the motion was adopted unanimously: yeas 254; nays 0; paired 12.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you. I think you mentioned, Mr. Chair, that the question of the date is not overly realistic at this point. October doesn't leave us a lot of time.

The Chair: I think until such time as we see it change, we have to fix our attention to the date. This is only my opinion—and I'm in your hands—but my sense is that I wouldn't want to see us limit what we do if we found we needed more time, because we really don't know what we're going to find. I wouldn't want to see us limit what we do based on this deadline. I don't think anybody would want us to, quite frankly—at least that would be my mind on it.

Ultimately, when you do an inquiry it assumes you're trying to find out something that you don't already know. It's like renovating a house. When you open up the wall, you don't know what you're going to find.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to make a suggestion for organizational purposes. If we do decide to set up a subcommittee to deal with the issue, I would like us to start by determining the days we will meet. We sit on the Justice Committee and most of us will also want to sit on the subcommittee. So for planning purposes, it would be a good idea for us to say, for example, that the Justice Committee will meet Tuesdays and Thursdays, and that we are going to meet for example Wednesday afternoon or Monday evening. We have to make sure we have an idea of what days we can be sure the meetings will take place.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I would completely endorse that, because in the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party particularly, we have one representative on this committee, and whatever subcommittees are set up, I'll be expected to be at both. I know there have been occasions on which the committees have met at the same time and there was a justice bill being debated in the House. So it makes it extremely difficult.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

• 1020

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Speaking from the experience of our CCRA subcommittee, I think part of the difficulty was that the committee refused to travel during the break weeks, and that really complicated the issue. I understand we all want to have riding time, but if we're a subcommittee, it certainly opens up the options if we can agree to travel during those break weeks. Then we can get better participation.

I know when the CCRA committee was on the road, we often had only two or three members. It doesn't reflect well on Parliament when a parliamentary subcommittee comes to a region to do some work and there are only three or four members there.

The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would like to throw out for consideration the concept that the main committee would establish the subcommittee, but the subcommittee, in terms of its numbers, would be the most workable. In other words, it's understandable that in the main committee you always have to have more government members than opposition members for voting purposes.

I'm just throwing this out as a suggestion. I haven't thought this issue through completely yet.

A voice: You're doing your thinking now.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes. As a suggestion, if the main committee determined that it was in the best interest to establish a smaller, more workable subcommittee, and in determining the numbers it meant that the opposition members on the subcommittee would outnumber the Liberals, we would simply establish that there would not be any voting. In other words, the opposition members could not gang up on the government members.

This is a totally non-partisan issue, and I think it's most important that we establish it as being the most workable kind of unit, as opposed to one in which we can score political hits.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: No.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I'm always suspicious of the opposition when they say it's totally non-partisan and they don't want to score hits. But I think the kernel of the idea is not bad. The question is how to structure it so the government is not blindsided and we're not put in potentially embarrassing positions by motions and have to kill quorum or play other foolish games.

If your idea is workable, there would have to be an operative quid pro quo that there would be virtually no motions or votes on the subcommittee. That would be my quick reaction.

The Chair: Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm just trying to mull that over, because in some ways that also handcuffs the government. There are certainly times when the government wants to do something with a committee or a certain piece of legislation when we get to the drafting stage. You might want to rethink that, in terms of the idea that there are no—

Mr. John McKay: We might want to work out an extended period of notice and maybe only have votes on the full committee. An issue of the subcommittee would have to come back to the full committee for any vote on any matter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That might work.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Back in the 1970s, when we did an investigation of penitentiaries through a motion in the House, MacGuigan was the chairman of the subcommittee. One of the agreements of that subcommittee was that nothing would be recommended in the final report that wasn't agreed to unanimously amongst members of the committee.

It was a very non-partisan committee. People went out to write a report, which was written, on the changes that would be recommended from the justice committee on penitentiaries. We lived up to that; every recommendation was unanimous. Those that weren't just were not in the report.

You may want to look back in the minutes and find out how that was done. I can't remember the details, but it ended up being a very good committee that made an excellent report to Parliament. It was done in a very non-partisan way.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds, it was a very good report, and I hazard a guess that I'm probably the only member of the committee who read it, except for yourself.

Mr. John Reynolds: You're probably correct.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

• 1025

Mr. Peter MacKay: Along these same non-partisan lines, and keeping in mind the sophisticated nature and legal and political volatility of this issue—I'm not putting this forward as a formal motion at this point—I would ask members of the committee to consider—and I know Mr. McKay in the past has made representations along these lines—having counsel accompany the subcommittee for the purposes of looking at this issue, drafting a report, assisting in the preparation of examination of witnesses, and be present throughout the testimony.

I can anticipate that some very sticky situations may arise, in terms of testimony that may be given and decisions and conclusions we may have to take.

The Chair: I'll refer your suggestion to the subcommittee once it's established, because I really believe that's something they would deal with.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: First of all, I just remembered what I had forgotten. Travel during the break week is, my opinion, unrealistic. It's absolutely impossible. We have such little time for our ridings. I want to keep the time I have for my riding.

If we were to travel while the House was sitting, we would just have to make sure that the Committee on Justice and Human Rights does not make any decisions in the absence of most members.

As regards the makeup of the committee, I admit that even if I want to keep an open mind, I have a lot of trouble understanding the non-partisan argument. If there were a non-partisan argument, why would we need two or three opposition members? Why couldn't we have a committee made up of nine members, five Liberals and four opposition members? The opposition parties could agree among themselves to each send a member. If we were to agree on that, I would not have a problem with it.

[English]

The Chair: I think that's the traditional configuration of a subcommittee.

Are there any other comments or questions?

At this point, it seems we're coming to some agreement to have a subcommittee. It will be a nine-member committee. Let me just frame it now for people who are thinking about how involved or not involved they may wish to be.

I think we will certainly try not to be conflicting, in terms of the main committee and the committee. At this point we know what our work looks like, and most of us believe the biggest part of that work, in terms of the rest of the spring, will be the study of organized crime.

I therefore propose that to some extent we share some of the justice committee time, unless we are forced to do otherwise. We have business to do, main estimates to do, and other things to do. We have motions calling on others to appear, and so on. But notwithstanding those things we need to do, in terms of the performance of our duty for the House, I propose we certainly have the justice committee function in a sort of minimalist way as a whole committee, doing those things we need to do, so most members of the justice committee can participate fully in the subcommittee on organized crime, which I suspect many will want to do.

The second thing, in terms of numbers, is it's been my experience here, and I've been involved in two or three pretty significant committee exercises, that on something that is interesting, as I suspect this will be, we will get a number of associate members to attach themselves to this work, and they will find themselves quite interested in participating.

I know we're all busy, but if this is something that is sort of put in a timeframe when everybody is here and so on, I think you'll find some interest. I suspect, because of the nature of the issue, people are going to find this an interesting topic to be discussed.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: What is the most appropriate way of establishing the chair of the committee?

The Chair: A motion of nomination.

Carolyn.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I nominate Paul DeVillers.

The Chair: We have a motion to nominate Paul DeVillers as the chair of a subcommittee to study organized crime.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I would like to nominate—

The Chair: There's a procedural issue I keep running into here.

The Clerk: We can deal with only one motion at a time.

The Chair: We have to deal with the first motion first.

• 1030

Mr. John Maloney: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think we should entertain a motion to establish the subcommittee first and then entertain the motions for chair.

The Chair: The clerk has suggested that when we established the CCRA subcommittee the motion simply was that we would establish a subcommittee to deal with the CCRA. It would contain nine members—I think we have a consensus around that—and that Paul, in this case it was Paul then too, would be named as chair. I would be prepared to entertain that motion, deal with it, and then move forward.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: It seems to me that the motion was prior to the establishment of the committee. The motion was that Mr. DeVillers would become the chair. I would rather like to see the first motion be to establish the subcommittee, period, and then to vote on the chair.

The Chair: Do you have any difficulty amending your motion to read, as I suggested, that we establish the committee of nine members?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: That would be perfect.

The Chair: To understand completely what we are now doing, Carolyn's motion is that we establish the chair, that it have nine members, and that Mr. DeVillers will be the chair.

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, I'm sorry. Here's my problem. I would agree with Mr. Peter MacKay. I would be voting for Mr. John McKay, if Mr. DeVillers is not appointed as the chair. Therefore, I would be having to vote against the motion to establish the subcommittee because you have joined the two things together.

We need to have a motion to establish the subcommittee.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I'll move a separate motion that we establish the subcommittee of nine members.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: We now have a motion establishing a subcommittee around the terms of reference of Mr. Bellehumeur's motion in the House, and it will have nine members.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now the second motion, Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I nominate Paul DeVillers as the chair of this committee.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Can we have a discussion?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have worked with Mr. DeVillers on the CCRA review and I have found him to be a very competent, very fair individual.

A voice: Don't go too far.

The Chair: Not to worry, Jim. John McKay described me as an extraordinary chair and I didn't take it seriously either.

Mr. Jim Abbott: However, just so that we understand why I would be voting in the negative, I would think at this particular point that Mr. DeVillers, who is also continuing to chair the CCRA review, which is not complete—

A voice: Within the week....

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, we hope, but that's the question mark. Secondly, I understand he's also the national caucus chair for the Liberal Party.

I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that this subcommittee and this review of organized crime has a potential to really become an exceptionally all-encompassing exercise. I would rather see someone who would have fewer other responsibilities to be able to devote their time and energy to this.

So that would be my reason for voting against Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I would echo those remarks. I make no comment on Mr. McKay's responsibilities or ability to be responsible. It is certainly not a reflection on Mr. DeVillers' capacity and capabilities as chair of the CCRA. Again, he has done an extraordinary job on a very difficult issue. For reasons that have been outlined, I think Mr. McKay would be the appropriate chair, and therefore my nomination stands.

The Chair: There's no motion. We're dealing with the first motion first. I understand your point.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

• 1035

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would support Mr. DeVillers for several reasons: first of all because I have already seen him at work and then because he speaks French, which is a good thing in a case like this, because once again, we will be hearing from people from Quebec. There are undoubtedly several people who are bilingual, but we always say at home that if you want the job to be well done, you have to give it to the person who has the most work, because then you are sure that it will be well done. I think that applies in this case.

[English]

The Chair: If there are no further comments, are you ready for the question on the nomination of Mr. DeVillers as the chair of the subcommittee on organized crime that was established by an earlier motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: So Mr. DeVillers has been mandated this glorious responsibility.

I'm sure, Mr. Chair, you will come back to a subsequent meeting of this committee with some plans.

In terms of the striking of the committee, we have two options. In the CCRA I understand we called upon the whips of the respective parties to submit names. In my experience, we've done it other ways in terms of having the committee make its own decisions. I'm in your hands.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I do not have a problem with the whip taking care of that, but I would like to go back to an important aspect. Regardless of the makeup of the subcommittee, I would like us to make a decision that the Justice Committee not be authorized to meet on substantive issues at the same time as the Sub-committee on Organized Crime, so that we do not end up sandwiched again.

[English]

The Chair: You have the commitment of the chair. In fact, I hope to participate in this process myself.

Any other comments?

We have a decision to take first. Mr. Saada has said he has no problem with having the whips assign members, and I get a nod from Mr. Bellehumeur, so I think we're going to proceed to call upon the whips of each party to submit the appropriate names. There will be five members from the government side and four members from the opposition side, as is historically the case. And I would encourage all interested members who may or may not be the name put forward by the whip to participate in any case, as your time allows, because this is going to be a very important inquiry and it would be worth your time.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like some clarification. Traditionally, when we have a subcommittee like that, is there a representative from each of the four opposition parties? Is that the agreement we have reached?

A voice: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: That's correct.

I don't think we have additional business.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Chair, where is the CCRA review right now? Do we expect that to come back to us, and when?

The Chair: Mr. Chair.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: The expectation is that the CCRA review report...we're going to be meeting next week. We are finished our go through the first draft. It's been redrafted. We'll be meeting next week to go over it. Copies of the second draft should be in the hands of the members by the end of the week, so we'll have time before our Monday meeting to review that draft. If all goes well, we'll have it finalized next week and tabled as soon as we get back after the break.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds, and then Mr. MacKay.

Mr. John Reynolds: Did you have a motion to get it to the clerk on March 20?

The Chair: We're looking....

Okay, we'll have Mr. MacKay, if you don't mind, John?

Mr. John Reynolds: No, go ahead.

The Chair: Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Chair. Again, for information purposes, there was a motion passed by the House—M-79, I believe—with respect to the tasking of this committee to look at the recommendations of Mr. Justice Peter Richard's report on the Westray inquiry, and that should have been received. I believe it passed in the House of Commons on March 21. It should have been received by this time by this committee and by the clerk. I realize we have just undertaken to look at a very significant issue, but in terms of scheduling, I'm just wondering when that might occur.

• 1040

The Chair: The clerk says he's not aware, so I'm going to ask him to look into that immediately.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I move that the committee hold meetings to consider and report on the 2000-01 main estimates for the Department of Justice; that the committee invite the minister and senior officials to appear before the committee as soon as possible after March 31, but no later than May 31; that the minister provide information relating to the future expenditure plans and priorities of the department, especially those relating to grants and contributions; and that pursuant to Standing Order 81(7) and (8), the committee consider and report recommendations of future expenditure plans and priorities of the department no later than June 30, 2000.

The Chair: Okay. This may or may not satisfy you, but the Solicitor General is appearing tomorrow and the Minister of Justice is appearing May 10. Does that satisfy you?

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes.

The Chair: Anything else? Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Are there any other individuals we would like to examine under main estimates? We don't want to get into the same situation as last year, where members, after the time had expired, thought there were other people they wanted to have examined. Maybe we could have some direction as to who we may be looking at this year.

The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: If I may, that's a very good point. The concern I have is that while I appreciate and respect the fact that the Solicitor General, in the case of my responsibilities, is turning up with his top officials from the department for which he is responsible, it basically works out to, at the very most, 20 minutes of examination from the official opposition, more or less for the other members of the opposition—for all of those people.

This is a point of information. What would be involved in getting each one of the officials back in order to examine each one of their departments? In this particular case we would have ten minutes, and hopefully five and five, for four departments. The last time I looked, that was only three periods of questioning for each. What would be involved in getting each one of the deputy ministers back?

The Chair: I'm looking for precedent here, or for some indication as to how we proceeded with estimates in the past.

My sense would be that we do have a reasonably busy agenda. As we get through Bill C-3, we may wish to revisit, but we do have the two ministers scheduled, which is our first obligation. Perhaps when we finish Bill C-3, knowing how long it takes and what we have left to do between now and.... When is the deadline on estimates?

Mr. John Maloney: May 31.

The Chair: May 31. That will give us a pretty good indication of how much time we have left, and perhaps we could revisit it then. That would be my sense, because I think it's a matter of wanting to assess that against what it is we wouldn't be doing if we were doing that. That's what I'm saying.

Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I think it's actually worse than my learned friend has pointed out, because with the four department heads and the Solicitor General.... I'm not sure how other members of the opposition or even government members prepare for this, but chances are the Solicitor General himself is not going to be questioned at all. In fact these four department heads will act as a shield, as they do in real life anyway. But the minister is not going to be held to any degree of account on the estimates of his department if he is cross-examined in the presence of all of these four department heads.

So my preference would be to have the minister come separate and to have those department officials come, as has been suggested, at separate times.

The Chair: I don't believe it's within the authority of this committee to tell the minister who they can or cannot bring. Having been there, as I was reminded this morning, I recall you and I having a delightful conversation about Ferndale prison, and that no one else was stepping in to answer for me.

Anything else? All right, tomorrow it's Mr. MacAulay, Thursday morning it's going to be Chuck Strahl, and next Tuesday morning we're going to have everybody's amendments and begin to proceed on the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Before you drop the gavel—

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

• 1045

With respect to this issue now, we have set up the subcommittee and we have appointed the chair. I would still like to put on the agenda for our first meeting a discussion over whether it would be appropriate or acceptable to have counsel accompany us on our journey on organized crime.

The Chair: That will be brought to the chair's attention, and over the course of the regular meetings of the committee, tomorrow and Thursday, we will be expecting the subcommittee chair to give us a report on the evolution of the process in terms of speaking to the whips and so on.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.