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]

Wednesday, April 4, 2001

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.

Today we'll be discussing future business of the committee with regard to Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

A colleague and visitor to the committee, but a legitimate substitute—I've checked—would like to give notice of motion. So he's going to do that, rather than send it in writing. Then he's going to find his way back to the chamber and give Mr. Sorenson his seat back, I understand.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a motion in two official languages, which the clerk is distributing right now.

I move that the chair of the Canadian Human Rights Commission be called to testify before this committee regarding the apparent distribution of the contents of the special report to Parliament on pay equity to the media before it was tabled on February 15, 2001, and the apparent distribution of the contents of the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the media before it was tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2001, and that this committee report its findings back to the House of Commons.

I give notice of motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much. It's received as a notice of motion and will be dealt with in the future, as discussed.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you.

The Chair: Now, on with future business, with regard to Bill C-7.

Members will be aware of the fact that we have received two motions, one moved by Mr. Maloney—and I believe members have copies of the motions. The first motion I'd like the committee to consider was moved by Mr. Maloney, the member for Erie—Lincoln. It is that:

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the 37th Parliament in their consideration of Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, adduce the evidence heard by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the 36th Parliament in their consideration of Bill C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I think it's relatively understood. Questions?

Mr. Maloney, do you have anything to say first?

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Certainly, Mr. Chair.

We heard an extensive number of witnesses, roughly 102 witnesses, in the last Parliament. It would certainly be a considerable expense, well over probably $50,000, to have these witnesses come back. I'm sure there's nothing more these witnesses can add, and for the sake of expediency and the saving of cost, I move that we adopt this motion. There is a summary of the testimony coming forward, which should be adequate for the purpose of the committee at this stage. This issue has been before this committee for three parliaments and it's time to move on. Anything we can do to expedite it is good.

The Chair: You've heard Mr. Maloney's explanation of his motion.

Mr. Toews and Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Yes, thank you.

I have a few comments and questions. Of course, even though this matter has been before other parliaments, there are members who have not had the opportunity of seeing or hearing from witnesses, and often hearing and seeing the witnesses directly is a very important aspect of the committee process. While I'm very sensitive to the need to save money, I also want to ensure that any law we do pass is an effective law, and I think witnesses contribute in that respect.

My objection, or concern, if I can put it that way, is not so much to do with adducing the evidence in the form—and I assume the form is as summarized in the document before me, dated March 8, 2000, from Peter Niemczak of the law and government division—but my concern is that this not exclude the potential of calling witnesses, that this is not the only evidence we will hear, and that there is nothing exclusionary in terms of possible witnesses who could be called by the committee.

• 1540

If I have that understanding correct, I don't see from our part there being any objection to this motion.

The Chair: To speak directly to the point of the parameters of this motion, to adduce the testimony from the last Parliament is not to deny the committee's right to pursue anything further. It's simply to recognize that testimony and place it on the record for this Parliament, as this committee.

I think that answers your question. I take it, from what you're saying, you don't have difficulty with adducing this. You just wouldn't want it to be interpreted, at this point, as limiting you in the future. Correct?

Mr. Vic Toews: That's correct, Mr. Chair, and I haven't yet had the opportunity to read this, unfortunately. In fact, I believe it's just being distributed today. So there may be questions that arise that might generate a request from me, or some of my colleagues, for rehearing certain evidence. But at this point I don't anticipate that. I just want to make sure the record maintains this clear understanding. I think you've fairly summarized my concern.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I think this motion is premature. People have already filed briefs or appeared as witnesses when Bill C-3 was under study. The motion is based on the assumption that their evidence has already been adduced, so there is no need to hear them again. Before voting on this motion, we should first agree on who our witnesses should be. After that, we can carry on. We can all agree that we do not need evidence from some people because their brief or testimony was sufficient. The work will then be productive. Otherwise, I think we are going at it backwards. We are deciding to exclude people without first agreeing on who will be excluded. I find that very dangerous. I fully support what the Canadian Alliance member said earlier. I see two or three government members who did not hear all the evidence in the 36th Parliament. There are new opposition members, from the New Democratic Party in particular, who were not present when we heard all the evidence. Mr. Chairman, there are several new members on our committee, and we cannot rely solely on summaries, even if the work is well done.

I also want to say that the minister herself said she had made a number of amendments. In a newspaper article last week, she mentioned 183 amendments, largely to respond to Quebec's concerns. We cannot rely on the evidence of people from Quebec who came to speak about Bill C-3, because they were unable at that time to discuss these new amendments. We need to hear those witnesses again to see whether Bill C-7 does in fact respond to Quebec's concerns. Otherwise, we cannot do our job properly and adequately meet the expectations of voters in Quebec, or other provinces, for that matter.

As a matter of fact, after Bill C-3 was tabled, I received letters from other organizations, from various provinces of Canada, who were totally against Bill C-3 and did not appear as witnesses. The Innu and the First Nations, among others, did not appear as witnesses. I would like to hear them because I think they do not necessarily share the minister's opinion on Bill C-7.

I do not think we are going about this the right way. We are dealing with Mr. Maloney's notice of motion without first discussing who our witnesses are going to be. We are then going to decide on the motion and we'll be able to say that the people on whom we have agreed do not need to come back as witnesses. We will make due with their testimony or brief, as if they had been witnesses on Bill C-7. That procedure would be suitable. Otherwise, we would be working backwards.

• 1545

I would like to know whether we are going at this the right way.

I would like another clarification. The notice of motion refers to adducing the evidence heard. What effect does this wording of the motion have? Other committees' motions used the expression “deemed to have been heard.” I find that quite different. If we adduce the evidence heard, does that mean we are excluding, for example, the Quebec Bar, who appeared on Bill C-3 and wants to appear again on Bill C-7? I think not. The effect of this notice of motion, as drafted, is very limited, and the Bar could still be a witness.

If the idea is to exclude everyone, it is very poorly drafted, because it does not work like other motions I have seen.

[English]

The Chair: I'll recognize Mr. DeVillers and then Mr. Blaikie.

But before I do, I would remind everybody that we needn't debate the point that's already been established—that this does not exclude anything. This simply is a motion to put on the record for this Parliament and this committee now what we heard in the last Parliament. So, in the interest of clarity, it seems to me that we should stay with that particular point.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Yes. On that point, Mr. Chair, I agree that it doesn't exclude other witnesses from coming, but it also is not necessarily an undertaking to hear everyone again. We'll make that decision on a witness-by-witness basis—that's what I understand, correct?

The Chair: We have a second motion that we're all aware of from Mr. Bellehumeur, with a list of a number of witnesses. We're hearing Mr. Maloney's motion first only because we received it first. But it does seem to me to be logical to move from accepting what we heard from a number of witnesses when this was first introduced, and it doesn't challenge my sense of logic that we would do that and then make a decision as to what else we need.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chairman, just on that, it seems to me that.... I'm not terribly familiar with the concept to adduce, but my understanding of it is that this would not prevent us from hearing new witnesses, nor would it prevent us from hearing witnesses who testified in the last Parliament, if we so choose. We maintain our freedom to do either and any of those things, and so I don't really see what the controversy is about.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Chair, having clarified Mr. Blaikie's point, I think we should simply now move on the motion and then get on with business.

The Chair: We've heard the motion.

Mr. Bellehumeur, if you would....

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If it does not change anything, what exactly is the purpose of this motion?

[English]

The Chair: Because we're going from one Parliament to another Parliament. We're simply bringing the testimony with us. I'm certain you would not want all of the wisdom you have heard on this committee in the last Parliament to be lost for posterity. The reality here is that we're just putting that on the record for the purpose of the committee. So I think we've discussed this. I think everyone understands the positions. Please, I'm going to put a motion moved by Mr. Maloney.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now we have a second motion.

• 1550

(Motion agreed to: yeas 14; nays 1)

The Chair: The motion is carried, and I would commend to members the synopsis of that testimony that has been provided to you as prepared by the staff in both official languages.

Now I would move to Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: I need just one point of clarification because I don't have the experience that other parliamentarians have. Just in respect of what is on the record from the 36th Parliament, can't we as a committee take notice of the entire proceedings in any event? The courts take notice of those types of things. This committee is a court of sorts, and I don't understand why there would be any bar to considering the entire testimony in any event.

The Chair: Yes, that's exactly what's understood.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): You mentioned that the documents were available in French and English. I have them only in English. Could I have a French copy?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.

The second motion we've received notice of is from Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I am not putting forward this motion right now. We will discuss witnesses, and then I will decide whether or not to go ahead with it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur is withdrawing his motion—temporarily, I'm guessing.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No. My motion has been tabled, but I do not wish to go ahead with it today. Is that understood?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Good. D'abord.

So now we have future business, absent Mr. Bellehumeur's motion, which we've seen. We've adduced the testimony from the last Parliament. We have received a copy of the synopsis from the staff. We have to decide today how we're going to proceed on Bill C-7, and I'm open to suggestions from the capable members who are members of this committee. Who wants to be first?

Mr. Toews is not shy about these things.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes. Actually, I don't want to steal Mr. Cadman's idea, but it's certainly a good one. We had that discussion before. One of the things that we of course realize is that this act is in fact enforced on a day-to-day basis by provincial authorities. I know there have been some concerns expressed about the lack of consultation with provincial authorities in the development of this bill. Whether there is merit to that concern or not—and I tend to believe there is some merit to that concern—I would think it would be only appropriate to have representatives and to invite representatives from provincial governments to make representations here.

I understand there is a standing rule that prohibits elected officials from coming here, and I think that's unfortunate. But certainly I think we should be extending that invitation to deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers who are involved in the delivery of these types of programs under the old Young Offenders Act and other child welfare legislation, for example, as representatives of provincial governments.

The Chair: I appreciate that intervention, Mr. Toews, and with your background we take it very seriously and admire what you're prepared to do to get here.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I would want to agree that we should hear from the provinces and that some kind of invitation should be extended. I'm new to the committee, so I'm not aware of this standing rule that we not hear from elected officials. I've certainly sat on other House of Commons committees that have heard from elected officials, so I'm not sure what the origin of this particular rule is.

• 1555

It would seem to me quite in order. If we hear from the federal Minister of Justice with respect to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, why couldn't we hear from provincial ministers of justice who were willing to come here? Not all of them would be. Some of them have their own particular traditions with respect to whether or not they appear before Commons committees. Perhaps the chair could explain what the origin of this rule is, because it's not one that, on the face of it—unless there's a rationale for it I'm not aware of—I would want to approve of.

The Chair: The rule, the tradition, the convention predates the chair's being a member of the committee, but my understanding is that there are technical aspects of this the provinces would have to be responsible for administering, and we wanted to bring in the technical people who would be doing that. Therefore, what we wanted to do was bring in deputy attorneys general and representatives of the government, rather than elected officials. That was what I understood.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: These are ultimately—if I might just continue on this—political matters in the very best sense. There are federal-provincial issues here with respect to allocation of resources. I think this would be an occasion for reviewing or making an exception to that particular policy. In any event, we should hear from provincial spokespersons, but I certainly think we should hear from provincial ministers of justice, if they are willing to come and talk to us. Why we would say we will not talk to provincial ministers of justice about something as important as youth criminal justice, I can't fathom.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chair, I stand to be corrected, but the suggestion that we have not heard from the provinces before this committee would be inaccurate. We have heard from officials. To my recollection, certainly in the case of the Province of Manitoba, the Province of British Columbia, the Province of Ontario I believe—there may have been others, the clerk may correct me—invitations were extended to the provinces as well. We're certainly very happy to hear from the individuals who work with this legislation day to day.

With respect to the ministers, they have more than ample opportunity to speak to the Minister of Justice at various federal-provincial-territorial meetings that go on frequently, and went on with this specific legislation. They've had more than ample opportunity to present their views to the minister.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: On that, Mr. Chair, we don't have any independence of mind here. This just goes to show what's wrong with the committee structure, if you ask me. We've got the parliamentary secretary sitting there saying ministers of justice in the province can talk to the Minister of Justice and that's good enough. It wouldn't even occur to him that maybe the justice committee might form a different opinion or might even be a different entity in some respects from the Minister of Justice.

If we heard from the Minister of Justice, I think we can hear from ministers of justice. I just don't accept the parliamentary secretary's argument that provincial ministers of justice can speak to the federal Minister of Justice, as if we don't matter. We're not part of the game. They can speak to the people who really matter. As for people who don't matter, people who just take their orders from the parliamentary secretary, whatever the case may be, we're not even part of the conversation. I find his rationale for not hearing the ministers of justice particularly offensive.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Maloney, and then Ms. Sgro.

Mr. John Maloney: I would ask the clerk to clarify whether all provinces were invited last time. I mentioned three provinces—were there others that appeared? Refresh my memory.

The Clerk: We don't have the list with us, but we can provide it to the committee.

The Chair: In addition to the provinces that were mentioned, I think the Province of Saskatchewan appeared. Did Nova Scotia?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I think if the Minister of Justice from Manitoba was in the room, you wouldn't hear from him.

The Chair: I'm not debating that point, Mr. Blaikie. I'm simply trying to mention the provinces who sent officials.

Ms. Sgro.

• 1600

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I was trying to get clarification from the clerk as to who has appeared. On page 61 of the report it makes reference to the Province of Manitoba, the Government of Saskatchewan.... As you go through this report, you see that a lot of people did appear before us—I don't know how many different provincial ones, but there are two mentioned just in these couple of pages. So maybe we need to get clarified who did give evidence before and who didn't, so we don't have to repeat the processes. I assume they'll say the same thing. But if they haven't been before....

The Chair: I'm advised there was also the Province of British Columbia.

Any further comment? Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: With respect to what Ms. Sgro just said, even though some provinces have appeared, I think we should send them invitations to appear on Bill C-7. I will tell you one of the reasons I would like to hear them. It has to do with the very significant amendment to section 61 of Bill C-7; the minister tells us—and you need only re-read the blues—she is going to expedite the trial process for young criminals who have committed serious offences like murder or rape, presumptive offences, in other words.

I would like to have the government of Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces to tell us how much time that would save. I know there will be no time savings, because the amendment necessarily entails an appearance by the young person, a preliminary hearing, a bail hearing, trial before judge and jury, etc., as in the case of an adult, and in the provinces, at least in Quebec and even in Ontario, because I checked, trials before judge and jury cannot be held in youth court because that is physically impossible. They will be held in adult court, for example, at the Superior Court in Montreal, where the docket is already overloaded.

I would like to hear from those who administer the act on a daily basis, including governments and prosecutors, on the minister's amendments to the bill. It is extremely important. There have been, I repeat, over 150 amendments. Some are minor, like commas, but others are highly significant.

True, an amendment may solve one problem, but I know full well that one or two other problems are created in the implementation. We cannot take the evidence of the prosecutor or the province of British Columbia and apply it as is to Bill C-7. This is a different bill with new approaches and very major amendments.

Let's send invitations to the provinces and see whether or not they respond. If they are concerned, they will send somebody. If they are not concerned, they will not appear. I am confident that some will appear, however. This is just in response to Ms. Sgro's question about the provinces.

I am listening and will have something to say a bit later.

The Chair: Ms. Allard.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I would like to respond to my colleague, Mr. Bellehumeur. I do not understand why he assumes, even before the bill is passed, that the youth courts will not be able to adapt in order to accommodate jury trials. Not only will that be possible, but we will extend funds to the courts for those arrangements under the budgets that will be granted to the provinces.

I think my colleague, Mr. Bellehumeur, is a bit close-minded when he assumes from the outset that it will be impossible to ensure compliance with the act as passed.

[English]

The Chair: I think it's safe to say that if we get into a debate on the substance of the bill, it will not stop. I don't believe here today we're going to decide we all like the same bill. So let's try to stick with what we're discussing. Let's stick with what we're trying to decide. There are three issues here. One, do we hear witnesses? Two, who are they? Three, do we hear the elected officials of the governments of the various provinces? Please try to address yourself to those issues. Those seem to be future business. The questions of substance, whether or not we interpret the bill the same way, I don't think we're going to resolve today.

Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My position that we need to hear witnesses here has been reinforced. Given what Ms. Allard just said, she obviously has not set foot in a courthouse or youth court recently. In order to have a trial before judge and jury, you need the facilities. You need a box for a trial before judge and jury. You need a lot of things.

• 1605

Mr. Chairman, in addition to hearing witnesses and inviting the provinces, the committee should even visit some sites in order to see that the implementation of the bill is physically impossible.

[English]

The Chair: We have now introduced a fourth dimension.

Mr. Toews, and then Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Vic Toews: On the issue of the elected or non-elected people as witnesses, this act is of particular concern to provincial attorneys general because of the amount of money that's involved.

I recognize that the federal government has indicated that they're willing to spend more money. We know that it will never reach that 50-50 partnership in respect of the money they're prepared to give. Essentially the provinces will continue to bear about 75% of the cost of this bill, and probably with some of these other provisions it will be even more.

So this is a tremendously important issue for provincial attorneys general, who will have to justify to their taxpayers the type of money they will have to spend on this program.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we have to win the cooperation of attorneys general, who could simply say they won't enforce this legislation. There's no requirement for the attorney general of Quebec or Manitoba or Ontario to enforce this legislation. They could simply say forget it; let the federal government do it. They could refuse to accept the delegation. We have to work on a cooperative basis with the political figures who are responsible to the taxpayer of their respective province.

This issue, I would suggest, without trying to go over the top on it, is as fundamental as the Magna Carta, that is, the payment of money by certain taxpayers through elected representatives. It's as fundamental as that. We can't simply say to elected representatives, “You're going to carry this. You don't have to be here.”

I think in all courtesy to them as elected officials responsible for the expenditure of funds and working in partnership with the federal government, they should simply be allowed to come here to explain it. We can talk about conditions on that. I think courtesy and responsible government demand that they be here.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just very briefly, in furtherance of that, I completely embrace the idea that what this bill, this legislation, would do is not legislate in the jurisdiction of provinces but legislate in the area of responsibility, that is to say, the bill is going to substantially increase the administrative costs. That's my assessment, right or wrong.

The provinces I think recognize that and very much want to be heard on this, keeping in mind that since its last incarnation, there have also been changes in government.

So I do believe it is important that, at the very least, we have representatives from the provinces. We reiterate that they are all—every province and territory—invited to participate in this process.

I'm of the mind that in this circumstance, because of the magnitude of this bill—arguably this will be the most important piece of legislation that will be passed in this Parliament—as a committee, we should seriously consider waiving this standing rule that politicians not be heard.

I have spoken personally to four provincial attorneys general who have expressed an interest in coming before this committee. They are the people who are going to have to go back to the provinces and essentially sell this to the populace and enforce it.

Having said that, I think we should deal with this issue and move on to the others that are on the table. I am very much of the mind, as I believe some of the other members of this committee are, that we should be hearing directly from the provinces and leave open the opportunity for attorneys general to appear.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

• 1610

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I'm rather reluctant to enter back into Bill C-7, previously Bill C-3, previously Bill C-68, previously Lord knows whatever. Three parliaments, seven years, etc.

I think we have probably heard from pretty well everybody from coast to coast, and some of them several times over. So I'm rather reluctant to open up the whole witness list again.

On the other hand, the other issue is that we were filibustered last time. I saw it as a colossal abuse of committee and House time, and I don't want to be in that again.

If in fact we are going to open up beyond this, I want to hear from you, colleagues, as to whether we're going to get some cooperation in terms of getting this through committee and back onto the floor. I see the two as interlinked.

I'm not prepared to sit here and listen to repetitive testimony, which—I respectfully submit—to a large part will be repetitive testimony and another form of wasting time. With the greatest respect to Mr. Bellehumeur, I've heard enough of Mr. Bellehumeur's speeches in the last Parliament, and I don't need a few more.

I want to hear how you, as opposition MPs, would propose it. I don't mind putting in the time, either on the witness side or on filibustering. I'll put in the time, but I'm not going to put in the time on both. So you tell us where the end point of the game will be, and then we'll negotiate backwards, as to whether you want to use filibuster time or whether you want to use witness time.

As to Mr. Toews' point on the attorneys general—the quality of the witnesses—I frankly thought we had heard from the provinces. I can be talked around, but at this point I can't be persuaded, given those two political realities.

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

Mr. Vic Toews: Just on the issue, perhaps to refresh Mr. McKay's memory in respect of witnesses, attorneys general weren't heard from. I know that some years ago I made a request to come, and this committee turned that request down. I understand from the other attorneys general at the time that they were not permitted.

The other issue is on the filibuster. I can assure you that the Canadian Alliance members are not interested in a filibuster. There will always be a difference of opinion as to what is filibuster and what is substantive. But I think my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance are committed to dealing with substantive issues in a timely fashion. There will always be grey areas, Mr. McKay. But I think we are gentlemen and women and ladies—I don't know whether it's appropriate any more to use the term “ladies”—but we're all honourable colleagues, and certainly from our side, we will cooperate with the committee to deal with substantive issues.

I'm very concerned about putting time limits on. If at any time, Mr. McKay, you feel that my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance are abusing the committee process by looking as if they're filibustering, I want you to recall my words to me and my commitment to this committee.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I've put in my time on this committee, as well as another McKay on the committee, and all PC members of this committee are willing to give their commitment that we're not going to unduly delay passage of legislation. As I said, this is a very important bill, which I know Mr. McKay will agree with.

I think it certainly bears our deliberation again. If that means calling witnesses, or having witnesses come back, I'm prepared to do it. But I think it's inaccurate to suggest in any way that the entire opposition has been engaging in filibustering. This is not to point the finger at anybody. People—parties—have taken legitimate actions when they felt they had to. There is always the option to request going to another committee.

• 1615

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to have a filibuster either, if we're all kind of fessing up.

Frankly, I think the committee will be, and should be, under a lot of pressure. We have other important legislation that has been brought down in terms of the omnibus bill, which I assume will be coming to this committee, and further legislation with respect to organized crime. These are all things that Canadians want us to deal with, so we need to do it properly but also expeditiously. That's my frame of mind as I approach this exercise in democracy.

The Chair: It's an interesting irony that essentially for the first time in this committee's last couple of years, we're all waiting for Mr. Bellehumeur to speak.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I did not want to talk about this because I want to save my breath for something else, but I do not think, in all seriousness, that I need to make any promises or commitments at this point.

The members opposite perhaps took it to be provocation or thought it was pointless or whatever, but I am merely an advocate for a consensus in Quebec. I have often put questions to members of this committee. I have asked them to name me individuals or a group of individuals in Quebec who administer the Young Offenders Act on a daily basis and want amendments. I have never had any answer to that question.

It would be irresponsible for me to say today to Mr. McKay that I would commit to hearing five witnesses and to doing nothing else afterward. Mr. Chairman, this government in particular, which has issued the most gag orders in the entire history of Canada, has no business lecturing on democracy and on how things should be done here.

Mr. Chairman, I will co-operate. If you think I got a buzz out of speaking for 37 hours, you are mistaken. It was no more fun for me than it was for you. At least you were able to take turns; I had to talk non-stop the whole time.

We are currently discussing attorneys general and provincial politicians, but I am anxious to discuss other individuals who administer this amended legislation on a daily basis. I want to hear those people. If I am told I cannot hear them, I will decide what I have to do. I am no more keen on filibustering than you, Mr. McKay, but I will if I can. My initial intentions are good.

Ideally, in my opinion, this legislation should never come into being. If it does, Quebec should be allowed to opt out. Let's include a section allowing Quebec or any other province that does not wish to apply Bill C-7 to opt out, and we would have no problem passing this legislation within 17 hours, but for the time being, that is not the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure I have not fully answered your question, but I am not committing myself. I am listening and acting in good faith.

[English]

The Chair: I don't recall the question, but I think the point made by Mr. McKay was reasonably clear. I don't think there was any suggestion or any anticipation that Mr. Blaikie, Mr. MacKay, or any member of the Canadian Alliance intended to filibuster. Members of the opposition will know that the chair attempted in the last Parliament to seek support in bringing this debate to some end, without success. That's the opposition's right, and I respect it.

So having said that, I think Mr. McKay's point was taken, and the response is quite clear.

Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: It's 4:15 p.m. and I'm already frustrated. We can play the game, but we all know what's going on.

I appreciate everyone else's comments. They all know we have some serious legislation, this one and others, before us. We want to deal with it. After seven years, I want to see a new Young Offenders Act put out there, and many of my constituents certainly are waiting for this to be passed.

If there are amendments to it, I have no problem with looking at all of them being serious, but if we're going to be sitting here for 45 hours listening to a whole bunch of people who have nothing new to add, other than looking at ways of delaying the process, I have a problem with it. Let's get on with doing what we're supposed to do.

• 1620

I have no problem with hearing some people who come forward, however the committee decides, who are bringing us good, concrete information to help us, but I don't want to sit here for 40 hours and waste time, and then still not pass anything until we end up with a filibuster or whatever.

It's however you want to deal with it, Mr. Chairman, but I think we should probably focus on where we're going.

The Chair: I don't know that we're going to bring any more thought to this, but I won't cut Mr. Spencer off. He hasn't spoken yet.

Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): I think the biggest waste of time is if you pass another bill that's just as bad or worse than what we had before.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all for those of us who are new to ask for something that is new to you, which would be to include the attorneys general. You have not heard from them, and I don't see why you would resist that.

If I understand where we are, that's what we're discussing—the opportunity to set aside that rule and be able to request that those officials come.

The Chair: What we're discussing at this moment is the future business of this committee. That could mean anything from going directly to clause-by-clause to hearing from any number of witnesses or not. All those things are on the table. The debate to this point has centred around attorneys general, but we're not limited to that.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not sure how these things get resolved. Do we just keep talking about them, and then at some point something comes down from the sky and tells us what to do? If you'd like a motion, or the parliamentary secretary just tells us what to do, or whatever....

If you'd like, I'd be quite prepared to move that this committee hear or invite the provincial attorneys general to appear before the committee.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I second the motion.

The Chair: It's so moved and seconded that invitations be extended to provincial attorneys general to appear before the committee. Is there discussion on the motion?

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I would vote against that motion for the very point that was illustrated by Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Which point was that?

Mr. John McKay: The point was that I can't enter into discussion with respect to the nature and quality of the witnesses, including whether they are attorneys general or deputy attorneys general, until I have a clear understanding from the members opposite that we will not be filibustered on this committee again on this particular point.

In my view, it's one way or the other. I'm quite open to the nature and quality of witnesses, but I don't want to be sitting here, having opened up the witness list, and then ending up with nobody happy anyway.

The minister rightly said to Mr. Bellehumeur that she and he have a fundamental disagreement about this bill. There's virtually nothing we can do to accommodate Mr. Bellehumeur beyond the accommodations that have been made.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Why should we be held hostage?

The Chair: Order. It's simply a point of debate.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: I want to be brief on this point, but I think, Mr. McKay, by supporting the motion that has been brought forward by Mr. Blaikie and seconded by Mr. MacKay, you would be buying a lot of good faith. I think that really would put the discussion of this bill on a good basis, especially in as far as the Canadian Alliance is concerned.

I can't twist members' arms; we're all independent members here. But I think you would buy a lot of good faith, because I don't want to have to go back to Manitoba and explain why we didn't listen to the chief law enforcement officer of the province with respect to a very contentious piece of legislation.

If you want to put some kind of limit on it, I'm prepared to discuss limits on their presentations. But I think this is a golden opportunity to get a little good faith on our part.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that I would not be supporting the motion on the basis that I've spent two years as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I can see that changing our convention would be simply opening it up to a series of fed-bashers. They would come here, the way they do, with the media in tow, and get into that. That's why I think the rule or the convention makes sense, to have officials who aren't going to be here to play the political game. As much as we are discussing political issues, I don't want to be captive to a round of fed-bashing, which I think this would inevitably lead to.

• 1625

The Chair: I think the committee had an opportunity to discuss this even before Mr. Blaikie put his motion. I think all the arguments have been put forward. The motion is before the committee, and I'd like to call the vote.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Can I just make a comment?

The Chair: To close it, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I think to assume that this would just be an opportunity for fed-bashing.... It might be an occasion to criticize the federal government, as it might be an occasion for members of the government to criticize the arguments of whatever provincial ministers come forward or to take them on. That's what it's about. It sounds as if members are afraid of that kind of interaction. I'm sure they can handle themselves against provincial ministers of justice.

I really think this is getting off to a bad start. I didn't know much about this committee before, but I'm beginning to understand it now. Go ahead, have the vote.

The Chair: We would like to put this to a vote. We've heard, I think, all of the arguments.

Make it very small, and that's it, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Okay. One of the criticisms we have heard from attorneys general and the provinces is that they were not consulted sufficiently, if at all, on this bill, the amendments, etc. We need to hear them, Mr. Chairman.

I have another question. Whom exactly do you wish to have as witnesses, if you do not even want to hear these?

[English]

The Chair: You made the point before.

Now I'm going to put it to the vote. The motion is that we would invite the attorneys general of the provinces to appear before the committee, or something to that effect.

An hon. member: I would like a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 7)

The Chair: Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I understand the desire to have people come and offer a provincial perspective, because they are responsible for the administration of justice. I understand also that there is a convention for us not to have elected officials appear before us in terms of the politicization that may apparently ensue. But perhaps we can have some sort of compromise in which we could agree to have officials that would come from the—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We already had that.

The Chair: Order. Mr. Cotler has suggested that we would—

Mr. Irwin Cotler: I'm not, let's say, bound by the institutional memory of this committee, not having sat on it.

Having listened to the discussion, I'm trying to arrive at some sort of representative expression that would mean the officials can come and they certainly can convey the views of their province, both their elected officials and the expertise the officials can bring. If we want to hear the provincial perspective, since they are responsible for the administration of justice, it doesn't necessarily have to be the attorney general who comes. It can be officials from that province who come with their repository of expertise and their views. That would accommodate, on the one hand, those who want those perspectives to find expression, which I agree with, and those who are concerned about disturbing a convention with regard to the presence of elected officials. It seems to me this would be a compromise that would allow this committee, as I said, to hear witness testimony and yet not run the risk of undue politicization.

• 1630

The Chair: The point I would make is that we're not bound by convention now. We're bound by a vote of this committee.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chair, I was very encouraged by the comments of the members of the opposition vis-à-vis their attempt to strike a balance on the number of witnesses we might hear from.

I was discouraged by what Mr. Bellehumeur had to say because it indicates to me that we're going to be back where we were in the last Parliament as far as a filibuster goes.

I was also discouraged when I listened to the banter between Mr. Toews and Mr. McKay when Mr. Toews said “If you want a filibuster, you've got one.” If that's going to be the case, then I'm going to bring a motion that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, without hearing any further witnesses. If you want to have a filibuster, we might as well get into it.

The Chair: A motion has been put that we move directly to clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: What the Liberal majority has done here in the committee has effectively ensured that the people primarily responsible for the administration of justice cannot come to this committee and explain their situation. I'm simply saying that by taking that narrow view, what you've done is give ammunition to create that filibuster. That's what I meant by my comments.

To seize on that kind of comment in that kind of manner to prevent people from having a discussion and prevent us from having witnesses is simply shameful. What I'm beginning to see is that this is part of a very deliberate strategy to ensure that there are no witnesses; that there is no substantive input; and that members such as myself, who weren't at this committee beforehand, don't have any input. Now I understand exactly what the strategy has been.

I came here in good faith. I thought I offered some kind of compromise so that I could in fact deal in a positive way with what is good in the bill and also recommend changes through the testimony of witnesses.

I don't think I've ever seen in a committee before the kind of callous disregard for the democratic process that has been demonstrated, and I'm very disappointed that the member would even bring a motion like that. I don't blame Mr. Bellehumeur for doing what he did if the kind of filibuster he engaged in earlier was prompted by this kind of callous disregard of the democratic process.

I came here in good faith, and I don't think anybody will question that good faith, but to see what you've done and now to say it in cold blood, I realize that this is a deliberate strategy to ensure that these members don't get a say, that the witnesses don't get a say, and that the people who are primarily responsible for the enforcement of the act don't get a say. I'm very disappointed that you would do that.

The Chair: I think somebody down there wished to speak. Was it Peter or Bill?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. We are debating a motion that is not in order. Notice of 24 hours is required; he did not give notice. So we do not even have to decide. It requires the consent...

Mr. Clerk, for a motion like the one Mr. Maloney has just tabled, can we argue and...

[English]

The Chair: We debated Mr. Blaikie's motion, Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Without 24 hours' notice, can we entertain this motion, Mr. Clerk? I would like to know the answer. We are talking about the witness list.

[English]

The Chair: To speak to the point of order, we can entertain this motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We want to know the answer.

[English]

The Chair: It is consistent with the debate in the same way—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It does not matter to me. If it is not okay, Mr. Chairman, I can leave.

[English]

The Chair: —Mr. Bellehumeur, that we entertained Mr. Blaikie's motion. No notice was given.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I can easily go.

The motion is out of order.

• 1635

[English]

The Chair: I'm advised by the clerk that as long as the motion is consistent with the notice of business, in this case the—

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No.

The Chair: Well, I'm sorry, but I make the ruling. We entertained Mr. Blaikie's motion, and there was no notice of it either.

So let's move on.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We had unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman. We had unanimous consent to decide on Mr. Blaikie's motion. This motion did not have unanimous consent. I do not know how everyone else feels, but I for one do not consent.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, as long as the motion is within the context of the discussion taking place in the committee—

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No.

The Chair: —in the same way that, if we were having a debate on a motion and someone proposed an amendment, as long as it's consistent with the debate that's taking place—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, that is not true.

[English]

The Chair: —I would accept the motion as being in order.

Is there any further debate of the motion?

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to respond to Mr. Cotler's point, which is when I had originally raised my hand to put my name on the speaker's list. The motion had not yet been moved by Mr. Maloney.

I just want to say to Mr. Cotler that what he's offering us as a compromise is no compromise at all, because it's already there. Generally, a compromise is something more than what you have but something less than what you've asked for. What you have offered us is what we already have, so in that sense it's not a compromise. It's already within the rules of this committee to hear provincial officials. It was done beforehand. What I was trying to do with my motion was go beyond that.

You say you're not privy to the institutional memory of this committee, but on the other hand, you cited the alleged convention of this committee that we don't hear from elected members. It's just a convention of this committee. It's not a convention of the House of Commons. It's not a convention of committees generally. It's something we could conceivably have changed by virtue of my motion, but the committee didn't. That's on the record.

With respect to the motion the parliamentary secretary has moved, I think, Mr. Chairman, there's only one way to read this—that is, that this was in the works in any event. It's either that or the biggest overreaction I've ever seen.

You know, someone says something, expressing their anger or disappointment at the loss of a motion, and all of a sudden you get the committee equivalent of the nuclear deterrent because somebody sent you a nasty diplomatic note. So either the parliamentary secretary should take a course in anger management or he was planning this to begin with. And it's not just him. I would say there are other candidates for this as well. It's certainly an overreaction.

I thought things were going badly, but now they're going from bad to worse, Mr. Chairman. If it's the intention of the government to hear no witnesses at all and move directly to clause-by-clause, why don't they just own up to it—

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —and have the courage of their weird convictions?

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chair, this committee has worked very well over all three parliaments I've been involved with it. There's been consensus all around and they've worked very well together.

We're seeing here a meeting that has gone off the rails, so in the spirit of conciliation, since there's some concern from Mr. Bellehumeur that there hasn't been sufficient notice on this motion, we can stand it down for 48 hours to allow for the sufficient time.

A voice: Twenty-four.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney has amended his intervention to be “notice”?

Mr. MacKay, and then Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I take the parliamentary secretary at his word. If this is really a spirit of cooperation and conciliation, perhaps he'll consider withdrawing the motion completely. Otherwise, this is just hanging over our heads for the next 48 hours. Or is that the idea behind it?

The Chair: If Mr. Maloney would like to answer, then we'll hear from Mr. Cotler.

Mr. John Maloney: I don't see it as hanging over your heads for 48 hours. There may be a cooling-off period that might well be taken in this situation, but I'm not prepared to withdraw it at this stage.

The Chair: Mr. Cotler.

• 1640

Mr. Irwin Cotler: To Mr. Toews, first of all, who imputed to this committee a collective strategy, I just want to say, as points of both order and privilege, that I'm not part of any collective strategy. I come here and share my views on the issues as I see them, and that's the nature of the suggestion I made.

To honourable member Mr. Blaikie, I would say that this was not necessarily on the table, because I understood from the chair when I came in that the framework of reference was composed of three questions. One, do we have witnesses? If so, who are they? And three, what about elected officials? I tried to offer a suggestion that related to those three questions: yes, we have witnesses; yes, with respect to the provincial representation, we hear from officials; and no, we therefore don't hear from the elected attorney general.

So I don't see where I was giving you something that was already on the table, or that was a given. I don't see anything that was a given. I thought the questions were open, and I was addressing the framework of inquiry suggested by the chair.

I don't like the idea of these things being decided by up-and-down votes so early in the session. I don't see why we can't arrive at a reasonable consensus. To me, having the representatives of the provinces come, in the form of those who can offer that expertise and experience, is something to be welcomed. I don't think we have to get into the thinking that it must be the attorney general to do it. The main question is, how can this committee benefit?

To me, then, that issue is up on the table and open to suggestions, and that's why I made it.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Could I ask that the honourable member therefore move that motion? I think that would encapsulate the spirit of his intent. I would be pleased to second that motion.

The Chair: As much as I see it as being in order, I don't want to have a debate over procedure to add complexity to the debates already before us. Having said that—

Mr. Peter MacKay: I don't think there would be a need for a debate, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: I would so move that we hear from provincial officials who may wish to come before this committee and address us on the bill before us.

The Chair: We've heard the motion. It's already been seconded.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: So we'll be hearing from provincial officials.

Do we want to proceed further in terms of defining the work of the committee or do we take the two weeks that are before us? I doubt we'll have any provinces before us tomorrow. We have copies of the testimony from the last Parliament, and we'll be hearing provincial officials when we return.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I do not know whether you want us to hear the provincial officials and then think about other witnesses. Before discussing which witnesses I wish to hear, I would have liked some indication from the government about which witnesses it might like to hear. I supported Mr. Cotler, who rightly insisted on hearing the officials, but you, Mr. McKay and Mr. Maloney, are there any witnesses you wish to hear before I discuss my witnesses? Perhaps we will agree, maybe we have the same witnesses.

[English]

Mr. John Maloney: There are other witnesses we could hear from, I'm sure. I have a list here. But right now I've proposed a motion, and I haven't withdrawn it. Certainly we are still looking at a motion from Mr. Cotler.

Perhaps I would have to be prepared to amend my own motion to say proceed to clause-by-clause consideration after hearing from the officials from the provinces.

The Chair: I think we'll take the notice that you gave as notice—that is, you amended your motion to make it notice for 48 hours.

We've since entertained a motion from Mr. Cotler to hear from the provincial officials, and we'll instruct the staff to arrange to do that. I'm assuming that the first opportunity to do that would be on the Tuesday we return.

Madame Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I would like some information, Mr. Chairman. I do not understand why my colleague's motion could only be tabled after 48 hours, whereas my other colleague tabled a motion that was entertained right away.

I had a motion on the table; why are we entertaining another motion?

A Voice: The Morin code...

[English]

The Chair: Essentially, I believe Mr. Maloney's motion was in order, because it was consistent with the framework for this discussion today. It was not substantially different from what we were discussing today.

• 1645

That said, we have enough debate that divides us. I don't think we need to add a procedural debate to that. In the spirit of goodwill towards the committee, Mr. Maloney gave notice, rather than putting the motion. Mr. Cotler responded by giving the committee some direction. We have all agreed, and the staff has been duly advised to make arrangements for our return, and we have two weeks reading to do, which Mr. Toews is anxious to get on with.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would just like Mr. Maloney to listen. Although he did not accuse me directly, Mr. Maloney implied earlier that I was not acting in good faith. When I asked whether he had any witnesses, he said he did, but that he had a motion to cut all of that short, that he had tabled the motion and that we would see within 48 hours what he would do with his witnesses.

That, Mr. Chairman, is bad faith. If he has a witness list—and that is what we are here for—he should table it. We may agree on the list, Mr. Chairman. But he should not hang a threat over our heads by telling us to be good little boys, or else he will cut us off and move directly to clause-by-clause study. Such threats cut no ice with me; they never have and they never will. That is not the way things work around here.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Bellehumeur, but you can't deny a member the right to give notice of motion.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a suggestion, before this turns into a royal commission. We have some motions that are now in the holding pen. We've seen, in the form of a motion, a list of proposed witnesses from Quebec. Could I suggest—and I know we only have three days before we break—that members, the various parties, consider putting forward draft lists of people they would like to hear from?

The Chair: There's nothing to stop any member from giving the clerk lists. He is given lists, and we have lists of people who've called in without any invitation.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I want to know the status of this list. There was some confusion as to whether it was hanging over our heads. What is the status? Is it suspended? Is it still out there?

The Chair: Mr. Myers, Mr. Bellehumeur gave us notice of that motion, but he did not introduce it today. That is very common in this committee. We've had instances where notice has been given, yet the motion is not presented on the first occasion. That is something that happens here regularly.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I understand that, but is it going to be presented?

The Chair: That would be up to Mr. Bellehumeur.

We have two motions. I don't think we can see that either of them contemplates the sword for the moment. Notice has been given, and we can entertain each of them, or either of them, or neither of them when we return. But we can give instruction to staff to invite the provincial officials of the various departments of justice to appear before the committee when we return after the break. We all agree on that.

Are there any other pieces of business? It is 4:50 p.m., I think we'd better run while the iron is hot.

The meeting is adjourned.