[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 26, 1996
.1109 
[English]
The Chair: We have the agenda of the committee, of which the first item is Mr. Gallaway's motion. Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you, Madam Chair. I presume everyone has a copy of my motion.
I picked this particular bill not for any particular reason in the sense that I want to discuss an individual or whether I am for or against it. That's not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is with respect to change in this place. It's change in the sense that we as a committee are told that we have control of our process here in a committee room.
.1110
A second part to this is to consider our role, not necessarily as partisans of a particular political persuasion, party, or philosophy, but as members of Parliament in the neutral sense that private members' business is exactly that. It's not representative necessarily of a particular political party, but it's the work of a particular member of Parliament, and therefore it comes to us in somewhat of a neutral vein in the sense that it's not the position taken by the government or a particular opposition party. It's the work represented by an individual member of Parliament.
This particular bill, C-234, is I think a prime example, whereby it was presented sometime between 1988 and 1993 as a member's bill by Mr. Keyes. It was reintroduced by Mr. Nunziata in this House. When you stop and consider the work that is done to get it to that stage, in the sense that there's a great deal of preparation.... There's the luck of the draw; there's no question about that. There's also the scrutiny of the private members' committee, there's debate at second reading, and then it's been referred to us.
I think that, as people within this room, notwithstanding whatever party you may be a member of, we should start treating these private members' bills a little more seriously. This bill has been,I am told, before committees for a period of three years, yet it's never been considered.
I just want you to forget about the content of that particular bill, but look at the process we have. I am told by the clerk that 20 groups - I'm not talking about individuals now, I am talking about groups - who in another time, if it were government business, we would welcome as witnesses before this committee, who have contacted the clerk, and who want to come to talk or give evidence with respect to this particular bill. Yet we have, after three years, no sense of when, if ever, we're going to deal with it.
I think that it is not only in some way an insult to the individual member, but I think it's also an insult to the institution of Parliament and to all of us, as members of Parliament, that if we go to this level of reaching second reading and getting it referred to a committee, the committee therefore, or as a result, treats a private member's bill as somewhat secondary to government business.
I remind everybody that, as a committee, we have control of our own process, and, as a committee and I think as individual members of Parliament - forget about the partisan end of it - we should be a little more respectful of the work that's been done and of the fact that this has been voted on in the House and referred to the committee.
I appreciate that we have a steering committee that attempts to reach some consensus on what the order of business will be for the committee. But I tend to think that we forget about this other part of our agenda here, which is members of Parliament. We forget that we have this opportunity in the House for private members' business, that the member has gone to the extent of convincing a committee that this is a votable item, and that the House has referred it to us as a committee for consideration. But after three years in this particular case, where is this bill in terms of the priority of this committee? I don't have an answer to that.
There are two other bills, I believe - the clerk can verify this - that have also been referred to this committee and, once again, although they haven't been in the in basket of this committee for three years, are nonetheless sitting there.
I bring this motion, therefore, with the objective that as a member of Parliament - not as a partisan, but strictly as a member of Parliament - and we as a committee and as a group that controls our own process ought to have some policy or mechanism whereby we deal not only with government business in a timely fashion, but we deal also with private members' business and at least give the courtesy and the dignity to the member and to the work the member has done in dealing with it in a timely fashion.
.1115
I think in this example there's another part to the equation, which is that the government is saying that it will in fact bring forth legislation that will deal with the subject-matter of this bill. That may be fine. It's easy for the department to say that; but if you accept the argument that in fact we're going to deal with it perhaps twice, or perhaps not at all - I'm not certain - then you're saying that, as a member of Parliament, you can always be pre-empted by a statement that the government is going to deal with this in some fashion.
We can always deal with a particular bill, whether or not similar or parallel legislation is being proposed by the government. We can always deal with a private member's bill. If we deal with it in priority or before the government bill arrives - because it's not before us, and in fact I've never seen it - the government can in fact pass the legislation, which would therefore amend the law once again and pre-empt, change, or adopt what has already been passed by the committee and perhaps in the House. Please understand that it has to pass the House.
I'm not bringing this as someone who wants to say that I'm for or against Mr. Nunziata's bill. I'm bringing this as an example of a case in which we, as a committee, must establish a policy - andI hesitate to use the word ``policy'' - or a mechanism, if you will, to deal with private members' business.
It's high time we had it. We talk about change in the way we do business here. This is a great opportunity. In fact, it's a first opportunity for us to start putting some of that into action.
It's for that reason that I bring this motion, and I hope you will think about it and support it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I'd like to ask how many private members' bills have been referred to the committee. Are there two in all, Ms. Gagnon's bill and this one?
The Clerk of the Committee: That is correct, but I think we will be getting a third, bill C-232, put forward by Ms. Jennings. In addition, I understand that bill C-240 will be officially re-introduced.
Mrs. Venne: What is bill B-240?
The clerk: That's Ms. Meredith's bill.
Mrs. Venne: So for the time being we have two of them. While I'm sure Mr. Gallaway's choice of bill B-234 was completely random, I do think that since we have two, we could apply his theory, and study both of these bills, rather than giving one priority over the other.
If you want to give a priority to studying bills put forward by all members - at the moment we have only two of them - where's the problem with that? But if the idea is to give priority toMr. Nunziata at the expense of Ms. Gagnon, I cannot agree. Of course, there are partisan considerations and so on, because these are two very different bills.
I think this is the way we should proceed. However, if the committee decides to give priority to one over the other, I cannot agree.
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: That's precisely the point. As I said earlier, I picked this as an example. I'm not here to argue whether I'm for or against it. I know that this bill has an effective reaction within certain people.
I agree with you with respect to Madam Gagnon's bill. What I'm proposing is that the committee should establish either a mechanism or a policy whereby we will deal with all private members' business - not just Mr. Nunziata's, but Mr. Nunziata's and Madam Gagnon's andMs Meredith's. There is one other, I believe, in the hopper. We should have some way of dealing with them in a reasonably timely fashion, as opposed to what appears to have been the past practice, where we selected one during the last session and dealt only with it, for a quite lengthy period of time, and never got around to dealing with the other ones. However, we always dealt with government business.
As a committee, we have the opportunity to establish perhaps a subcommittee - I'm not certain what the answer is - that will deal with private members' business as it arises.
.1120
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I agree with this motion. Although Mr. Gallaway has addressed this motion from a general point of view, addressing all private members' bills, I think it's wrong that this particular bill sat before the committee for over a year and we still haven't cleared it through the committee.
I think there should be a process by which private members' bills, including the two before the committee now and whatever might be coming thereafter, should be cleared before the committee and got back into the House to be dealt with - and specifically addressing this bill.
Although Mr. Gallaway happened to pick this one out of the two, referring specifically to it, there is a very general concern across the country - certainly in some parts of the country - about this issue. If we drag our feet on this particular issue, whether or not it comes first or second on the list as far as private members' bills are concerned, then the committee stands to be criticized - I think justifiable so - in the eyes of many Canadians as to what we're doing here and why we're not moving some of this business through the committee and back into the House so it can be dealt with.
I support the motion. I appreciate the comments that have been made by both Mr. Gallaway and Madame Venne on this. The committee should do all it can to move these private members' bills through, particularly those that are coming back from the old session.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I agree that we should establish a procedure for giving due consideration to private members' bills. Particularly since we were swamped with government bills - C-37, C-45 and C-68 - which took up a great deal of our time and energy and left very little room for other matters.
We did spend a respectable amount of time studying Ms. Jennings' bill. To be logical, I would say that given where bill C-232 is at - virtually clause-by-clause study or almost... Oh! It has been completed. So the bill should be going back to the House for third reading, should it not?
The Clerk: The committee rejected the report to the House.
Mr. Langlois: So there was no report. That's clear. Thank you. I've just learned once again that you shouldn't ask a question without knowing the answer to it.
Ms. Gagnon's bill deals with sexual mutilation and Mr. Nunziata's bill deals with repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code. We haven't begun our study yet, I hope? It has been referred to us, but we haven't heard any witnesses on it. Which bill should be given priority?
I think that the two of them should be evaluated in political terms. Generally speaking, I agree with what Mr. Gallaway had to say. I did not vote for Mr. Nunziata's bill at second reading, but I did vote for Ms. Gagnon's bill. About 70 Liberal members of Parliament voted in favour ofMr. Nunziata's bill, as did our colleagues in the Reform Party and one Bloc member. With one exception, it is clear that the general view within our party is not to push in this direction. I think the request to study Ms. Gagnon's bill is quite reasonable, given that it has much broader support in the House of Commons than Mr. Nunziata's bill.
Moreover, the statements made by the minister yesterday and reported in today's newspapers suggest that the government intends to act in this area. If this matter is on the government's agenda, let's leave it up to the government. I would therefore ask the honourable parliamentary secretary whether he expects a bill or a study on this subject. If so, we would be duplicating what the executive is in the process of doing.
.1125
If the minister intends to table something on section 745 or on this theme generally in the fall, let's wait for the minister's bill. If he does not do so, then we will look at this again.
At the moment, a bill on sexual mutilation has been referred to us. It is not controversial. Groups could state their views on this bill quickly. We could perhaps rework some of its provisions and extend them.
Logically speaking, we should start with doing the easiest things first. That's why I would prefer to start with Ms Gagnon's bill. I would find it helpful if the parliamentary secretary could provide us with some information.
[English]
The Chair: Ms Torsney, did you want to say something?
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I just want to make sure the record showed that in fact we have heard witnesses on Mr. Nunziata's bill. Mr. Nunziata himself was before the committee. I'm not sure if we heard from any other group.
Secondly, in the case of both Madam Gagnon's bill and this bill the minister has brought forward a bill, and I guess it's off the table right now, but it will come back on the table on Madam Gagnon's issue of female genital mutilation, all her issue. Is there some way we could do the two things at the same time?
My third point would be if the intention is as Mr. Gallaway stated, I wonder if it's not possible to amend this to suggest that the first priority is private members' business, and that this committee then organize itself around private members' business rather than Bill C-234.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): About the general point of treating a private member's bill with due respect, given that these bills by definition have been approved in principle by Parliament,I agree with Mr. Gallaway's point. I don't think, however, it's going to happen that we're going to be able to do private member's bills to the exclusion of the government agenda. So my proposal would be that we lay out our agenda for the government-sponsored work and then either work overtime or strike a subcommittee so we can do private members' bills in parallel. If that means bringing in the associate members to help with the workload, then so be it.
About the order in which we do private members' bills, I think the most neutral, non-political way would be to do them in the order in which they're approved by the House. I voted against Nunziata's bill, by the way. I don't know if it's the oldest bill still on the agenda. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. But that would be my suggestion. We'd just do them in the order in which they're approved by Parliament and we'd take our direction from the Parliament of Canada.
On this specific issue, if the government has said it's going to bring in a bill to deal with the issue, I think we should give the government an appropriate amount of time to do that. So my amendment would be to put off a study of Mr. Nunziata's bill until May 15, and if the government has something to deal with the issue, look at it in parallel, and if it doesn't, then move on.
Ms Bethel (Edmonton East): I'm one of the rookies here, so I may as well jump right in.
I think there are a couple of things we need to do here. Certainly it would be of benefit to have the status of all the private members' bills that are before us, exactly what has happened. I think too we really do need to define the criteria by which we determine priority for bills. I was quite surprised to hear this bill has been before this committee on and off for the past two or three years. There does need to be a timely way to deal with this kind of business.
I'll pick up on Mr. Ramsay's point about determining a process and a procedure to address these private members' bills effectively, those which are before us now and those which will be before us in the future. That's really important, because we do owe it to those who do private member's bills to deal with them in a timely and effective manner. So I think that would be very helpful. Perhaps the standing committee might work on developing a process for approval of this group, so people who do these private members' bills have some idea of how and when they can expect some action from us.
But if you're talking about the order of business - I know we'll be talking about that with your report - the thing I think is most important, what I think Albertans would expect, is that we would deal with the estimates, to be sure the justice department is delivering its services to the people of Canada in a cost-effective manner. So that to me would be the number one priority.
.1130
The second, of course - again, I'll speak for Albertans - is that they have a real concern with the Young Offenders Act. That definitely cannot be set aside, in my view anyway, for a private member's bill. I think it would be perhaps wise to refer this motion back to the steering committee with a direction to determine a process by which we should deal with private members' bills in a fair and reasonable timeframe.
The Chair: Are there any other comments? There's still more. Mr. White.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Is there no mechanism for dealing with these private members' bills? Surely after all these years of Parliament, there must be some process in place. This is 1996.
The Chair: I think that in the context of this discussion, if I can just maybe summarize for you, it appears from what Mr. Gallaway said that although he brought this forward based upon the one private member's bill that's before us, his concern is for us to strike some priority or protocol within our committee to deal with these bills. Let's fact it, we get most of the private members' bills. We get most of the legislation from the House. This is a heavy-duty committee, in terms of volume.
Am I paraphrasing you properly?
Mr. Gallaway: Yes.
The Chair: So the problem, as I understand it, is that it's been made easier to get private members' business before the House in this Parliament, but we haven't taken that extra step of figuring out how we're going to deal with it in committee. So I think it's a fairly novel situation. There's been private members' business around in the past, but I don't think it has been given the same regard that we would like to see it given now.
Does that help?
Mr. White: Given that - of course, I am in support of Mr. Gallaway's motion - private members' bills haven't been on the selection committee, they are important bills. In fact, with Bill C-234, I believe there is an expectation among the public and MPs that something will be done with it, as well as with other private members' bills.
Surely the minister is not going to bring down changes to the early release of lifers without the input of this committee. I didn't read that, did I? Is that what I was hearing?
The Chair: No. Just again, I'm trying to be sensitive to not taking over the meeting, but I think the information we have right now is that the government and the minister intends to have legislation ready to deal with the problem of release.
Mr. White: Early release.
The Chair: Yes. Also, section 745 would be a part of that package.
So that then generated the concern in the committee - is was a concern of the subcommittee - that we not have two sets of hearings on a topic, because we have limited time and so much to do. If there's a private member's bill and a government bill, why not do them at the same time if it's the same subject matter? I think that's the theory there. But that conflicts with the issue of giving due respect to private members' business.
Mr. White: Then it would stand to reason, I think, that the order of precedence would be first in, first out. I think it should be established by this committee that the oldest private member's business be dealt with first, and it would be the first out of here. So I'm in support of Mr. Gallaway's motion.
The Chair: Thanks, Mr. White. Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to congratulateMr. Gallaway on his motion in the spirit of that motion.
The Chair: Don't encourage him.
Mr. DeVillers: Having experienced the frustration of private members' business and its treatment in another committee in the last session, I certainly empathize with the position that private member's business should be treated with more respect. However, on the specific motion in which he's dealing with one specific bill and not the principle, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
The government has already announced that it intended to introduce a similar bill on the same subject.
[English]
I think that perhaps we should let the government deal with it, or, as has been suggested, it should be dealt with simultaneously when we're dealing with the subject matter. For that reason, I would be speaking against the motion.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.
.1135
Mr. Gallaway: Maybe with the unanimous consent of the committee I could amend this in the sense that the justice committee formulate a mechanism or a policy to deal with private members' bills, and that it be referred to the steering committee to do so.
The Chair: You guys have to watch me, I'm new at this business. Do we have unanimous consent to amend the motion?
Mr. Gallaway: Let the justice committee through its steering committee formulate a mechanism or a policy to deal with private members' business.
Ms Bethel: That would include the criteria to determine priority.
Mr. Ramsay: Is this the withdrawing of this motion and the creation of another?
Mr. Gallaway: No, I'm asking for an amendment.
Mr. Ramsay: It sounds to me as if it's a new motion, Madam Chair.
Mr. Gallaway: Any amendment could be viewed as a new motion. Since only the first two words are the same, Jack.... In any event, if the members of this committee would give me unanimous consent, then I think the spirit of this motion will pass.
Mr. Ramsay: If I could just speak to that, I don't think unanimous consent would be withheld, certainly not by myself. We should all understand the reality of what we're doing. It is clear that the government has a mandate, and the legislation brought forward by the various ministries the justice department is responsible for comes before us here, and it has to be dealt with sometimes in a priority way. We're not here to interfere, or attempt to interfere with that. At the same time, that's the reality.
There is no doubt that private members' bills are pushed to the back burner. That is a reality we also have to look at. No one has suggested the process yet, and I'd like to hear from the mover of the motion if he recommends any process to the steering committee, because we're going to go back into the steering committee and attempt to bring forward a process that is acceptable to the majority of the committee members here.
The point I'm making is that we must recognize the mandate of the government to move its agenda forward while at the same time recognizing that because private members' bills may conflict with the justice minister in this case, or other ministers, the Solicitor General perhaps, it is too easy simply to say we'll just move these bills to the back of the agenda. They always end up in the backwash and consequently taking second place to the agenda of the government. Would it be fair to say first in, first out, on all?
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, I'm not trying to cut anybody off, but I think we have the beginning of a really strong consensus on this. I think all of those suggestions have to be looked at. It seems to me that first in, first out might be the best plan, but there might be problems with this. Why don't we let a smaller group thrash it out and give us...?
Mr. Ramsay: Then I would certainly give my consent to the amendment to the motion, as long as Mr. Gallaway recommends something to the steering committee that might help us out.
The Chair: Maybe Mr. Gallaway could come to the steering committee and give us a hand with that.
Mr. Gallaway: I don't know whether this suggestion would be agreeable or not, having regard to the volume of work that comes to this committee, but obviously if this were a private member's bill being referred to the Library of Parliament committee it would undoubtedly be considered. As a result, one of the mechanisms may be a subcommittee, which Mr. Knutson has suggested, even involving perhaps some associate members of this committee, or just a subcommittee of this committee, which would be called the private members' subcommittee of the justice, or whatever.
Ms Bethel: With a one-month mandate, tops.
.1140
Mr. Gallaway: I didn't say that.
The Chair: I have three names: Bethel, Discepola, and Venne.
Ms Bethel: Keeping in mind that it's 11:40 a.m.
The Chair: Right.
Ms Bethel: It's hard to know here. I see the steering committee as being a very busy committee, and I think this takes more than just three or four people sitting around a table. I think these people will need to consult others.
I'm not sure that I agree personally with first in, first out. I think the one that's the most important to Canadians, for instance, with the greatest interest by Canadians is the one that should be dealt with first.
So there are many criteria here. I don't think it's going to be that easy, and my preference would be a subcommittee, as suggested by Mr. Knutson, with perhaps a one-month mandate to come up with something for the steering committee. They could talk to, I guess, all members at some point in that one-month's time.
The Chair: The clerk is suggesting that probably the steering committee can do the job ifMr. Gallaway would give us a hand with it.
Mr. Discepola.
[Translation]
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): I think there are two fundamental debates here: a first one on... [Technical difficulties - Editor].
We have to find a procedure. If I understand correctly, the objective of the motion put forward by my colleague from Sarnia - Lambton is to find a procedure for expediting private members' bills.
His motion deals with Bill C-234. Here I would refer back to the question asked by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois as to whether or not the government intended to introduce its own bill on this matter. I should not be speaking for my colleagues, but I think they would be inclined to support a motion to go ahead with a different bill, for example Ms Gagnon's.
In my view there are two fundamental issues, Madam Chair. We have to decide first whether we want to deal with Bill-234 as a priority. However, I do not think that is what the committee wants to do.
Mr. Gallaway's motion referred chiefly to establishing a procedure. If that is the case, I am convinced it would be preferable to have the steering committee decide in what order the bill should be considered by the committee. I would not want a bill to be given priority simply because it was introduced first in the House. We should start by analyzing the subject matter of the bill.
I support my colleague's motion to withdraw the motion and to leave it up to the steering committee to decide which bill should be given priority.
Mrs. Venne: I don't agree with the suggestion of a sub-committee set up especially to determine how to proceed, because a sub-committee is always made up of the same members.
As Mr. Discepola said, we already have a steering committee that could consider the procedure to be followed. I would be in favour of that motion.
Mr. Langlois: I would not want to downplay the importance of my own role, but I do think the steering committee, as its name suggests, exists to provide some leadership to the Standing Committee on Justice. I therefore think it would be reasonable to give it this task.
In addition, I could add that when Mr. Nunziata's bill was ruled votable - and I was a member of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business along with Mr. White - one of the reasons was that the subject matter of the bill was not on the government's agenda. Otherwise, we would not have chosen Mr. Nunziata's bill.
I would also add, and this is one of the purposes of private members' business, that if the bill sets off a new debate and if the minister or the government wants to have a more integrated policy, including other objectives and come forward with its own bill, well I think we should give them an opportunity to do so.
If that was the purpose of Bill C-234, which was passed - I voted against it - the House indicated the direction in which it wanted to head. The Minister and the government can take this fact into account or disregard it. The steering committee could also find out about the government's schedule, as Mr. Knutson was saying earlier. Will something be done this year or in the 36th Parliament? Those are two very different things.
.1145
We could come back to this more quickly if we were told that something could be done very soon. I think it would be a good idea to wait for a coordinated policy now that the general focus has been indicated.
In this regard, I would agree with Mr. Gallaway's request to withdraw his motion and to refer the matter to the steering committee, which could deal with the issue both quickly and wisely.
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: Madam Chair, I had asked for unanimous consent to amend the motion to read:
- That the Justice Committee, through its subcommittee, establish a mechanism/policy to deal
with private members' business.
Mr. Gallaway: I'm sorry. Yes, through its steering committee.
The Chair: I think we've got our consensus developing here. Can we call the question on this?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: It's unanimous. Fine.
We had initially scheduled the meeting for an hour, but I think that spending 45 minutes on that was worth while for everybody.
Mr. Knutson: It's historic.
The Chair: It's historic, and it's a good start - even if Mr. Gallaway got hungry as a result.
Ms Bethel: I'm wondering if the clerk or research could prepare for us a one- or two-pager on the private members' bills that are presently before us and any that are anticipated. That would be most appreciated.
The Chair: Mr. Dupuis will do that. Thank you very much.
The next item on the agenda is consideration and adoption of the first report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. You have a copy of that. Maybe I can run over this summarily.
We basically put on the table those from whom we wanted to hear in terms of estimates. There was quite general agreement, I think, on whom we would invite, subject to the caveat, I suppose, that we also suggested that some groups be lumped together because their subject-matter is the same, or in the sense that we would hear them on the same day or within the same time frame. As a result, there's been no winnowing out of this. This is just a list that we accumulated through the contribution of everyone on the steering committee.
We also suggested in terms of the schedule - I'll just tag this for later when we'll be talking about our agenda - that we should try to concentrate on doing this, at Madam Venne's suggestion, primarily during the month of June, because we all have to be here for votes because the House is so active at that time in any event. It seemed as if was a better time for us all to be here and to be able to focus on this without other distractions.
Since that time we've had some requests from SIRC and from the two ministers respecting the time frame when they would like to appear, and that basically fits the subcommittee's recommendation, which was that we should take this up at the end of the term.
Did I state that fairly, Mr. Ramsay? Madam Venne?
Mrs. Venne: Yes.
Ms Bethel: As part of the estimates review, all of the departments prepare what they call an outlook. So, Justice, as well as all other departments, prepares an outlook as part of the estimates review. It would be very helpful for all of us if we had that outlook prior to the minister's visit so we could be well prepared.
Secondly, when I look at this list I think that's a lot of people to see. I'm wondering if there wouldn't be some value in focusing - because this is an estimates review - on the particular areas in which we could be most helpful to the minister in taking a look at cost-effectiveness.
The Chair: With respect to your first suggestion, the clerk is in fact obtaining those documents now, and of course they will be made available.
Ms Bethel: Do you have any idea of when?
.1150
The Clerk: I'm trying to get them as soon as possible.
The Chair: ASAP.
Is there any other discussion on that point, or on any point? Madam Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I would like to know what is scheduled for the week of April 15. Do we have something going on here during that week?
The Clerk: Yes, Mrs. Venne. We have already confirmed the appearance of a number of national groups on the young offenders' act.
Mrs. Venne: Would that be on Tuesday and Wednesday?
The Clerk: And Thursday as well.
Mrs. Venne: So we would be hearing witnesses all three days?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mrs. Venne: If we have to hear from all these witnesses, I think we will have to cut back on our hearings in Quebec in June, because we will be spending our time hearing from witnesses on the main estimates for 1996-1997. Personally, I don't think we can travel during the first week of June if we have to hear from all those witnesses. I think we'll have to look at that closely.
[English]
The Chair: I think we can deal with that when we get to the YOA discussion, unless what you're suggesting is that we cut back on the estimates.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: That is correct. If we don't do that now, we will do it later on. We will certainly eliminate one of them.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any comments about who we're recommending be invited under the estimates?
Ms Torsney: I just have a question. Is it possible that a couple of them could go to the subcommittee, assuming item 3 gets approved? For instance, SIRC and CSIS might be able to go to the subcommittee? Those are the only two, actually.
The Chair: It's possible to do that.
Mr. Knutson: I'd agree.
Ms Torsney: But we could establish that once we started to get the calendar jelled. We could leave that as an option.
The Chair: Any other thoughts on...?
[Translation]
Mr. Discepola: How long do you expect the meetings to be, Mr. Dupuis? Are you planning for meetings between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday or Wednesday evenings, for example?
The Clerk: Normally, the committee meets Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning.
Mr. Discepola: So if the committee wishes, we could meet from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
The Clerk: If you want to.
Mr. Discepola: Perhaps we could consider this solution.
[English]
Maybe it's my background. I've sat on the finance and industry committees too long.
The Chair: We have a list of groups we want to invite on the main estimates under item one of that report. How do you want to do this? Do you want to adopt that list of invitees now?
Ms Bethel: If we adopt it, does that mean we have to invite them even if we change our minds later?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: We do have to agree on a schedule, Madam Chair. I think we should schedule a timetable now and decide whether or not we will hear from these people, because the Clerk has to get in touch with them. We do need a schedule for when we return on April 15. I think we should decide today whether we will hear from all the groups and then ask the Clerk to prepare a schedule in light of this decision.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I would prefer that these witnesses on main estimates appear before the full committee, not before a subcommittee.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Ramsay: If it's a time allocation matter, then I would be willing to meet in the evening as well to accommodate that. I think it's a necessity.
.1155
The Chair: All right. I am correct, am I not, that in terms of what we were agreeing to recommend at the steering committee, it included grouping some of these groups?
Mr. Ramsay: I have no difficulty with the grouping.
The Chair: All right. Can I have a motion - I guess that's the best way to do it - that these groups be invited?
Ms Torsney: I'll move that.
The Chair: Thank you so much. So the motion then would be that the groups listed on item one of the first report be invited by the committee, and we'll leave it to the clerk to figure out a proposed schedule for now. There's no dissension on that. Okay, good.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Now, the second part of this is the comprehensive view of the Young Offenders Act. Basically, the steering committee agreed that we should resume our hearings both in and outside of Ottawa, and we had already scheduled some witnesses or invited them to appear in Ottawa. That list is here on page 2, under item 2, ``Comprehensive Review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II)''. This would leave us able to do these witnesses in that first week we're back in April. That's the plan.
We should add the Mayor of Cornwall to this, because he's in the Ottawa area.
Mr. Discepola: Has he or she specifically asked?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Gallaway: There's been a particular case there involving a violation....
The Chair: It's a specific case they want to bring to our attention.
Mr. Discepola: Then we'll get the Mayor of Beaconsfield and the Mayor of Kirkland. You're going to keep on and on. Is there a specific case?
Ms Bethel: Can't they write a letter?
The Chair: You've asked for information about why the Mayor of Cornwall wants to be here.
Mr. Discepola: That's right, because I think you're going to open up the door to other people requesting to be heard, and why would we reject them? I bring you the example of the Mayor of Beaconsfield with the Toope murders in his community.
The Chair: Mr. Clerk.
The Clerk: You will see throughout the process that some of the mayors will ask to appear, but not all of them. I think we are talking about two or three mayors.
Ms Bethel: Is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in there?
The Chair: I would just point out that it is primarily national groups who are appearing before us here. The Mayor of Cornwall clearly has a regional concern, so that may colour how we want to deal with this.
Mr. Gallaway: I was going to raise the whole question whether we're going to invite municipal politicians in particular. I'm aware of a very specific case that occurred at Cornwall involving the YOA, but perhaps, as has been raised, we could end up receiving letters from mayors all over the country who want to appear. But we could have the clerk contact the Canadian Municipal Association, as an example, and there are other ones.
Ms Bethel: Canadian Federation of Municipalities.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes, either or, and determine if they would like to make a presentation; and if that's the case, maybe they want to send the Mayor of Cornwall to do it. That's fine, but it should have a wider perspective, a national perspective.
The Chair: Just as a point of information, you should know that the committee last spring sent out a letter of invitation that was broadcast very widely and that the Mayor of Cornwall is responding to our invitation to appear. So we need to consider that.
Ms Bethel: There are a couple of things. I really do think there needs to be somewhere in here some determination of travelling to the west, but I know, for instance, the Province of Alberta, the province itself, has held extensive public hearings on -
The Chair: Can I just assist you on a point of information? At this point, we're only going to see these national groups here in Ottawa. We have every intention of travelling to the west at some point. It's going to be a national consultation. That's the framework.
Ms Bethel: That's fine, just so there's an understanding. It might have been included and say deferred to fall or something, but it should have been included in the plan.
.1200
The Chair: The clerk is going to prepare a draft travel schedule for us.
Ms Torsney: I think perhaps for the benefit of new members that we do outline the framework. This is a ten-year review that's now into its twelfth year. It's a comprehensive review, so there is a component that is national organizations and there's a component that's local organizations - hence, the Mayor of Cornwall and others.
We've heard from a number of groups already, and we also have a number of groups on a national basis that want to come to hear us in Ottawa, but we can also use the time in Ottawa to think about the region of Ottawa in the broadest sense and include those groups at some point here, so that we don't have to travel to them.
When we go to Montreal I'm sure the Mayor of Beaconsfield would like to appear before the committee or some other groups from Beaconsfield that are very involved with young offenders to talk specifically about the horrible case that occurred there. When we go to Ontario there are going to be some other people, whether it's London or Toronto or wherever, who want to appear before us. That's the nature of a comprehensive review. There are a number of different levels of people who to appear before us, and it is our job to hear from them as much as possible. So I think that while we have here a list that is very focused on national organizations, there is some component of area organizations that we want to include in the schedule for Ottawa-specific meetings, and that is important.
Again, the other part of it being in the twelfth year for Ms Bethel is that we are also looking at doing it in the fall, and we do have some opportunity.... It is mostly the western schedule that will be done in the fall, I gather.
Mr. Knutson: I don't have any objections to hearing the Mayor of Cornwall or other.... If only three have responded, it doesn't seem as if it's a problem. The only other name I might add to the list is the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. If we go to Toronto, they'll ask to appear there, but they can just as easily come here.
The Chair: If I could comment here, when we travelled for the human resources committee we had a lot of problems with national groups that are headquartered in different areas wanting to appear and taking away from the time that really belongs to local people. You go to Edmonton to find out what people in Edmonton feel about it, not to find out what some national organization feels, where arrangements could have been made to hear them in Ottawa. So I'm just suggesting that's something we should keep in mind. Or you get different branches of the same organization wanting to appear at every stop, and it really takes away from hearing what people have to say.
There's also cost. I never claimed to be a financial whiz, as we all know from my history.
With respect, then, to these particular witnesses, Ms Torsney is moving that the list, including the Mayor of Cornwall, under section 2, comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act, on page 2 of our report, be adopted.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: The final thing under this section is that the clerk needs to provide a draft travel schedule to us for the consideration of the steering committee. Can I just suggest to all of you that I don't think there's any desire to prolong this thing. We want to get this going as soon as possible, but it's fairly complex in terms of when we're going to go where and who's going to go and that kind of thing. We still don't have a liaison committee, and we won't have till 12:30, to even consider our travel budget. So I think it might be a good idea to refer things back to the clerk and the steering committee to get a final grip on this schedule before the full committee approves it.
The clerk suggests that the first week that we're on the YO stuff is the 15th, when we're back, and we just approved that.
The second week is the week of April 22, and it is proposed that we go to the Maritimes then. Keep in mind that we promised to go there, and we've cancelled it twice, so we should come to grips with that immediately, because we need House approval for that travel.
Mr. Gallaway: I'll move, then, in accordance with the draft motions that we travel to all of those places referred to in that motion. It's listed Halifax, Sydney, and Charlottetown from April 22. Is that including the 26th or is it to the 27th?
.1205
The Clerk: It includes it. We will organize it.
Mr. Gallaway: Okay, the week of April 22.
The Chair: I can point out, just in case there's any lack of understanding on this, that it's our intention, when we get there, to hear from the other regions by teleconferencing or to bring witnesses in or whatever we have to do. We are not just hearing from Nova Scotia and P.E.I. We want to cover the whole Atlantic region there.
That motion was made by Mr. Gallaway and seconded by Ms Torsney. Is there any further discussion on that? Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Madam Chair, do we still have 11 Members of Parliament and nine staff members travelling on a huge budget? I would like to review the budget. If it's already been approved, Mr. Dupuis will tell me and I will be quiet. Otherwise...
[English]
The Chair: We have a budget for the Maritimes, which was approved by the committee before. It might be a good time to open that discussion, to a certain extent, to see - I know it's 12:05 - how many people we want to have travel, or if there's any desire to revisit that issue at this time.
There would be nine staff people: two clerks, two researchers, three interpreters and two console operators. There are three interpreters and two console operators, just so you know, as part of their collective agreement, so we can't breach that.
Ms Torsney: My question on that is this: is it not possible to engage local people to fill that function?
The Chair: They estimated that. In fact, it would have been more expensive for the committee to contract locally than to bring our own people and equipment.
Ms Torsney: Isn't that remarkable. We are going into places where there are national and international conventions on a regular basis, but the prices are higher, including -
The Chair: Charlottetown?
Ms Torsney: - all the costs of travelling and hotel rooms and everything else. I'm really shocked by that.
The Chair: We can look at the matter again.
Ms Torsney: Okay.
The Chair: Why don't we just say that we'll take whichever alternative is less expensive. How is that?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Could you give me a breakdown of the nine staff members required, please,Mr. Dupuis?
The Clerk: I believe you have it there. It's on the last page.
Mr. Langlois: Does the advance person go out to check whether there is any fog on the airport runway?
The Clerk: There's no fog.
Mr. Langlois: There is something I don't understand, and I would like you to explain it to me.
[English]
The Chair: There's no advance.
An hon. member: A lot of fog.
The Chair: Let me tell you, there's a lot of fog just in this room at times.
An hon. member: Steam, not fog.
The Chair: We call it fog at home.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: The interpreters and console operators account for five people. I've no objection about the number. However, I do find it quite strange that these costs are taken out of the committee's budget. When we meet in Ottawa, are the costs related to these people paid for by the committee's budget or out of the House budget?
The Clerk: What is taken out of the committee's budget, Mr. Langlois, are the travel expenses of these individuals. We do not pay their salaries, but we do pay...
[English]
The Chair: Not salaries.
The Clerk: Just accommodation and transportation.
The Chair: Keep in mind, folks, that we are trying to deal with the first week of travel so we can get the rest of the schedule in place with Richard's help after.
Is there any further discussion on that? Ms Torsney?
.1210
Ms Torsney: I'll move to adopt it because I think that some of the questions we've raised are bigger questions than this committee could deal with. I think it's more related to committee structures in general, so we should probably take it up with those people. I'll move to adopt this.
The Chair: It's seconded by Mr. Gallaway, who is nodding.
Any further discussion? Is there any dissension? Mr. Ramsay?
Mr. Ramsay: I have questions out in my riding about the cost of this. When Russ was on the committee, he mentioned that the cost of the room on page 2.... He said you can't get a hotel room that's worth $120 in some of these spots to which we're going.
I wonder if we could get a more accurate reflection of that. We could cut that down by maybe 20% or 30%, which would reduce the overall cost that the media is going to use. It's costly, but maybe we can reduce that in any way we can to the actual cost, rather than a round figure.
The Chair: I see.
[Translation]
The Clerk: Mr. Ramsay, this is a budget, but that does not mean that we will spend the full amount. The costs indicated are averages. In the Maritimes, hotels are less expensive than they are in Toronto or Vancouver, for example. So the amounts shown are based on averages.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: Well, I'm not. I don't know about you, Roger, but I won't.
The Chair: In terms of this item, do we have consensus on it? All right.
In terms of the rest of the schedule, I'm going to recommend that we wait to hear whatMr. Dupuis has to say in terms of setting out the schedule.
I know there remains the issue of what regions of the country we'll get to between now and the end. I think we could deal with that on our first meeting back on April 15 if people are comfortable, or we can continue this meeting at another time today or at another date this week.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I just wanted to confirm that we will be in the Maritimes during the week of the 21st. Is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, then we'll plan the rest of it beyond. Thank you.
Finally, we have the subcommittee on national security. I just want to ask this. I think the way these motions work is that we actually name the people to the committee at this committee. Do we?
The Clerk: It can be done in consultation with each of the whips.
The Chair: I have been given a list of the Liberals who would be on the committee. I don't know if the other parties are prepared to do that. We can do it all in our motion or we can simply consult the whip.
The Clerk: Okay, fine.
The Chair: Are you prepared to do that? Monsieur Langlois? I'm just trying to short-circuit this.
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I would put forward the name of Val Meredith. She was on that committee before.
The Chair: All right. Just by way of information, then, the names that have been suggested by the Liberal Party are Mr. Lee, Mr. Rideout - he is not on this committee, but will be made an associate member of this committee later today - Mr. Knutson, and Mr. Discepola, as parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General. From the Bloc, there's Mr. Langlois. From Reform, there'sMs Meredith.
Is that correct? Is there any discussion or dissension? Is there anything else?
Number four is the operational budget of the committee. There are a couple of figures in here that are wrong. I will ask Mr. Dupuis to give an explanation.
As for the first number, it was agreed that the committee would request from the budget subcommittee the amount of $18,000. It should read $16,000. It was an error. It should be $2,000 less in order to repay the committees directorate for expenses incurred during the first session of this Parliament and paid during prorogation. We got caught short when the committee prorogued and this is bridge financing, basically.
.1215
Then the second part of this was an amount of $2,000 - don't you love it when I throw out financial terms - for miscellaneous expenses, copy, criminal codes, priority post, etc. That in fact should read $4,800. Again it's because $2,800 remains owing from the last Parliament that wasn't paid and got caught in the prorogation. So we're going to pay our debt.
Mr. Gallaway: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.
We have a motion for these two figures; so it's $20,800. Do I need a seconder? No. Is there any discussion? No. Is there any dissension? Passed. Thank you.
We are adjourned.