[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 17, 1996
.1537 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
We welcome today Ron Martelle, the mayor of the City of Cornwall.
Welcome, Your Worship. Our usual procedure is that we let you begin and make your presentation, and then there are questions. Take as long as you need.
Mr. Ron Martelle (Mayor of Cornwall): Thank you very much. I was assured that I can vary from my brief that I presented to you. That is the first part of a two-part brief, Madam Chair, and I will give you the second part whenever I address the second part of my presentation.
May I ask how long this committee is going to sit before the results will be given to the House?
The Chair: Are you asking me when we would anticipate having a report?
Mr. Martelle: Yes.
The Chair: The quick answer is that I don't know, because we haven't scheduled our entire agenda for travelling. I can tell you that we will be travelling next week to the Maritimes. On May 6 we'll be doing Ontario other than the east end, which we're trying to do from Ottawa. We will travel also to the north of Canada and to the west, and of course to the province of Quebec. I think there will be a week for each area, and after that we will deliberate.
So I expect that there won't be a report before the fall, but I'm just one voice guessing.
Mr. Martelle: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The Chair: The clerk is saying that it might be in December.
Mr. Martelle: Thank you for having me here today. I will start by addressing the first part of my presentation.
.1540
Have we become passive to crime? Can we accept violence as commonplace, something to be handled by the system? Unless it is gruesome, violent crime rarely catches our attention. ``It won't happen to me'' seems to be our response, so why should we care? The affected are rarely able to speak for themselves. They must speak through others. This is why I speak to you today.
We need a justice system that recognizes the harm and suffering caused by violence and is directed towards punishing it. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung to the extent that the offender is the prime focus of the system. What the offender does and its impact on others now counts for little.
In the case of the Young Offenders Act, where is the protection to society? The YOA is giving rights to the wrong children. What are the rights of the young victims?
I have spoken to every secondary school in our area. Without fail, the youngsters in those schools all concur that the Young Offenders Act is far too lenient. What they have stated to me is that whenever 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds commit a violent act, they should share the responsibilities for their actions, which means the punishment must reflect the crime. As they said, if you do the crime, you do the time.
Just because they are young does not mean that young offenders do not understand that the system is weighted heavily in their favour. Seventeen-year-olds are mature enough to grasp the seriousness of their acts and should also be prepared to bear responsibility for them. This is where the Young Offenders Act as it currently stands, in my estimation and that of many others, appears to condone murder, and it indeed encourages this act given the punishment that it metes out. It can really be described as a licence to kill, and I think we have heard from enough victims or their families that this is certainly true. And I don't think we have to go any further than some of the recent incidents, one of which was very close to home here in Ottawa.
In the final analysis, protection of the public from any further violence must ultimately be the most important thing. Whether dealing with a young offender or an adult, our judicial system must have standards and sentence all proven criminals in the same manner. The punishment must reflect the seriousness of the crime committed, with no exceptions. Currently, however, it seems that the response of our courts is to give lesser sentences even where the Criminal Code allows the leeway to give a stronger one. To grant lenient sentences is to say that violent acts are acceptable and are not to be truly punished. All judges must understand that they are on the bench to administer retribution. Courts do not exist to sympathize with the criminal, but to punish.
What is wrong? At the moment the criminal element has more rights than the victims, the families of the victims, or our law enforcement officers. Crime is devastating for the victims, and their needs are best served by seeing that others are not victimized as well.
In this regard, sentencing is the key ingredient in stopping victimization. Sentences must reflect public repudiation of criminal acts by swift, substantial punishment. It also begs the question, are we coddling and pampering the criminals after sentencing - and I will address that in the second part of my presentation - or are we getting across to the inmates that they are incarcerated to be punished for doing wrong?
In the case of the YOA, what is needed is a recognition that the YOA should not apply to all offences committed by youths and that violent young offenders should anticipate being treated as adults. The YOA is overdue for a major overhaul.
I was certainly amazed last night when I listened to the Minister of Health, David Dingwall, and whoever the MP was who proposed a bill that wants warning labels on alcoholic beverages, and that this may be law by June. Well, if such a bill that states a product may harm your health can be passed this quickly, why can't the government do the same in terms of the YOA and other issues in the justice system that take away human life and destroy families?
.1545
What Canada badly needs is a realization of public safety. The notion of criminal justice should be changed to public justice, where the safety of the public outweighs the rights of the criminals. Judges should use the Charter of Rights for victims and not against them. In all likelihood, certainty of punishment would be a fact and the system would deter rather than tolerate crime.
With more effort and continuous pressure from the people of Canada, we can get the justice system back to its prime purpose of protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. We must maintain the hope that public outcry can influence the legislatures and the courts to make the streets safe once again.
That is the end of the first part of my presentation, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to read this for you before I leave, and leave the briefs for you, if I may, so everybody can follow my words.
It is unfortunate that the government insists on complicating the issue of justice and resorts to posturing while innocent victims continue to suffer the consequences. Committees such as this one point out quite vividly the government's penchant for too many words and not enough action. It takes courage and commitment to properly address and formulate long-awaited changes in our justice system. Unfortunately, for many Canadians who continue to suffer needlessly while discussions drag on, courage and commitment are two qualities our government appears to be seriously lacking.
On April 2, 1996, I was extremely pleased to receive a letter confirming my appearance before this Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I certainly welcome the opportunity to express my views before this committee.
Since that date I have read various articles on Justice Louise Arbour's report on the riot at the Kingston Prison for Women and the heartfelt apology issued by Solicitor Herb Gray to the inmates whose rights were infringed and the hint of possible compensation to these same inmates. The articles have substantiated my distrust of an incompetent justice system and destroyed any hope I may have held about formulating changes by my appearance here today.
It is widely perceived throughout Canada that the justice system is a criminal justice system in which the criminal element have far more rights than the victims. Judging by the report of Justice Louise Arbour and the comments from the Solicitor General of Canada, that perception has now been verified to be factual. When is the demand for more rights and benefits for the accused and the convicted going to end?
The fact that women and children have been beaten, raped, and murdered, and the fact that police officers have been gunned down in cold blood, yet under section 745 their killers become eligible for parole hearings after serving only fifteen years, along with the above-stated Kingston riot issue, illustrates vividly the ineptness and inability of officials in our justice systems and of our politicians to comprehend what is happening in society today. When are the justice system, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, and all politicians who supposedly represent decency and law and order in our society going to show an honest and heartfelt commitment to the ideals of justice and to the victims and the families of victims? It remains to be seen how much longer such aiding and abetting of the criminal society will be accepted by the decent law-abiding society of Canada.
In conclusion, it is my own heartfelt belief that given the smoke and mirrors and the past track record of our justice system and various committees - I don`t find this funny, sir, and neither do the victims - which have accomplished little more than tinkering with various sections of the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, I am not prepared to waste my time and effort on yet another committee, operating at taxpayers' expense, which in my view will not address this issue in a manner expected by the law-abiding citizens of Canada or by the families of victims whose lives and rights abruptly ended at the hands of the criminal element of our society.
.1550
In conclusion, if this committee feels slighted or taken advantage of by my comments, I ask you to remind yourselves how the families of deceased victims feel. You at least have the right and the opportunity to speak out; victims do not. They lost their rights when they lost their lives.
Thank you very much. There is my brief. I'm sorry, but I am out of here. Thank you.
The Chair: Your Worship, I believe there are members of the committee who would like to ask you some questions.
Mr. Martelle: I'd like to stick around, Madam Chair, but I don't really think, honestly, it's going to make any difference. I heard that this may go to December.
Whenever a bill, as I said, that deals with alcohol, which may harm your health, can pass by June, and other less serious issues pass by certain dates... I cannot understand all the years and all the lives that have been lost because government has postured and procrastinated. That is what you call sitting on a fence. That is what you call not caring about victims in our society.
I don't feel my answers are going to make any difference to this committee or to the government. All it will do is sit on a shelf.
Thank you for your time.
An hon. member: Why did you come, exactly?
An hon. member: Goodbye.
The Chair: Colleagues, I'll just call the meeting back to order for a moment, because we do have some other business. I won't comment on what transpired, but we do have other business, including the report of the steering committee that I'd like to get through.
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I have a point of order.
The Chair: Just a moment, please, we have a point of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Did the witness know that there is usually a round of questions after a brief has been presented? I presume he knew that.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, he did, Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: So he simply put on a show and left. That's probably what happened, since he knew the procedure.
[English]
The Chair: This is what happened. He presented a preliminary brief, of which we all have copies. Then he said he had a second brief of which he was going to leave us a copy. He did that. I'm afraid I was taken by surprise.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I have a point of order. Perhaps the clerk can advise us. I understand and I realize that we accept, from time to time, written submissions from people. However, in this case, the stated reason was that he had read a press report that a private member's bill was going to be passed by June. This is the private member's bill, I believe, that was just introduced, or just drafted anyway. That was his reason for leaving.
I'm wondering if we could just strike his submission as opposed to noting it on the record.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Why do you want to do that?
The Chair: I'm chairing, Jack. Let's get a grip here.
Give him a reason, then.
Mr. Gallaway: All right. When people are allowed to give written submissions, they come in a certain form. When people make verbal presentations, they stay and permit the committee to ask questions. He has come in here and made certain statements that cannot be in any way questioned by the committee. He left obviously in somewhat of a tantrum mood.
Having regard for the fact that we were not allowed to ask him questions, I think that under those circumstances we don't necessarily have to accept his so-called written submission, which was a stated one. Although he did bring a copy of a speech, he didn't leave it all. We were not afforded the opportunity to ask questions. Under those circumstances, are we allowed to strike it? I don't know.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, do you have a comment?
.1555
Mr. Ramsay: What he had to say is on the record. The committee can either accept it or reject it.
I don't see any reason or justification for striking it.
We must remember that we're going to hear witnesses and we've begun to hear witnesses from organizations that are part of the justice industry or the justice system. I wish he would have stayed, because there are questions that I wanted to ask him. But he represents an elected position within the province of Ontario, and he is reflecting a lot of what I have heard from the average individual as I've travelled across the country and had meetings across the country, both within and outside of my own constituency.
If we're upset by what he had to say and if that's the only reason, because it's touching our ego or whatever, then I'm concerned.
I am travelling with this committee, but I'm kind of a reluctant member of it, because I feel that, because the jury is in on a number of issues, there are major things that we could do now to amend the YOA. Do we have to hear more? We heard a number of witnesses on Bill C-37. Their testimony is there. We're going to hear them again.
Yesterday afternoon we heard a witness who simply resubmitted the brief that he had submitted when he appeared before the committee on Bill C-37. I'm not saying we should strike his evidence. To me, it was a waste of my time. I thought he didn't add for the committee anything that we could come to grips with, but I'm not saying we should strike his submission.
I don't think it would be fair to strike this gentleman's submission, either.
So I am strongly opposed to that.
Mr. Gallaway: I'm not suggesting that it be struck because I didn't like what he had to say. I certainly recognize that anyone can come and say to this committee whatever they want to say.
At the same time, I would make the analogy that if I were to appear before his council on a rezoning and say, ``Here are the facts; now I'm out of here, and I'm not going to tell you anything else'', I don't think they would consider what I had to say and I don't think they would proceed with my application.
He is asking us - and we as a committee agreed that he should come here - to feed his information as stated into our considerations in the end. Yet he would not stay and allow us the opportunity to question him to find out if in fact what he had stated was really what he intended to say or really what he meant or to allow us in some way to expand upon, and allow him to expand upon, what he had to say.
As I said earlier, I'm sure that this is a wonderful publicity stunt that's going to play well in the Cornwall media, but the fact that he walked out shows a certain level of contempt for this committee. As a result of that sort of shown contempt, we should just strike from the record whatever he had to say.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): My only point, Madam Chair, is that what has happened has happened and we should accept it as a written submission, as we would from anyone else, and let it go. There's no use in even wasting more time on what has happened.
An hon. member: We shouldn't even be talking about it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Indeed, I won't object to leaving his notes with the committee's report. However, there is a silver lining: since the witness's departure left us hanging, we will be able to go to the cheese tasting at 4:00 p.m. So there.
[English]
The Chair: I've got a little bit of work for you to do first.
Mr. Fewchuk.
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): As a former mayor, reeve, and councillor, I want to put one question to the clerk.
Was there a resolution from that council to you asking for him to come? Did he come with support from council on behalf of his people?
.1600
The Clerk of the Committee: I don't know.
Mr. Fewchuk: He said he was speaking on behalf of his people, the voters - that was my question - and if he does not have authorization from his council, it means he is not speaking on behalf of his people. All I wanted was a clarification.
The Chair: All right, there not being any motion on this, I think we'll just carry on. It's there on the record.
The second thing on the agenda today is the report of the steering committee. In particular, there are several things on the report.
Are we in camera now?
A voice: No.
The Chair: Okay, good. I just wanted to know.
The clerk is distributing or has distributed copies of the report. I'll just go over it with you.
The first item was the continuation of the Young Offenders Act travel. We've recommended to the committee that we do the Ontario phase during the week of May 6, which for some of us would mean travelling Sunday night, May 5. We would go to Toronto and London to hold public hearings, visit sites, and meet with officials, and the necessary staff would accompany the committee.
Just as some background, I would tell the full committee that what the steering committee is recommending is not that we travel to sit in a hotel ballroom in downtown Toronto but that we get out and about, and that in particular we locate ourselves in the suburban ring around Toronto, probably Oakville - Milton, where the Syl Apps Youth Centre is, and Scarborough, where there are a number of victims groups that would like the opportunity to speak with us. We were looking at that and recommending that because it's no less accessible to the people of Toronto to be in the outer fringes. Many committees land at the Royal York and never leave. We thought this might be a better use of our time and a better way of getting in touch with people, which is what this is all about.
About London, in London, Ontario there is a clinic at the family court. It's run by Dr. Alan Leschied, who has consulted with the committee before. The steering committee thought it would be worth while.
Keep in mind that we're dealing with eastern Ontario from the Ottawa base. So we're not trying to cut out any part of Ontario here.
The maximum amount of the budget for the trip is estimated to be $34,413. I'm asking for a motion for that amount.
Mr. Gallaway: I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: The second item on the steering committee report is the main estimates. This is just a matter of efficiency, giving us a little more time. We do have a Sub-Committee on National Security and we are recommending that the estimates for the Security Intelligence Review Committee and CSIS be examined by the Sub-Committee on National Security rather than our committee. Of course they will report to us.
The third part of the report was the issue of private members' bills. You will recall that at the last full meeting of the committee we had a motion to put in place a procedure to deal with private members' bills so we were giving them the respect they deserve. They come from our colleagues. They've been passed by Parliament at second reading. We wanted a way to ensure they would be dealt with on a regular basis or we would at least be faced with them from time to time and they wouldn't just gather dust.
If you will allow me a little editorializing, this is in keeping also with the government's stated position that private members' business is private members' business and it shouldn't be whipped; rather, each member is free to vote as he or she sees fit. The problem with that has become that although it goes through the normal process in the House, because there is no whip on the bill it will sit when it gets to committee unless we adjust the committee procedure to ensure private members' business does come forward in a timely fashion.
.1605
We came up with a plan at the steering committee that would basically result in our making sure that as we receive private members' business it comes to the committee at our next regular meeting and then remains on our books and on our list. If we decide not to deal with it, it is basically adjourned from time to time, but it must be spoken to and it must be on the agenda on a regular basis so that we can't lose it.
Based upon those recommendations, the clerk has drafted a proposal, which as you can see acknowledges our recognition of the importance of private members' business and which basically puts the bill on the agenda at the earliest possible time in order to invite the member to explain the bill to the committee so that the committee can work it into its plan.
Having said that, is there any discussion on this?
Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway: Having been at the steering committee meeting, I thought the intent was that not only... For example, with the private members' bills that are in the in-basket of this committee, we have heard from three out of the four or two out of the three members who were the sponsors of those bills.
I thank the clerk for forwarding to me the agreement reached at the meeting yesterday, but I've written sort of an addendum to it. My understanding was that the whole committee will publicly review the status of each private members' bill at the first full meeting each month when the House is in session, to determine whether appropriate action should be taken in dealing with the bill, and that we would allow the sponsor of such bill to appear at any one of those meetings and allow them up to five minutes to speak to that particular bill.
I'm assuming that if we're dealing with these, they're not going to come and bother us anyway, or if they know what the agenda is in terms of dealing with it, in fact we're not going to have to worry about it. At the most it would take 20 minutes out of one meeting in the first meeting of the month. I just picked a monthly basis.
The Chair: Just to be clear, I think what you're proposing fits with what we were saying. We'd get it onto the agenda at the earliest possible moment before the full committee, and then you want to specify in here that it would come back to the committee from time to time. In other words, it can't be put over by the committee into oblivion. It has to be put over to a fixed date.
Mr. Gallaway: Exactly; it has to be spoken to. It can't be sine die.
The Chair: It can't be sine die, that's right. When I was practising law, sine die was my favourite expression.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): I think we need to make a decision. This is about process, and that's well and good, and assuming that we adopt this process, we need to move very quickly or we're going to look silly. We need to make a decision on how we are going to deal with section 745 or Mr. Nunziata's bill. How are we dealing with Val Meredith's bill? How are we dealing with Madame Gagnon's bill? As I've said before, my own preference is that we just strike a subcommittee and let that subcommittee do the work.
The Chair: Okay.
I'll just go to Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I still object to creating a sub-committee. It is made up of the same members who sit on the full committee. They are, after all, the same people. I can't be everywhere at once, and I don't think you can't either. So there is no point to creating a sub-committee. The same people would sit on the sub-committee. In my opinion, the fewer sub-committees we have, the better.
.1610
[English]
Mr. Knutson: The subcommittee doesn't necessarily have to have the same membership as the full committee.
My concern is that given this committee's agenda - young offenders, a couple of government bills that are coming, perhaps Newfoundland schools, an omnibus bill, a bill on teenage prostitution - I don't think this committee will ever find an appropriate amount of time to deal with the private members' business. It will be up to someone else to find a better process.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I would like to ask the clerk. Don't you have to sit on the regular committee, to sit on the sub-committee?
The Clerk: No.
Mrs. Venne: Not at all?
The Clerk: There is a provision allowing for associate members to sit on the sub-committee. If you are an associate member, you may sit on any sub-committee.
Mrs. Venne: Yes, an associate member of the Justice committee and Legal Issues.
The Clerk: Yes, that happens almost automatically.
Mrs. Venne: Through delegation.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mrs. Venne: Then it reports to the full committee. I'm not crazy about that kind of procedure.
[English]
The Chair: I want to keep your discussion alive, Mr. Knutson, but do we agree on the forum that Mr. Gallaway has proposed as a committee? If we can get that out of the way, then we can go to the specific bills that are there. I think what we're trying to do is to put a plan in place to merge private members' business with the rest of our agenda. If we can get the plan in place, then we can talk about how we're going to deal with these four bills within that scheme.
I see your concern, and I would suggest to you that, depending on what Parliament does to us in terms of giving us legislation, a point at which we shall need some assistance may come. But also it may be that this won't happen. A lot of this legislation has been promised for a while, but we haven't seen it yet.
Mr. Knutson: To close, I'll make one point. If these people, four of them, were to come next week and ask when we shall be dealing with their bills, it probably wouldn't be until September or later. That's just my own view. Given that there are so many other things that likely we're going to have to do, I think that having them come every month and bother us is just going to end up making us look bad.
I'm prepared to vote on the report.
Mr. Ramsay: If we don't clear these bills, then we're going to look bad anyway. If this one bill particularly, the one that deals with section 745, is not dealt with before Clifford Olson has his shot at section 745, which will be in August of this year... I'm glad to be a member of this committee, and I respect everyone on this committee, but if we don't move this thing forward, then I'm going to be ashamed of that particular performance.
We discussed these private members' bills at length yesterday, and it all boils down to whether or not this committee has the will to deal with private members' bills. If it does, then the system, Madam Chair, that you recommended yesterday is going to be very useful to us. If we don't have the will to deal with the bill, then it doesn't matter what system we introduce: it's going to go around and around and leave the movers of these bills from all parties frustrated and we will not be doing our job as a committee.
The Chair: All right, but we need a plan of action to deal with them.
Mr. Ramsay: I support the plan of action.
The Chair: Can we have a motion then, Mr. Gallaway?
Mr. Gallaway: If I could read what I've written...
The Chair: So what you're doing is amending the -
Mr. Gallaway: I'm not amending the report; I'm adding to it.
If you accept what has been printed by the clerk, which is accurate - for those who were at the meeting - I've refined it; I've made it more specific. The whole committee will publicly review the status of each private member's bill at the first full meeting of each month. That's an arbitrary number that I've picked. It's once a month when the House is in session to determine if appropriate action should be taken in dealing with the bill. The sponsor of any such bill will be allowed up to five minutes to speak to the committee at such a meeting.
.1615
That's it. I understood that was the thrust.
Mr. Ramsay: Is five minutes sufficient?
Mr. Gallaway: I picked up to five minutes because at the private members' committee, when a private member's bill is selected, you are allowed only five minutes to speak to the committee as to why it should be votable. I don't know why that should change.
The Chair: If I could just add to that, I think the point is that the member would still comment, as Mr. Nunziata has and as others have, to give an overview. We'd still follow that procedure.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes.
The Chair: This is just to get us going, why we should or should not deal with it at that time, whether they want it to go now or whether they want to wait for six weeks when they can have certain witnesses here or whatever.
Is there any other discussion?
Mr. Gallaway: I'll call it a draft and say that the committee agrees on the following principles, what I read into the record in addition to what is printed.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Gallaway: I will call that a motion. How's that?
The Chair: All right.
Mr. Gallaway: I'll move it.
The Chair: I'll call the question.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Now the current situation - and I'm being mindful of the cheese situation; it's a pretty cheesy bunch - is that on Bill C-235, which is the old Bill C-277, the bill on female genital mutilation, Mrs. Gagnon never appeared before the committee. Of all the four private members' bills that we have, she's never appeared before the committee or spoken to us on anything.
It was suggested in the meeting last night with the steering committee that we at least get her bill up to the same position as everyone else's, regardless of what's happening. We're sure there's other legislation coming, but she may wish to have an opportunity to at least outline her bill to us and we may want to fit that into our schedule. If she wants to, I think giving her one session would be the normal thing. If she declines now, she could still do it later.
Madame Venne is indicating that in fact she does want to. Is that agreeable? That would put all the bills at the same point. We'll ask the clerk to go ahead and work that in when we can.
With respect to the other bills, Mr. Nunziata and Ms Meredith already appeared in September 1995, so we've started with that, and other government legislation is expected. Now we sort of have to do a transitional thing here because we have these three bills on our books. I will suggest to you that after Mrs. Gagnon appears before the committee we'll put them all together and assign that first date, which would be in the first part of May 1996 for the first meeting in Ottawa, and go from there.
Go ahead, Gar.
Mr. Knutson: I hate to be the person who's dragging this out, but if I were Mrs. Gagnon I would want to know what the expectations were as to when it would be dealt with before I came here to do my introductory presentation. I'm assuming - and maybe this is where I'm not of the same mind as everybody else - we're going to be busy either with the Young Offenders Act or with government business from now to the end of June 1996. That's the assumption in the back of my mind, and if everybody else is operating from the same assumption...
.1620
The Chair: We don't physically have any government bills right now.
Mr. Knutson: I realize that, so the assumption is challengeable. But if you work from the assumption, we either have to agree that we're going to work overtime, which generally means evenings, or we're going to take it over to a subcommittee that might work while half of the main committee is travelling. I'm just wondering whether we might push that discussion forward.
It only makes sense to deal with it if everybody shares the same assumption that we're going to be busy. If you think our schedule isn't going to be busy, we can just drop it into our normal schedule.
I am concerned that we're going to have four people appear in front of us and that we're all of a sudden going to get busy with government work. We will put these people off to the fall and who knows when after that? We'll just raise the frustration levels of Mrs. Gagnon and Ms Meredith and we'll end up looking poor on section 745.
Mr. Gallaway: I don't like the idea of discussing section 745 in the context of general principles here because this isn't intended for Mr. Nunziata's bill. We have four bills. It's for everybody's bills.
As for the whole issue of saying that this committee is very busy, that's obvious. Mr. Ramsay was here last February, a year ago. Madame Venne was here when we did C-68. We went for six or seven weeks doing double overtime and all sorts of weird and wondrous things. Yes, it was busy, but that's the load of the committee.
I was trying to give some modicum of dignity to these private members' bills and accord them some level of importance as opposed to saying, well, we're busy in this committee; why don't you find an issue at the Library of Parliament committee because they've got lots of time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gallaway: I don't regard the workload of the committee... It shouldn't be a factor in whether you're going to get a private member's bill through as opposed to some other committee. We have to accept that. If you're a member of this committee, you'd better be prepared to accept that.
The Chair: As a point of information from the clerk, next week we're in the east and then we come back. Do we have things scheduled for that week at this time?
The Clerk: We tried to schedule meetings for Tuesday morning on the Young Offenders Act.
The Chair: And that's it. So, you see, we're going to have that week in which we can start on Mrs. Gagnon's bill and hear her presentation, which will probably be a full session, I would think. Wouldn't you? She'll want to set it out, she'll want to talk about it, and then we'll catch that bill up to where we are. In the meantime, we can plan to go ahead.
I don't think we are as jammed up at this point as we think. Let's see. When the government business comes, we'll slot it in. That's the whole point of this process. After Mrs. Gagnon gets caught up we'll have everybody in together to make their case on when we should go ahead on all the private members' bills. I think we'll probably know where the government is on its bill at that point and we can carry on. We'll just keep working.
Mr. Ramsay: The previous session certainly introduced me to the rigours of membership on the committee.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Ramsay: If we have to work evenings -
The Chair: We have to work.
Mr. Ramsay: - let's get it done. Let's not let the House and our members down.
The Chair: Patricia just told me that we already have some suggestions on witnesses from Ms Meredith and Mr. Nunziata. We should get our proposals from Mrs. Gagnon as well and get others busy on it. Let's just get these lists lined up and see where we're at.
We've committed ourselves to getting everybody up to speed, getting these things on track in this new process and getting our work done.
Mr. Knutson: Okay, fine.
The Chair: Of course, there'll be the days that I have to get my hair done and stuff.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Ramsay: That's why we have vice-chairs.
The Chair: That's right.
.1625
Is there any other business? On Bill C-245, Mrs. Jennings' bill, she's already appeared and we defeated all the clauses. The committee decided not to report to the House. The clerk indicates that there may be an obligation for the committee to report the bill as amended to the House and get it off our books. We just didn't report it.
Mrs. Venne: Do we have an obligation to report?
The Chair: I don't know. Do we?
The Clerk: Evidently. I'm working with some of my colleagues on that and we are preparing a memorandum for you.
The Chair: Okay, we'll get a memo on that and we'll get it cleared up as well.
Mr. Ramsay: Will we know what the legal obligation of this committee is with regard toMrs. Jennings' bill?
The Chair: Yes, we're going to get a memorandum.
The Clerk: That's what I'm saying.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.
The Chair: Okay, we're all organized. Thank you. Happy cheese. We're adjourned.