[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 19, 1996
.1532 
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable Members, I see a quorum. In conformity with Standing Order 106(1) and (2), our first item of business is to elect a Chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I move that Ms. Cohen be elected Chair of this Committee.
The Clerk: Mr. de Savoye moves that Ms. Cohen do take the Chair of this Committee.
[English]
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Could we debate that?
The Clerk: Mr. Strahl, I cannot recognize you because you are not a member of this committee.
Mr. Strahl: I don't want to move a motion; I just want to debate.
Mrs. Ablonczy (Calgary North): Let's solve the problem. I'll ask for debate on the motion.
Mr. Strahl: Any MP can enter into debate.
The Clerk: You have the motion in front of you. The only thing you can do is vote against it or in favour of it.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Why is the motion not debatable?
The Clerk: It is up to you...
Mrs. Ablonczy: I believe any motion is debatable.
I would like to examine some of the positions of the nominee for chair. I think one of the things, as you know, that we have had a great deal of concern about is an action by this committee in essentially rendering a bill before the committee null, void and of no effect, and refusing to report it back to the House from where it had been referred to us.
So I would like to ask the nominee for chair what her position is on the action of this committee and whether under her chairmanship such actions would be countenanced and whether she would continue with this way of dealing with matters before the committee.
[Translation]
The Clerk: Mr. Bellehumeur.
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): What is the point here? We already spent three hours this morning in the House of Commons on a similar question. Furthermore, Ms. Cohen has already taken the Chair. Everyone knows her and is familiar with her work. She may perhaps proceed too quickly at times, but the fact remains that she is an excellent Chair. Therefore, what more is there for us to do aside from dragging out the meeting and debating some point or another. Perhaps I shouldn't say it, but I think we're wasting our time here.
Someone moved that Ms. Cohen take the Chair and the motion was seconded. There is no need for us to engage in ideological and philosophical discussions about the Chair. Everyone knows her. Let's have the question and get on with it.
.1535
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: With respect to my colleague, it may be a waste of his time but it's something that's very important to me as a member of this committee, so I would like to discuss it in the committee.
I think if something is important - and I would certainly suggest that how this committee is going to treat matters referred to it is not a trivial issue, and it's something that I would like to discuss before we choose our chairman. I would suggest, even though we know and love the nominee, that it is something that should be dealt with and there should be some discussion about it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I ask that the question be put, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): I haven't yet spoken, I have called for the question and if I am not entitled to do so at this time, I would like to speak. I began by asking for the question to be put, but if you tell me that I cannot do this, then I will ask to be recognized.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): It's settled, the vote has been called.
The Clerk: I will put the motion to a vote. Mr. de Savoye moves that Ms Cohen do take the Chair of the Committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Some members: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): I have a point of order. Can we have a recorded vote on that, please?
The Clerk: Yes.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Clerk, I now have a second motion regarding the election of the Vice-Chair representing the Opposition. Are you ready to receive my motion?
The Clerk: I'm sorry, but I no longer have any authority here.
Mr. Laurin: Before you relinquish your authority, did you not contend that Mr. White was not a member of the committee?
The Clerk: No.
[English]
Mr. White (Frazer Valley West): Pay attention. I am a member of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you for your support.
We'll move to the election of a vice-chair.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Chair, I move that my colleague, Mr. Michel Bellehumeur, be elected Vice-Chair for the Opposition.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. It's moved by Mr. de Savoye that Mr. Bellehumeur be elected vice-chair of the committee.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. White: Madam Speaker, I want to address an issue relative to the vice-chair's position on this. Is it appropriate to do that now or wait for other nominations for vice-chair?
The Chair: The practice of the committee and the rules themselves provide that once a nomination is in play, we vote on it. We either vote in favour or we vote against and then we move on to the next position. If it were voted down we'd have another nomination for the same position.
.1545
Mr. White: In that case I have a question to ask the nominee before I vote for this position, and I think it relevant to all members of this committee. Would that be in order?
The Chair: Could I have just a minute to confer with the clerk?
I'm ruling it out of order. I'll call the question on the -
Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a point of order. I want to raise a point of order before you call for the vote. I feel it would be in order that we have more than one name before the committee. I feel there is no way you can deny that. I would like to put forward the name of my colleague Jack Ramsay for the position of vice-chair. I feel it's in order to do that.
The Chair: The procedure we will follow is we will have a vote on the name that is before the committee. That's the procedure that's always been followed, Mr. Breitkreuz, and it's accepted procedure for our committees. One name, one vote, second name, second vote. If this one is defeated we'll go on to the next one.
Mr. White: Madam Chair, could I -
The Chair: In other words, I'm not going to stop you from nominating Mr. Ramsay. I'm not doing that. We can have that nomination next, if you want. But we're going to vote on this one first. I will even undertake not to put my eyes anywhere else but on you after this vote is over.
Mr. White: You lucky dog, you.
Madam Chair, just a clarification on your ruling on the point of order. Why is it out of order to ask a question of someone who will be the vice-chair? Is there a reason we can't ask a question of someone who would be a vice-chair of this committee? Can we not ask something about what they stand for or want to do, or their direction? Can we not ask anything? Do we just have to vote and take our chances?
The Chair: We're just going to have the vote and carry on.
Mr. White: Is there a Standing Order or a Beauchesne's ruling, or what?
The Chair: This is the procedure we follow.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Standing Order 10, Madam Chairman, requires you to -
The Chair: If you don't like the ruling - and I'm not saying this to be arrogant - there's a procedure to follow. If you want to follow that, go ahead and do it.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Can I have a question on procedure?
The Chair: Is that a point of order?
Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes. Why does the procedure have to be like this? It seems to me the commitment was made by the government that they would begin to change some of these procedures and open up the committees and be more flexible and give the committees more power. Why can we not then begin to change some of these procedures and make it somewhat more democratic?
The Chair: I think it is democratic. I don't mean to engage in argument, but we're having a vote on this. As I say, there's a way for you to challenge the ruling. I invite you to go ahead and do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Madam Chair, just so that we do not waste our time again discussing matters with which we are already familiar, I ask that the question be put at this time.
[English]
The Chair: The question. All right. All those in favour?
Mr. Breitkreuz: On a point of order -
The Chair: Yes. Sorry.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, I refer you to Standing Order 10, in which it says in deciding a point of order or a practice the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or the authority applicable to the case. I'd like to know for my earlier reference what Standing Order you're referring to in not allowing a question to be put to a nominee for vice-chairman.
The Chair: I'm going to refer you to Standing Order 116.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Madam Chair, once someone has called for the question, can we continue to debate the matter and table other motions?
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Orders don't necessarily apply to all committee meetings.
.1550
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Why don't you just decide...? It would be easier.
The Chair: The Standing Orders don't necessarily apply to all committee meetings. I refer you to Standing Order 116. Having said that, I'm calling the question.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur is the vice-chair.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a point of order. I think you're rushing through this. I had a point of order before that. At least we could have had a recorded vote.
The Chair: If you want it -
Mr. Breitkreuz: It seems to me as if you're pushing things through this committee just willy-nilly, absolutely undemocratically, giving us no opportunity to change some of the procedures that would make this a much more democratic thing. I object to that very strongly, Madam Chairman, and I don't understand why you're doing this.
Why?
The Chair: Because it's 3:50 p.m. and I'd like to get on with the day's work.
Mr. Breitkreuz: This is the business of the government -
The Chair: That's right.
Mr. Breitkreuz: - and to ask for a recorded vote is quite in order in this committee.
The Chair: Well, I'm sure that we can still do that.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I have a point of order. I'm listening to the questions being put as points of order, but it is well known that the committees can decide their own procedure. We have a procedure, and we have developed a procedure in this committee. It's always open to any member of this committee who dislikes either a ruling of the chair or a decision of the committee to move that to the House and rise on a point in the House and the Speaker will rule on it. The Speaker is the final arbiter of what occurs in the committees.
In any event, if any member at this table does not like what is occurring here - and you have made the ruling and we in some quarters will accept it - then more properly, in accordance with the rules, they ought to move to the House and raise it on a point of order.
Mr. White: Madam Chair, this is a question of a point of order and we are attempting - quietly, resolutely, and articulately, I would think - to get a point across here.
Your clerk's decision, if that was the one that was referred to you on Standing Order 116, is in error. I think he should read Standing Order 116. It's not really appropriate to -
The Chair: With respect, it's not the clerk; it's me.
Mr. White: Well, I didn't want to blame you.
The Chair: You can go ahead. I'm a big girl and it's getting easier every day.
Mr. White: It's easier to blame somebody else. I don't see how that is applicable to Standing Order 10.
Ms Torsney: I have a point of order. Maybe the Reform Party could tell us what they really want here and then we could stop pretending that things are points of order when they're really points of debate, and then maybe we could understand what the game plan is and you could spell it out, and then we could say if we agree or disagree.
Mr. Strahl: I want to ask one or two questions of the candidate for the position of vice-chair.
Ms Torsney: Because you want to ask questions about their ability to fulfil the job. Everyone knows what the job of a vice-chair is. It's to replace the chair when that occurs. Either you know the people around this table or you don't. But it's not an all-candidates meeting and there aren't people applying for the jobs. You get a name, you vote for it, and you move on. You get another name, you vote for it, and you move on. Either you agree with them or you don't. What other game do you have?
Mr. Strahl: If you call it a game, Madam Chair, that's the game we have in questioning.
The Chair: First of all, I haven't recognized you, Mr. Strahl.
Let me just say that section 116 indicates Standing Orders applied generally to a committee, but that section has been interpreted - and you may wish to look this up - to mean that this does not mean that we must slavishly follow or that the rules apply in particularity to a committee. This committee has established a way of dealing with things, as have other committees, and what we do is in keeping with what other committees do. It is for that reason that I ruled that we will do one nomination at a time.
Now I'm waiting for the second name to be nominated for the second vice-chair.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I am prepared to move someone else's name.
[English]
if you promise that it will be a recorded vote.
The Chair: All right. You want a recorded vote. We'll have a recorded vote to confirm what has already been established.
Ms Torsney: Are we voting again? I thought we had a recorded vote on this one.
Mr. de Savoye: For the third time. He's an important guy.
The Chair: We haven't had a recorded vote on it, so let's have the recorded vote.
.1555
Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3
The Chair: Nominations for... Yes.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): I'd like to nominate Ms Torsney for the second vice, or the government vice-chair.
The Chair: Mr. DeVillers has nominated Ms Torsney for the position of second vice-chair. Do you want a recorded vote? Mr. Gallaway, would you like a recorded vote?
I'm sorry.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I ask that the question be called, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bellehumeur: While we are at it, let's have a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chair: Those in favour of Ms Torsney for second vice-chair? Those opposed?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: We require a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
We're not doing that?
The Clerk: No, we have it.
The Chair: Oh, we have it. Okay.
Ms Torsney: Can I make a motion to re-employ our staff?
The Chair: Yes, I think they're already employed. They may join us at the table.
We have the fifth report of the subcommittee. We have to do this in order to be able to travel next week.
The Clerk: No, it's only for future -
The Chair: We don't. Oh, for our future.
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chair: Sorry. Okay, then I'm going to start again. I'll just take you through the fifth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of this committee.
The subcommittee has recommended that we continue the comprehensive review of the YOA. The week of October 7 to 11 we would be in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon. The week of October 28 to November 1 we'll be in Alberta, British Columbia... I'm sorry, we'll be in Yellowknife that first week. The week of October 28 we'll be in the Yukon, B.C. and Alberta. And on Friday, November 22, we have the National Forum on Young Offenders. All in favour?
Mr. White: Since I have just seen this fifth report, I note there is nothing here about victims' rights. Is this the place to ask for this or...?
The Chair: I can indicate to you that this matter has not yet been referred to the committee by the government. The motion was to urge the government to do so. It was almost unanimously passed - it may have been unanimous - by the House. I have informed the department that we expect to receive that. I have been told by the minister's office that they heard me and that they'll deal with the minister on it. I'm expecting to hear back shortly, and I think I mentioned to you this morning that you may also wish to remind the minister of it, because it was your motion.
Mr. White: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: We've discussed it generally in steering committee, and we're anticipating doing it right after Christmas.
Mr. White: Thank you.
The Chair: That covers the Young Offenders Act. If there is no problem with this, I'd ask for a motion to approve it.
Mr. Gallaway: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: The steering committee is recommending that we establish two subcommittees to deal more efficiently with two things that are coming up. One is the regulations act, which we received a long time ago but have yet to deal with. It's a pretty esoteric statute, and there are some people in all three caucuses, I think, who are probably very well qualified to deal with it.
So in order that we can get on with all of the other business, including the private members business we have, I'm asking that we establish a subcommittee and let it go off to do that.
We also need a second subcommittee to deal with the regulations under the gun act. That will come up and it will be time sensitive; it will have to be dealt with within thirty days.
Could I have a motion to establish those two subcommittees?
Mr. Gallaway: So moved.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.
.1600
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Chair, I support the idea of striking two subcommittees. I have examined Bill C-25, the Regulations Act. My criticism in this case is the same as with regard to Bill C-17 which amends the Criminal Code.
We do not have the companion to the section that is being amended. I'm convinced that we are going to waste a considerable amount of time once again, particularly as this bill amends several pieces of legislation.
[English]
The Chair: I agree.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: On behalf of my colleague Pierre de Savoye who will be attending, I ask that we be given a copy of this document for our first meeting.
[English]
The Chair: The clerk is explaining to me that there is an extensive background document available, so why don't we get a copy of it over to you as soon as possible?
But I do know you're suggesting that we ask the department to put a briefing note together.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I would imagine that draft gun control regulations have already been prepared. In this case, it would be a good idea for us to have explanatory notes.
The Clerk: We do have notes.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I have been a member of this committee for some time now and it seems to me that some of the regulations have changed somewhat and that it is not to the advantage...
The Clerk: I will check into it.
[English]
The Chair: It's for this very reason I was recommending to the committee that we have subcommittees. We need to have people who can focus on that and concentrate. It's very complicated and there really are people - at least I know there are in our two caucuses - who would get really excited by this stuff. I don't happen to be one of them, but if the department would provide them with that kind of background they can do a good job.
I have a motion. Is there anyone opposed to setting up this subcommittee?
God, it's nice and quiet in here now.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: The motion passes for those two subcommittees, one for Bill C-25 and one for the draft regulations on gun control.
You should perhaps be thinking about who from your caucus might want to serve on those subcommittees, because we will have to formally establish the committee and name them in this committee.
Now, as for government legislation, just for your information, that's what we have to deal with over the next little while. I think we have a lot of work to do, but I think we're on track so we should be able to accomplish it all.
The next meeting of the steering committee is going to be held in the first week of October 1996 to accommodate the concerns you raised, Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: You've just answered my question concerning the case of Marcel Blanchette.
[English]
The Chair: Those will be the first two items on the agenda. Thanks.
Thank you, and once again I thank you for your support.