[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 5, 1996
.0940 
[English]
The Chair: Let me apologize, first of all, for my tardiness.
We're dealing first today with Bill C-53. From the ministry of the Solicitor General we have Richard Zubrycki, who is director general of corrections policy, and Normand Payette, senior policy analyst of corrections policy. Welcome.
Do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Richard Zubrycki (Director General of Corrections Policy, Department of the Solicitor General): I have a brief statement.
The Chair: Great. That would be helpful. We'll then have questions.
Mr. Zubrycki: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me just begin by saying that the purpose of the bill is to update and modernize the statutory framework for provincial temporary absence programs, usually referred to as TAs, and to provide a greater degree of consistency and standardization on a national basis, while at the same time leaving sufficient flexibility for each jurisdiction to decide how best to manage its own correctional population according to its own requirements.
The bill responds to requests, first of all, by provinces and territories for the modernization of this part of the Prisons and Reformatories Act. The features of the bill were developed by a federal, provincial, and territorial task force of senior officials, and they've been endorsed by ministers responsible for justice for all of the federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions. That was done at a meeting in May 1996.
The features of the bill, therefore, reflect a broad consensus for change among the jurisdictions. As you know, these changes, even though they affect provincial programs, are contained in federal legislation because of Canada's constitutional jurisdiction over what is called the criminal law power. This includes jurisdiction for laws that affect the management of sentences that result from convictions under federal criminal statutes.
In 1992, the statutory framework for TAs in the federal system was updated with the enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which is usually referred to as the CCRA. Changes now being proposed for the Prisons and Reformatories Act are similar to those CCRA amendments.
I will briefly outline what the major elements of Bill C-53 are. First of all, it adds a statement of purpose and principles for TA programs. This is something new for provincial TAs but is modelled on the statement of purpose and principles that was created in 1992 in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and that applied to federal TAs.
The purpose and principles statement provides guidance for the interpretation of the act. We found it useful in the federal sphere to have such a statement to help interpret the act in relation to federal programs.
Secondly, the bill increases the maximum duration of TAs from 15 days to 60 days with explicit power to renew TAs one after another following a reassessment of the case. This change is intended to reflect modern realities, whereby provinces now have to renew those TAs frequently, but without any provision for reassessment in between. So this longer duration would provide greater flexibility, but it would ensure that there is a reassessment of the case before that regranting takes place.
.0945
Third, the bill provides explicit authority for jurisdictions to create additional types of TAs. Right now there is provision only for medical, humanitarian, and rehabilitative TAs. In CCRA we specified a greater number of types and purposes for TAs, but the provincial and territorial jurisdictions have different requirements and different needs, and it was felt that they should be allowed to create their own additional types of TAs as long as they're within the spirit of and are consistent with the purposes and principles specified in the act.
Fourth, there will be the addition of explicit provisions for cancelling, terminating, or revoking TAs, as well as the authority to apprehend offenders on temporary absence and return them to custody. Right now the act is silent on this issue. This will provide explicit authority. It will provide authority to issue Canada-wide warrants and to transmit warrants electronically. Peace officers will be able to apprehend offenders on TA without a warrant when they believe a warrant is in existence and to remand that person in custody for up to 48 hours while they await the delivery of the warrant.
Fifth, there will also be authority for individual jurisdictions to restrict concurrent eligibility for some types of TAs and parole. Right now it's possible for offenders to play one system against the other to apply concurrently for the two. This is obviously wasteful, but it's also very confusing. Jurisdictions will be able to define a dividing line between those two programs as is done right now in Quebec, for example, where a six-month division has been defined.
I think it's important to emphasize that strengthening the legislative framework for temporary absences does not in any way diminish the importance of parole. All provincial and territorial jurisdictions rely on both parole and temporary absences. They're both important tools for them.
Parole is usually a cumbersome and time-consuming process, because it's designed for longer sentences and for more serious offenders. That process normally will take up to six months to complete. But over 85% of provincial offenders are serving sentences for less than six months, and the parole process is not suitable for many of those cases. Provinces and territories do rely more heavily on temporary absences in some cases, but they acknowledge that they needed a stronger and more standardized framework for doing that.
In summary, I would just say that the bill, I think, is an effort to modernize the legislation. It's an effort to provide a more coherent framework and system for provincial and territorial temporary absences, and it is intended to enhance public protection by providing clearer, stricter, and tighter parameters for the temporary absence program, including elements like the requirement for reassessment of cases before granting second temporary absences and providing for the apprehension of persons on temporary absences who are in breach of the conditions.
I should say that by and large temporary absence programs are highly successful. All jurisdictions report success in the order of 95% or greater. That is the same in the federal system, where success rates of 98% and better are not uncommon.
It's cost-neutral legislation. It responds to the requests and the consensus among federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions and reflects a high degree of consensus and cooperation among them.
I think I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair, and respond to any questions members may have.
The Chair: Thank you. Monsieur Bellehumeur, you have 10 minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): For once, I won't use the 10 minutes allotted to me, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: You may have them.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: We have read the bill and we support it. I would simply like some assurances, as you indicated in closing, that the provinces and territories have given their support. According to my sources, this matter was discussed during meetings between the provinces and territories.
.0950
I would simply like your assurances that the provinces have seen the bill, that they have expressed their approval and that they have reached a consensus, if not unanimity, because they will be the ones most affected by it. I would like further assurances from you that consultation did take place.
As a member of the Bloc Québécois, naturally I would like you to refer to the consultation with the National Assembly and with the position it adopted through its Minister of Justice. I seem to recall that this bill was discussed in April, May or June of 1996.
Mr. Normand Payette (Senior Policy Analyst, Correctional Affairs, Department of the Solicitor General): The first draft of the bill was submitted to the responsible ministers of justice last May and they approved it.
After the bill was tabled, we contacted all jurisdictions and asked them if they approved of all of the bill's provisions. We can assure you that all jurisdictions approved the bill as tabled.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I have no further questions.
[English]
The Chairman: We're making up for the time I lost.
Mr. Hanger, you have 10 minutes.
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Thank you, Madam Chair.
When the Solicitor General's office released the communiqué regarding Bill C-53, there was a statement made by Mr. Grey to the effect that the changes will bring the legislation in line with current practices.
I guess I'm kind of curious about current practices. I'm also curious about what happened to the practices prior to this, when the previous legislation was handed down. On the surface it may not seem like much of a concern. Practices change and circumstances change. But I'm going to quickly reflect on another bill that just came through the House - Bill C-41 - and now has hit the street, so to speak, in that attorney generals in the different provinces have given the marching orders, for instance, to police departments and the courts to deal with alternative measures.
What it actually means is that now with alternative measures, instead of having one freebie, so to speak, that the offender may involve himself in, he is granted two. It's not specified in the legislation that he should be granted two.
So there seems to be a trend to keep going down and down and down and to become more and more lax as opposed to enforcing what is there, insisting on what is there, and allowing it to manifest itself in the way that it was passed. Yet the Solicitor General makes it clear that the past has broken down, so to speak, and that we now have to bring in more law to adjust to what is in practice.
Mr. Zubrycki: The current practice is not far different from what is specified in this bill. In practice right now, jurisdictions can grant temporary absences for rehabilitative purposes of up to15 days, they can renew them in so-called back-to-back fashion, and they can grant a succession of temporary absences for virtually any length of time.
In practice they don't normally grant very lengthy terms, and I think 88% are for under 15 days now. But the fact of the matter is that they can be granted back to back. At one time it was believed that this was contrary to the law, but there have been lower court decisions that uphold the practice. Federally we've never conducted back-to-back TAs, at least not for a great many years.
So there is some uncertainty. It's not that the system has broken down in any way, but there is some uncertainty. Provincial and territorial jurisdictions themselves recognize the need for some greater structure to the framework that governs the program.
Mr. Hanger: Will temporary absences still be granted back to back?
Mr. Zubrycki: They will, and it's provided for in the legislation.
.0955
Mr. Hanger: So you could have two 60-day TAs back to back?
Mr. Zubrycki: The added provision is that there will have to be a reassessment of the case before doing so. Right now, there is no such provision.
Mr. Hanger: There's a certain provision, of course, in this act that allows provinces to create different types of TAs, and apart from those that were initially outlined - I think there were some relating to medical reasons and whatever - what do you envision as some of the new creative ways that temporary absences will be granted and for what reasons?
Mr. Payette: Again, the intent is to give the provinces the maximum flexibility to expand the purposes for which they can grant TAs beyond, as Mr. Zubrycki said, the basic humanitarian, medical and rehabilitative ones.
For example, in the federal list here, the purposes for which TAs are granted include for personal development, for compassionate grounds, which would include parenting in order to give the inmate an opportunity to be with his children to maintain family contacts.
Also, federally we allow TAs for programs of a general and specific therapeutic nature. For example, some programs are specific to natives; you have spiritual programs that are specific to them. We have also TAs for community service. Those are the types of purposes that are envisioned; so the provinces can, as I said, create TAs of that type as long as they're consistent with the purpose and principles set out in the legislation.
Mr. Hanger: Who's going to monitor it? It's a federal provision allowing for provincial authorities to exercise their power in that region, but who's going to say what's working and what's not?
Mr. Payette: Ultimately it will be the provincial and territorial jurisdictions themselves, which obviously have the same responsibility on their shoulders as does the federal government to follow the law and, secondly, by the courts, of course. If there are challenges to any enactment or any policy of the province, there will be a challenge that lies within the court. It's hard to imagine exactly who would bring that challenge, but it's like any other piece of legislation.
Mr. Hanger: You point out in your outline that 85% of the offenders serving time in a provincial setting are in there six months or less. In a way, this is not really much of a deterrent when you look at the whole picture of a six-month sentence. For some crimes, I would suggest a six-month sentence is pretty low.
But on top of that, now these subjects are going to be eligible for sixty-day or two-month temporary absence and possibly even some back to back, so it could go as much as four months on a six-month sentence. Is that possible?
Mr. Zubrycki: Yes.
Mr. Hanger: Isn't that sending the wrong message out there?
Mr. Zubrycki: It's not intended to send any message, it's intended to allow provinces to make their own decisions about how best to operate their programs. But I have to say that this is possible right now; provinces can on a back-to-back basis grant any length of temporary absence they so choose. In fact, I think only 2% of all the TA grants are for 60 days. So even though they have that flexibility now, although in a less structured way, they don't use it very often.
But I would have to say it depends very much on the case; depending on the individual circumstances of the case, it may be appropriate or it may not be. The provinces will have to accept the responsibility to make sound judgments.
Mr. Hanger: Will it save the provinces any money?
Mr. Zubrycki: It could, although it's not intended specifically to do that. Obviously, putting someone on the street on a temporary absence is generally less expensive than keeping them in prison, depending on what programs you offer in the community. Of course, if the person is in the community to undergo psychiatric or substance abuse treatment it might be more expensive. Some of these are very costly programs. It really depends on how in the aggregate a jurisdiction administers that particular program.
.1000
Mr. Hanger: Was this part of the discussion? I assume the department had thorough discussions with the attorneys general in the different provinces and correctional officials. Was part of the discussion about how cost-effective this program would be?
Mr. Zubrycki: The cost-effectiveness is exactly one of the paramount considerations today in a world of shrinking budgets. All jurisdictions are interested in making the best use of the resources they have available to them. One way of doing that of course is to use less costly but equally effective and equally safe programs for the lower-risk offenders so that resources can be concentrated on those who require them. With regard to those who require longer terms in custody and more targeted programming, which is very expensive, it allows the flexibility not necessarily to reduce overall cost but to use those expenditures more effectively.
Mr. Hanger: I note also in your presentation that you come up with a statement that 95% of all temporary absences are successful. How do you gauge success? Where do those statistics come from?
Mr. Zubrycki: I have to admit that the statistics on temporary absences are not very firm. It's not an area where we collect data on a national basis very precisely, but these numbers come from a snapshot survey of all jurisdictions that was conducted in 1992-93. Ontario was not reflected in those numbers. For whatever reason, they're data wasn't available. But I've been in this business 30 years and this is absolutely consistent with all the reports I've seen on temporary absence success rates from individual jurisdictions, federally or wherever; temporary absence success rates are very high.
I quote this number from the particular survey that was done in 1992-93, and in fact there is another one that's being conducted today but we don't have the results yet.
In terms of how do we gauge success, it's usually gauged by a return to custody on time without a new offence having been committed.
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, you're well over the 10 minutes.
Mr. Telegdi.
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think it's important to understand that essentially we're dealing with the sentences of two years less a day, which are under provincial jurisdictions. Also, when you extend the TAP, temporary absence program, from 15 to 60 days, you're probably dealing with the reality that what seems to happen in court is that when the judges impose sentence they might impose 15 days - that's always the magical cut - and recommend TAP, after which the institution makes a judgment. Usually they tend to concur with the judge.
This will allow the judge to recommend a TAP on a 60-day sentence, which realistically means that instead of having that person in the position of being under the arms of corrections in the province for 15 days, they'll instead be there for 60 days. I suspect this is something that Mr. Hanger should be cheering about, because what you're doing is extending the jurisdiction of the judiciary and the correctional facilities from 15 to 60 days. In many cases, judges will give 15 days versus60 days because they want the person on temporary absence for whatever reason, but they want to register that they have given a sentence. So from a public safety perspective, it would seem that this is a good move.
.1005
Could you comment on my analysis of this situation?
Mr. Zubrycki: As a general principle, in the criminal justice field today we hope to provide judges and courts with an array of sentencing options that can be best tailored to the individual circumstances of an offender. Where a court deems it appropriate to incapacitate that person, to simply lock them up as long as they can do so, that should be an available option. Obviously, some people do require that kind of treatment.
The vast majority of people who pass through courts pose far less risk, and their personal circumstances vary infinitely. So it is important that judges have various dispositions available to them. On these short sentences, where a court felt the best they could do was to have a person in the community under a form of supervision, with a fairly heavy sanction for breaching the conditions, this would be one option available, to sentence them and recommend the temporary absence program once the correctional officials can put such a program together. It certainly fits into that approach, and in some cases a judge might impose a longer sentence so that they can extend that period of supervision.
Mr. Telegdi: It's important to know that we're not talking about dangerous offenders here. I think it's a point to be made.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.
Are there other questions on the government side? Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I want to clarify one other thing. I notice that in the second clause there is now a provision for revoking temporary absences. Was there not a provision in the previous bill?
Mr. Zubrycki: The act was silent on this fact. In legal terms I think it's probably implicit that the grantor can withdraw the grant, but it was silent. In fact, it did create some confusion, and it's not just a question of being able to revoke, it's also a question of being able to take that person back into custody.
Ms Torsney: I see.
Mr. Zubrycki: Most jurisdictions report good cooperation with the police. If they report to the police that they have an offender on TA who has breached a condition and they want them picked up and returned to custody, the police will comply.
However, the technical response could be, on what authority? I don't have a warrant. I could be charged with assault or whatever if I pick up that person without some authority.
So we've made more explicit the reasons for revocation, as well as the authority to issue warrants, transmit warrants and for peace officers to arrest without warrants. So we strengthened that considerably.
Ms Torsney: At the bottom of the first page there are two paragraphs that I thought were interesting. The second one says ``all available information that is relevant to the case be taken into account''. Can victim impact statements be included in that?
Above that, was protection of society the number one issue in the last bill, or is this also an improvement given that protection of society and the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration in the community are the three issues? Is it also an improvement that it's been listed as a number one?
Mr. Zubrycki: The Prisons and Reformatories Act contains no statement of purpose and principle, so adding this whole section is a reform or an innovation. That particular statement was intended to demonstrate that not only is public protection of greatest importance, it's put together with rehabilitation because all of the jurisdictions held the view that these are part and parcel of the same thing. Especially on these short sentences, it's not providing much protection if a person returns to the community as much of a threat as they were before. Good rehabilitation is the best long-term protection for the community.
Those things are part and parcel of the same idea, so they're combined in one statement.
Ms Torsney: Thank you.
The Chair: Do we have government questions? Mr. Bellehumeur has no more questions.
Mr. Hanger, this will be the last round. Five minutes.
.1010
Mr. Hanger: I need some clarification on the principles that guide authorities on release. Are you saying the protection of society is of the greatest importance? I don't believe it's even listed in here.
Mr. Zubrycki: Yes, in the first principle, proposed paragraph 7.1(a).
Mr. Hanger: It reads:
- ...the least restrictive decision that is consistent with the protection of society and the prisoner's
rehabilitation...
- It's kind of difficult to say what's important there and what's not. Given the trend today, it
would appear that prisoners' rights take priority over many decisions relating to protection of
society. Who's to analyse the protection of society as being the number one and most important
priority?
- The purpose of a temporary absence program is to contribute to the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society...
So the notion of protection of society is reflected throughout Bill C-53.
Mr. Hanger: Yes, but I understand from the review that it is not something that is repeated in Bill C-53, even though it may be stated in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
From your brief presentation and the questions from the different members here, there's another thing that appears to be driving the extended temporary absence, and that is cost-effectiveness. What is the cheapest way to handle it, whether that be placing a prisoner in jail or letting him out on the street?
The Americans completed a study some time ago that clearly points out that with a property offender - not a violent offender - the cost of incarceration is cheaper than releasing that individual so he can go out and reoffend and reoffend and reoffend. The ratio is two to one.
Ms Torsney: How is that relevant?
Mr. Hanger: It's very relevant.
Ms Torsney: We're in Canada.
Mr. Hanger: It's no different here in Canada -
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, just get on with your question.
Mr. Hanger: If we're going to start passing legislation once again allowing for these types of provisions for early release, where is the study in Canada that was conducted to warrant this change in the law?
Ms Torsney: On a point of order, could Mr. Hanger please table his research? If it's a point of asking for a comparison and asking the witnesses to make a comparison, could we please see the research?
Mr. Hanger: I asked the gentlemen here if a study has been done in this country relating -
Ms Torsney: Let's see the study that was done in the United States.
Mr. Hanger: Madam Chairman, I'm attempting -
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, she asked for the study that you -
Mr. Hanger: I don't have it here with me, but I can certainly bring a reference to -
The Chair: Could you provide the reference so that we can look at it?
Mr. Hanger: Yes, I can.
The Chair: Thank you.
Thank you, Ms Torsney.
Mr. Hanger: But I'm asking the gentlemen if any such study has been done in Canada relating to the cost of crime and the impact on society relating to early release as opposed to incarceration.
.1015
Mr. Zubrycki: Madam Chair, there are a great many such studies conducted here and elsewhere. Many of them are contradictory. Much of that research is questioned by other researchers. It's very difficult to say that there is any definitive research.
It's obvious that crime costs the taxpayers money. I don't think anyone would dispute that. It does harm that probably goes beyond any financial costs. That is of concern to all Canadians, not just the government. So I think that goes without saying.
But Mr. Hanger refers to cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness does not necessarily mean cheap. In the discussions we had - all I can really relate to are the consultations we conducted and the discussions we had - at no time did it turn to finding the cheapest way of providing good, sound correctional programs.
But we certainly had a lot of discussions about cost-effectiveness. I think it's expected of government officials to try to be as effective as possible with the resources the taxpayers place in our hands. That's the concern. It's to do with what's most effective with each and every offender, the most serious and the less serious. Here we are, almost by definition, talking about the lower end of the seriousness scale.
The Chair: Are there any government questions?
All right, then we'll proceed to clause-by-clause.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to on division
The Chair: Shall the title pass?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House as the fourth report of this committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your assistance.
We have two motions before the committee on other business. One is from Mr. Gallaway and one is from Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Hanger, will you be speaking to Mr. Ramsay's motion?
Mr. Hanger: I can do that, yes.
The Chair: Does Mr. Ramsay know you're going to do that? I don't want to have to just do it all over again.
Mr. Hanger: It would be best for us to contact Mr. Ramsay. We'll do that right away.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay's office has been contacted, apparently. I saw him earlier this morning, but I didn't think -
Mr. Hanger: Is he on his way over?
The Chair: I don't know.
Shall we move to Mr. Gallaway's motions?
Mr. Gallaway, you have two motions. Do you want to speak to the first one?
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): I have two motions, Madam Chair, but I'm going to withdraw the second one and deal only with motion number one.
The Chair: You only want to do motion number one?
Mr. Gallaway: Yes, that's correct.
The Chair: Did you want to table number two?
Mr. Gallaway: Yes, I want it tabled, but I don't want to deal with it at this point.
The Chair: Okay. Let's start with motion number one then.
.1020
Mr. Gallaway: This is simply for those people who are members of this committee and also the subcommittee on national security. I've been a member of the subcommittee previously.
There was a constant problem for a number of us on both committees. The chair of the subcommittee would schedule meetings when the main committee was also meeting. That not only raises problems for each member, but from time to time it also raises problems with the whip's office, depending on what party you belong to. Also, I dislike the idea that the chair of one committee would tell you to get a substitute.
As I understand the rules and conventions of the House, a subcommittee ought not to meet when a main committee is meeting. Although that is one of the conventions of the House, it's not always followed.
Since the subcommittee reports to and is under the jurisdiction of the main committee, I'm asking that this motion be passed so that I, along with others from time to time who are members of both the main committee and the subcommittee, am not caught in the quandary of trying to find substitutes to attend one meeting or the other. I don't want to find out that I'm not a good member of either committee because I'm not aware of what's going on from day to day. By necessity, if this is allowed to continue, you'll miss whatever is occurring in one committee or the other. I think this is just some direction to the subcommittee, which is directly answerable to this committee.
The Chair: As a point of information, I would tell members that out of the six members of the subcommittee on national security, five of them are also members of this committee.
I know, Mr. Langlois, that it's creating a problem for you tomorrow, is it not? There are three committee meetings tomorrow at the same time. I think that would be the same for Mr. Rideout.
Your motion was brought to my attention on Thursday or Friday, but the problem of scheduling for tomorrow was brought to my attention yesterday by our whip, who seemed exasperated with the situation.
Is there any comment from the Bloc?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have read the motion of my colleague from Sarnia - Lambton and I agree with its contents.
Barring extraordinary circumstances and general agreement to the contrary, the subcommittee should not meet at the same time as the main committee. First of all, it's a matter of courtesy and I believe Mr. Gallaway alluded to this. However, there is also the fact that we must prepare both for the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee and for the other committee at the same time. We are forced to make a choice whereas the subcommittee is a by-product of the standing committee. We shouldn't be forced into making a choice. I suggest the committee find itself another time slot, as it did this week. To resolve the problem, I suggest that the matter be put to a vote once we have dispensed with questions and comments. I will support the motion.
As for the second motion tabled, I realize that it has been withdrawn, but the fact of adopting the first one will I believe resolve the second issue. A subcommittee shouldn't be caught by surprise and wind up with a membership that does not reflect the true makeup of the country's political forces.
I will let the Reform Party members speak for themselves, but it has never been the Bloc's intention to take a committee by surprise. However, it may happen from time to time that only one Liberal member is in attendance and that the Bloc and Reform members present vote and that the outcome is different from what the normal majority would have decided. We follow the rules of parliamentary government by the book, even though this book has never been written.
Therefore, I support the motion of my colleague from Sarnia - Lambton.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any comments on motion number one?
Mr. Hanger: Basically, I agree with Mr. Gallaway's motion. Whenever possible, if you could separate the meetings, it would be good.
Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0
.1025
The Chair: So Mr. Gallaway's first motion passes.
Mr. Gallaway, although you served notice on motion number two, I take it you want to table that for now.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes.
The Chair: Now we have a motion presented by Mr. Ramsay. This is the one with the ruling that is controversial in the mind of the Reform Party. This was Mr. Thompson's motion. My understanding is that our clerk contacted Mr. Thompson, who said he didn't care whether he was present to deal with this motion or not. Is that the case?
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): My understanding was that this motion was to be brought up at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
The Chair: Oh, I have it on for now. Did you want it to be done later? It doesn't matter to me.
Mr. Ramsay: I was prepared to do it later.
The Chair: Oh sure, that's fine. Is there any problem with that for anyone?
Ms Torsney: Is there any reason why it can't be done at the first available opportunity?
The Chair: Well, if the mover doesn't want to, I think we can -
Mr. Ramsay: I would have been prepared this morning, but it was not on the order paper.
The Chair: That's fine. You can do it this afternoon.
Mr. Ramsay: That's fine, then. Thanks, Madam Chair.
The Chair: There's no other business for this meeting now, but we do have a steering committee meeting. If colleagues are available and ready to do it, I'm going to suggest that we just carry on and do that, so everybody can get out of here a little bit earlier this morning. We'll just rise for a minute and regroup for the steering committee.
An hon. member: Our document is not ready.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Then it looks as if we can't do this, because the document is not ready. We'll have to do it at 11 a.m. We have a document that isn't ready, so we will have to meet at 11 a.m. with the steering committee.
The meeting is adjourned.