Information & Ethics Committee on June 7th, 2007

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The suggestion is—and you're next, by the way, Madame Lavallée, so you might as well understand—that the fifth report be amended by adding at the beginning of it, “That the Minister of Justice appear before this committee within 30 calendar days of the resumption of Parliament, and failing that, that the most senior officials”, and so on, the balance of the fifth report. That's in fact the motion Mr. Stanton is moving, and it seems like a reasonable one to me. We can have discussion on the fifth report, but he is moving that. So we'll also have discussion on the amendment.

Is there any discussion on the amendment, Madame Lavallée?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

When we talk about 30 calendar days, does this mean October 17, since we resume on September 17?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No, it does not mean that, because we do not know—I'm sorry, I'm understanding you and I'm jumping in before the translator. My apologies.

We do not know precisely when we will return. If we are to follow the calendar, we will be returning on September 17; however, it is entirely the prerogative of the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I am sorry, but there is a technical problem. The sound went down all of a sudden.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes, it has come down a bit, the sound on the translation. I don't know what—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

We can hear, but as though it were very far away. Could the volume be turned up?

[Le président, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Is that better?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes, but there is no interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes, the sound is much quieter in French than it is in English, there's no doubt. I don't know why that is.

Perhaps we could have complete silence while I just make this point so that Madame Lavallée can hear the translation.

Technically, we are to return on September 17. If that were to occur, the effect of Mr. Stanton's motion would be that within 30 calendar days of September 17, the Minister of Justice would appear here, failing which we would have the senior officials.

If the Prime Minister chooses to prorogue Parliament, it is entirely up to the Prime Minister to decide when to return. We simply have no idea when that might be. There is talk that it might be after the Ontario election, in which case the probability would be that it would be Monday, October 15, in which case the effect of Mr. Stanton's motion would be that the minister would appear within 30 calendar days of October 15.

I really don't see any other way around it, because we have absolutely no control of whether there is going to be a prorogation or whether there's going to be an adjournment.

So that's the answer.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Forgive me, but I wish to make sure I understand. When you talk about calendar days, does this mean days of the calendar or days on which the House sits?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

When I say “calendar days”, it means every day of the calendar. That's exactly why I asked, because I didn't want it to be 30 sitting days because we could be into February. So Mr. Stanton is clear that it's 30 calendar days, which counts every day, including Saturday and Sunday and holidays.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

All right.

I would like to talk about the amendment to the motion itself. I would be in favour of Mr. Stanton’s motion, but I would like our frustration to be expressed in the preamble to our request. We have been asking the Minister of Justice to come and meet with us, or to present us with a draft bill, for a long time now.

In fact, in a motion passed by this committee, we asked the minister to present us with a draft bill by December 15 of last year. But he disregarded that motion. We are after all a parliamentary committee made up of elected representatives. The fact that he brushed off our request, that he did not even deign to answer it in writing or otherwise and that he did not explain why he was not presenting us with this draft bill by December 15, though we had requested this of him, has been very frustrating.

Since late January, we have asked him repeatedly to appear before our committee. To my knowledge—unless you tell me the contrary, Mr. Chair,—he has once again not even bothered to answer our request in writing. This is pretty cavalier on his part. Our frustration has to be expressed. He must be made to understand that this motion is not being pulled out of a magician’s hat, but that it is part of a long process, which has been going on for about a year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Madame Lavallée.

We would be here until September if we tried to draft a preamble that all of us could live with. As the chair, I would be prepared to include in the invitation to the minister a copy of the first report, together with a transcript of this committee meeting that would clearly indicate to the minister the views of at least some of the members on the record, in public session, regarding their frustration. It's entirely up to the minister if he wishes to read it.

I suggest that if we want to move along on this, we not try to do too much drafting, because otherwise we'll get nowhere. I would be prepared, and I don't think that needs to go in the motion—the chair has the residual authority—to include in the letter a reminder of the first report, together with a transcript of this committee hearing.

We have ample time, since we're talking about 30 days from the resumption of the session. I would be prepared to undertake to do that as part of the letter that I send, inviting the minister on behalf of the committee.

Okay. We have Mr. Dhaliwal, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Dewar.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I'm fine, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Peterson.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I have always expected ministers to come before committees when asked to. I don't know of any examples when ministers wouldn't come, particularly when they're responsible for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's my experience. They may not like it, they may try to postpone it, but they do it.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I don't think the issue is the minister eventually coming. It's not like Waiting for Godot--maybe, I don't know. It's a matter of when they come; I think that's the issue.

So on the amendment Mr. Stanton put forward, maybe I'd rather have his original idea. If you look at the calendar, 30 days after the election in Ontario puts us past October 31. The idea is fair, and we've got the attention of the government side, so that's always a good thing.

Perhaps looking at shortening the breadth, and instead of 30, my suggestion is to bring it down 10 days at least. Initially we were saying October 31, and now we're talking about 30 days after October 15. Maybe somewhere in the middle we could look at a compromise, something along the lines of 15 or 20 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Stanton, would you consider a friendly amendment to make it October 31? That would be at least 15 days from October 15, assuming we didn't come back until October 15. It would be longer than 30 days, if we come back on September 17.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

We could amend it to 21 days, or something. That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm thinking we could specifically state October 31: that the minister appear on or before October 31. Is that all right?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I don't see a problem. The only potential difficulty is that we really have no idea when that resumption might take place. It could be the 15th or it could be the 25th.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's correct.