[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 2, 2001
• 1104
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.
[Translation]
I see that we have a quorum.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a chair.
[Translation]
In accordance with Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), our first item of business is the election of a Chairman. I am ready to entertain motions to that effect.
[English]
I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Cadman.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I move that Mr. Andy Scott be nominated.
The Clerk: It is moved by Mr. Cadman that Andy Scott do take the chair of this committee. Is it the members' pleasure to adopt the motion?
• 1105
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I invite Mr. Scott to take the chair.
The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): That's not the enthusiasm I remember.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Welcome, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
The Clerk: You can move on to the nomination of the vice-chairs.
The Chair: My speech will be as follows....
I will now take nominations for the position of first vice-chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I nominate Chuck Cadman.
[English]
The Chair: It has been proposed that Chuck Cadman be vice-chair of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Congratulations, Chuck.
I would now entertain nominations.
[Translation]
Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to nominate Mr. Denis Paradis.
[English]
The Chair: You heard the nomination of Denis Paradis.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We are reorganized.
Having become reorganized, there are a number of items of business that, in anticipation of this moment, we might want to consider. I apologize for the fact that this isn't in the agenda, but I assumed it would be a little presumptuous. The minister is prepared to appear this afternoon on Bill C-15.
If you'll recall, when the motion was passed giving us a timeframe for the consideration of Bill C-15, it occurred to me that we'd probably have to get in touch with officials to see what preliminary work could be done in anticipation of whoever was on the committee. The minister said she would be prepared to be here this afternoon—we've organized to identify witnesses based on the conversations we had in the spring on this bill, in any case—to deal with the first part, the part that would have to be dealt with by the end of October, according to the motion. So if everyone's in agreement, we could have the minister...Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR): I don't expect you to change it at this short notice, and I know the minister's time is valuable. But on Tuesdays, there are House leaders' meetings—every Tuesday—and the Board of Internal Economy. I'm not saying we should cancel her appearance today, but for future reference, I would hope the committee would allow some leeway for Tuesdays.
The Chair: At what time are the House leaders meeting?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Right after question period, at 3:30 p.m., and the board is at 4:30 p.m.
The Chair: Well, today, for other reasons having to do with the minister's schedule, she would be able to appear at 4:30 p.m. We will be hearing bells at 5:15 or thereabouts, for 5:30. Given the fact it's well appreciated that the first elements of C-15 do not engender a great deal of controversy, I think we can perhaps get through that in short order this afternoon. We'll ask the minister to only speak to part 1, and we can then invite her back to speak to part 2 at a more appropriate time, if everyone's in agreement.
That would be this afternoon at 4:30 p.m., and, since you didn't get notice, I would like to advise that it is in room 371. Thank you very much.
I now need agreement from the committee to split the bill, so that we can in fact ask that two bills be printed. There is no precedent for this. It was the unanimous will of the House, so I don't think we're treading on any difficult ground, but I'm told the last time a bill was split in this fashion was in 1889.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]...Ivan?
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): I remember it well.
• 1110
The Chair: If I may, can I have agreement from the committee today that we can do that, so that legislative services can provide us with two bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Also, we need agreement on the timetable. As was determined in the House last week, we want to get this done by October 30. We have therefore made arrangements so that we can hear witnesses tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 p.m., and on Thursday morning.
I'd like to start at 9 o'clock on Thursday morning, and then we can finish as early on Thursday as possible. Again, since we haven't had a chance to discuss this in any detail, I'm asking for a little bit of indulgence here. I'd like to proceed on Thursday morning, again on part 1 of Bill C-15, to hear witnesses we feel are necessary in order to get this passed by October 30.
Mr. Peter MacKay: That's at 9 a.m. on Thursday?
The Chair: Yes, we would start at 9 o'clock Thursday morning, if it's the will of the committee. It's my impression—I may be wrong, so correct me—that we would prefer to meet as early as possible on Thursday, in order that we're done as early as possible that day.
Mr. Ivan Grose: And Wednesday?
The Chair: Our normal sitting time on Wednesday afternoons is from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. That doesn't constitute a problem.
There are all kinds of advantages to having two House leaders on our committee, but I guess there are disadvantages as well from time to time.
Just for everybody's schedules, given the witnesses we have been able to arrange for Wednesday afternoon, the meeting may in fact go from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m.
I'm advised by the clerk on the way to proceed on the splitting of the bill. A motion has been made available to everybody, and I'd like a mover for that motion, please.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I so move.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): I'll second that.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Okay. I'll now be reporting the splitting of the bill back to the House. I'm advised by the clerk that this is the way we should proceed to do this.
Last spring, Mr. Blaikie brought up the fact that the justice committee has not historically had a steering committee. I would like to put that on the table, in order for us to think about how we might organize a work plan, particularly now that it's going to be extremely difficult to organize. We're going to be so busy that we may in fact wish to do that. I don't think we need to make that kind of decision today, but I do want to advise that I'm open to consideration of that. It has not been the case here, but it might be necessary because we are going to be so busy.
I need to seek your concurrence to secure some money. I'm told the amount is $66,700. This is simply what we will require to conduct our business as we would anticipate it at this point, and to get copies of Martin's Annual Criminal Code and other incidentals.
Could I have a motion to that effect?
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I so move.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'll second that.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: I want to bring to your attention the various pieces of business that I don't want to see get lost over the next couple of weeks.
Of course, we have the second part of Bill C-15, which we are obliged to report back by the end of November. I think we can anticipate legislation regarding terrorism. We have two motions by Mr. Sorenson in terms of calling on...Kevin, would you remind me of the two? Was it the RCMP and CSIS?
• 1115
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Yes, CSIS.
The Chair: We have received that. We have the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act proposal. That will require us...in fact, I think I might do that right now.
In the last session, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposal was tabled in the House. I understand that the way this works traditionally is that we would ask the research staff to go through that paper in order to identify those things that might be contentious. It is understood that this is not contentious. It's the understanding that, with the way this is done, it is in fact general housekeeping. But just to make sure, the staff is asked to bring forward and red flag anything that might be considered contentious for the committee. Then, if there is in fact something members of the committee would not like to see us take back to the House, it is omitted.
Is that a correct interpretation of what happens?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes.
The Chair: So if I can have your blessing to instruct the research staff to begin that process, we can expedite this as quickly as possible. Understood?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
We also have the mental health provisions of the Criminal Code, which are now...Madam Clerk or Phil, maybe you could tell us how overdue we are.
Mr. Philip Rosen (Committee Researcher): Chair, I think we are probably about four or five years overdue in terms of conducting a review of this provision. A predecessor to this committee was briefed on these matters in 1999.
The Chair: As a group of Parliamentarians wanting to do this, and recognizing the other things on our schedule, let us try to put our minds to the need to get on with this.
Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I don't mean to pre-empt you, but, given what we have on this schedule, and recognizing that even with these timelines...I'm not making a formal motion, but I would ask that the committee perhaps consider setting up a special committee on terrorism in order to deal with proposed legislation or to deal with the subject generally in assistance of the ministry. I think this is something that really has to be given the utmost priority, and I would suggest this is the committee that, above all, maybe with the exception of immigration or defence, should be moving right away on the issue.
The Chair: Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Chairman, I had provided a copy of a draft. It's a notice of motion that would re-establish the national security subcommittee as a subcommittee of the justice committee. I haven't circulated it generally because I don't have the previously incarnated translation, and I only have an English version. If this is a good point to mention it—I was going to raise it as another item of business—I have submitted it as a notice of motion. There will need to be some time to consult with opposition critics and some people on the government side to make sure we have it right, and if the committee has a will to do it, the committee will do it.
The justice committee had a national security subcommittee, either as a special committee or as a subcommittee, between 1989 and 1997. Because of, let's just call it staffing—in 1997, the government majority was relatively thin—it was believed to be a luxury to have a subcommittee just because of the difficulty of populating it, so there has not been a subcommittee for the last four years. But that subcommittee functioned very usefully in its period—and Mr. Rosen was very closely connected as researcher for that subcommittee.
I am a strong advocate of this, and I hope to be able to speak with some of the opposition members over the next day or two before I actually move the motion. The notice is there, and the draft is there for your consideration. I hope to have the French version very shortly.
The Chair: I have Mr. Sorenson, then Mr. McKay, and then Madam Catterall.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I'll pass. I was going to ask him when it last sat, but he answered that question.
The Chair: Mr. McKay.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): If this is the point at which we're debating this motion or are close to debating this motion—I'm not quite sure of the order—I would strongly support both Derek's and Peter's interventions. I think this is the absolutely ideal committee to be dealing with conflicting views on security. It certainly would take in finance elements. It takes in foreign affairs elements. It takes in...obviously, we have to be fairly mindful of charter elements. I can't imagine a committee that is more properly constituted to deal with issues relating to security than this one, and I would support Derek's initiative completely.
• 1120
The Chair: Ms. Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I just wanted to comment that any of you who need advice on your stock portfolio should hire Derek. It was at least a week before September 11 that Derek spoke to me about the need to re-establish this subcommittee and expressed his interest in chairing it. I think events have demonstrated that, if there was a need for it then, Derek, there is a need now more than ever for this committee to be established on an urgent basis and to begin work immediately. And I don't doubt there will be work that involves the main committee as well in parallel with this, Mr. Chair, so I hope we can proceed with it fairly quickly.
The Chair: Actually, with consent—and I can also understand why consent might be denied—I would say there's very little doubt in my mind that we would want to strike such a committee, and I don't think there's going to be much problem with Mr. Lee being the chair. Subject to any details beyond that, Mr. Lee, having discussed this with members of all parties at this table, could we proceed to suggest that the committee would be struck, that Mr. Lee will chair it, and that we'll then mandate him to go forward to meet with everybody and to come back with a proposal as to how this would be done? Does that seem fair?
Bill.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just wonder why we would make this decision before we know what the government intends. Are you saying that if legislation goes through the House and comes to this committee, it won't go to this committee but will go to the subcommittee?
The Chair: No.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: So what's the difference between the legislative work of the whole committee and the work of this subcommittee? I guess that's what I'm trying to get at.
The Chair: I'm simply saying we would see the merit in having such a committee, and I think we would see the merit in having Mr. Lee chair such a committee, given his experience and background in this. But today, without everyone having had more time to think about it, I would rather not decide what it is that they would do beyond that. Whether or not they would take legislation, or whether they would look at a bigger picture, should be left for the discussions that would take place. I just want to give somebody a mandate to proceed to have these discussions, and it would seem logical that it might be Derek. But I wouldn't think we would pre-empt the decisions this committee would make about whether this committee would deal with that legislation or whether they would. Those decisions remain to be made.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Personally, I'd rather have an idea of what the committee is going to do before I agree to adopt it.
The Chair: Vic.
Mr. Vic Toews: I think it's a good idea to mandate Derek to speak to the members of the opposition. It appears this was a subcommittee that was of benefit in earlier years. Maybe if Derek comes along, speaks to all of us, and indicates to us what he sees as the mandate, we can have a better understanding. Rather than agreeing to the subcommittee at this time, let's simply mandate Derek to go out to speak to the various members of this committee in order to see what needs to be done.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Finally, the issue of conditional sentencing is the last item that we have. We have again been asked as a committee to review conditional sentencing. It just reminds us of Peter MacKay's earlier intervention that we're going to have to figure out how to do this work plan. We have a lot of work to do, and I would urge Derek to get to as many people as possible so that we can figure out how we're going to structure this work.
I would ask for a mandate from you to meet with the staff in order to prepare a mandate that I could present as soon as staff can make it available at one of our regularly scheduled meetings, which are now going to take place. It probably won't be ready by this afternoon, but we'll have a meeting tomorrow and we'll have a meeting on Thursday morning. That will then give them the whole week of the break to organize themselves further.
Is there any other business, Madam Clerk? No?
Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews: I'm sorry, but it's just a point of clarification. I don't want to hold up the committee, but in respect of the non-contentious part of Bill C-15, my understanding isn't exactly clear. I understand that we have essentially agreed that legislation will go forward without amendment. Is that right?
• 1125
The Chair: We have the motion, but I can tell we don't have that agreement...no, we don't have the motion.
Mr. Vic Toews: All right. I just wanted to make sure where we stood in respect of that issue. I'm just wondering what the purpose of these issues is. Does anybody need any witnesses on the non-contentious parts?
The Chair: My sense, Mr. Toews, is that, had the kind of consent you're thinking about existed, we would have gotten a different motion. It wouldn't have referred to the end of October. My reading is that, since we did refer to the end of October, there was some intent to hear somebody, otherwise we could have referred to Friday.
We'll be doing a very...in fact, I can tell you who we have on the plan. The minister will appear this afternoon at 4:30. There would be a round table Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. with the Association for the Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and the Criminal Lawyers' Association. There would be a round table, too, also on Wednesday afternoon, following the one I just mentioned, with the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Police Association, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Then, on Thursday morning at 9 o'clock, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, the Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children, and the Canadian Cable Television Association would be here. If you recall, these were all on the list we discussed in the spring, so I don't think we're breaking any new ground. This may be it, but that'll be up to the committee.
Are we agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Is there anything else? No?
That being the case, good luck, Derek.
And thank you very much for your overwhelming vote of confidence, everyone.
We're adjourned.
