JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

¹

1540

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, CPC)

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee

The Clerk

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC)

The Chair

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Sue Barnes

The Chair

Hon. Sue Barnes

The Chair

Hon. Sue Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

The Chair

The Chair

Hon. Paul DeVillers

The Chair

Hon. Paul DeVillers

The Chair

Hon. Paul DeVillers

The Chair

Hon. Paul DeVillers

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Hon. Sue Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Hon. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

---

NUMBER 001

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, I see a quorum.

    We can now proceed to the election of the chair. I am ready to accept motions to that effect.

[Translation]

    Mr. Charbonneau moves that Mr. Lee be elected Chair.

    Are there any other nominations?

    Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Yes. I would like to nominate Ms. Torsney.

    The Clerk: Mr. DeVillers moves that Ms. Torsney be elected to the Chair.

    Are there any other nominations?

[English]

    Nominations are now closed.

[Translation]

    Since more than one person has been nominated, pursuant to the Standing Orders, I will now preside over the election of the Chair by secret ballot.

[English]

    Before proceeding, I will very briefly explain how the process will be conducted. Nominations for the chair now being closed, my colleague and I will stand to each side of the table, where we will issue ballots to members. After members have written their choice on the ballot and deposited it in the box, we will count the votes and announce the successful candidate.

[Translation]

    If no single candidate receives a majority of votes, I will conduct a second round of balloting.

[English]

¹  1540  

---

¹    

    The Clerk: I declare Mr. Lee to have received a majority of the votes.

    Before I invite Mr. Lee to take the chair, pursuant to the new Standing Orders, I am to preside over the election of vice-chairs.

[Translation]

    I am now ready to preside over the election of a Government Vice-Chair.

    Are there any nominations?

[English]

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I nominate Paddy Torsney as the government vice-chair.

[Translation]

    The Clerk: Mr. Lee moves that Ms. Torsney be elected Vice-Chair.

[English]

    Are there other nominations?

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, CPC): I will second that nomination.

    The Clerk: Nominations are now closed.

    (Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

    The Clerk: I will now preside over the election of the Opposition Vice-Chair.

    Mr. Toews.

[English]

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): I nominate Mr. Chuck Cadman.

    The Clerk: Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I second that motion.

    The Clerk: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I now invite Mr. Lee to take the chair.

    The Chair: Thank you for your confidence, and thank you to those who sought positions who were elected. I look forward to working with you in the upcoming agenda. Whether it will be shorter or longer, we don't know.

    We have some routine motions that we will go through.

    Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I move that the rules adopted by the committee during the previous session be carried over.

[English]

    The Chair: That's fine. Members see the motions set out on the page in front of you.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Can the clerk please distribute the agenda with the motions? Not all of us do in fact see that.

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau has moved a motion that we adopt all of the motions in front of us. Is it agreed?

    The clerk advises that they are the same.

    Could I make one deletion from that? The motion creating the subcommittee on national security might now be seen to be slightly out of date in that it does not include in its ambit, in its mandate, mechanisms of intelligence gathering that have recently come to light in the Auditor General's report. There is a 200-person unit in the CCRA, for example, that collects anti-terrorist intelligence. We were not previously aware of this. It was always the intention of the committee to keep scrutiny of the intelligence-gathering mechanisms under one roof. I think the motion that is there should be revised, in consultation with our researcher, to ensure that all the security intelligence-gathering mechanisms are referred to in our mandate.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Mr. Chair, I would move that we add the CCRA to the list enumerated in the subcommittee creation.

    The Chair: It's just that there may be others out there, but if you wish to adopt the motion now we can amend it later.

    Mrs. Barnes.

    Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Is there not a new committee being established to deal with security?

    The Chair: I understand the government is working on the creation of a new committee, but it probably won't be ready for a few months.

    Hon. Sue Barnes: I thought it was being set up now.

    The Chair: The chair's understanding is that there are consultations going on with a view to creating a new standing committee or a new parliamentary committee of some sort, but it is not ready for consumption at this time.

    Hon. Sue Barnes: How about if we take all of the normal ones, with the exception of that, and then get the information on that and just go to that particular one, whether it is an amendment or...? Let's get the real information on that one and deal with it later.

    The Chair: Could we stand this part of the motion until the next meeting of the committee?

    Hon. Sue Barnes: Yes, and then we'll just vote on it then, either way.

    The Chair: We'll simply delete that and bring that motion back to the next regular meeting of the committee.

    Ms. Torsney, do you have something you wanted to add?

    Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): That was my suggestion, that we not pass the motion on the subcommittee.

    The Chair: I think those are good suggestions.

    Having said that, all of the motions are up for adoption now.

    I'm sorry, Ms. Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: It is fairly important that the subcommittee get going. On the other hand, is it not possible simply to have an addition to it that basically includes any other department or agency that has a security function? It is my understanding that Foreign Affairs also has a security function within it. I expect Citizenship and Immigration also does, and not only by agreement with the RCMP or CSIS.

    The Chair: If I may address the question raised--and I am not the font of all knowledge here--the motion, as it exists, already attempted to refer to all agencies with whom CSIS or the RCMP service had memoranda of understanding or relationships. That's buried in the middle of the resolution. So it does work in that regard already.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's if in fact those departments do not have their own security service. I expect that they do in fact.

    The Chair: I'm told they do.

    Ms. Catterall is then suggesting that we go ahead and adopt it so we don't lose any time setting up the subcommittee.

    Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I think it was a sound move on our part earlier to dispense with setting up the subcommittee because there appears to have been some confusion. When the Prime Minister announced the creation of a security committee, the latter was to report directly to the Privy Council. To date, an interim committee has been struck, but only to review the Maher Arar case. Perhaps it would be a good idea then to find out what the government's intentions are before striking this subcommittee. We need to know if this is the same committee that the Prime Minister spoke of, because this set-up could result in some confusion.

[English]

    The Chair: We're not really moving quickly towards a consensus. There have been a lot of good suggestions. What I'm going to do now is separate out the subcommittee motion and call it, but I just want to get all the other motions adopted first.

    May I put a question that would adopt all the procedural motions, with the exception of the national security subcommittee motion?

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Now, colleagues, let's just deal with the subcommittee motion. I'm prepared to put it or not, but is there a consensus on whether we should stand it down and bring it up later with some changes or whether we should put it now and fix it later?

    Mr. DeVillers.

    Hon. Paul DeVillers: In light of the obvious confusion over the state of this other committee, I think it should be dealt with at a future meeting.

    The Chair: I don't think there is any confusion about the other committee.

    Hon. Paul DeVillers: Well, we've had about four opinions expressed about what this thing is. I'm confused. I don't know about anyone else.

    The Chair: No, the officials in the government have spoken to me on this more than once. The committee mentioned by the Prime Minister is in the process of being designed--the mechanism, the process--and it will absolutely not be ready before the summer. It's a work in process. So if we wait for that, we won't get any work done in this envelope by a subcommittee.

    Hon. Paul DeVillers: I wasn't suggesting we wait for that. I was suggesting we wait for clarification on the exact nature of this other committee, what its mandate is going to be and what its role is going to be, before we move at the next meeting, possibly, to establish the subcommittee.

    The Chair: That would then, Mr. DeVillers, defer and delay any work by a subcommittee in the intelligence envelope.

    Hon. Paul DeVillers: By whatever period of time until our next meeting.

    The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: It seems to me that the establishment of this committee in fact is another reason for going ahead with the subcommittee as soon as possible, because the subcommittee, having been involved in this work previously, could provide some useful advice to the government, I would think, on how a new committee should be set up and what its mandate should be. I would propose that we might want to proceed with this, unless there is a general consensus to delay it, and simply add, after “other working arrangements”, “and any other security function within any government department or agency”.

    Do we--and I take your advice on this, Mr. Chair--have to exclude National Defence?

    The Chair: The way the motion has been adopted in the past, there is a visible attempt to include all intelligence-gathering operations of the government where there is a connection with the Mounties or CSIS, and that reaches pretty far.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's why I would add “and any other security function within any government department or agency”, because the assumption here is that those functions only occur where there is an understanding or an agreement with CSIS or the RCMP.

    The Chair: If you read the motion the way it is now constructed, at the top of page 4 it refers to “and their relationships with all departments and agencies with which they have a memorandum of understanding or other working arrangements”.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: You've just identified one agency that has its own security intelligence function that is not through a memorandum of understanding with CSIS, the RCMP, or the border security agency. I'm just proposing wording that would capture any other department or agency where we find, similarly, that they have their own security intelligence function, not based on an agreement with the RCMP.

    The Chair: So you want to move an amendment that you've crafted. In the meantime, I'll hear from Ms. Torsney.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: May I just suggest we have the 11 members named as well? Perhaps we could do both things at the same time: get the members named and get their mandate clarified. The chair could then undertake to clarify exactly what it should be, so it's worded properly and we don't amend it now and perhaps have to amend it again when we have identified the 11 members. That could be done soon; it doesn't have to take long.

    The Chair: We are either going to move this motion, amend it and move it, adopt it, or defeat it.

    Hon. Sue Barnes: We'll still have to come back and name the 11 members.

    The Chair: It could be deferred, but I'm looking for consensus here.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I don't think anybody here knows what's going on. What are we voting on? I think the government members need to go back to the government and say, “Hey guys, what's this committee going to be about?” and then bring it back. Do it in a timely fashion so we're not working.... Just defer this thing.

    The Chair: If no one moves this motion we will defer it to the next meeting. If someone does move it, we'll put it to a question and it's amendable.

    Mr. Pickard.

    Hon. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): I see the description of this subcommittee proposition to be very similar to the new department that has been structured under the deputy prime minister. It seems to cover all of the elements that have been put in that--personal security and emergency preparedness. To me, this subcommittee would probably bring all of those security issues together, in trying to operate in parallel with the new structured department.

    Although all the details haven't been worked out on that department, it seems to me that's the issue, and there are probably a couple of other things. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency falls within that area as well, which I don't believe was mentioned there. It makes sense to me to go forward with this and just be prepared, if we don't have committees dealing with that new department.

    The Chair: Is someone going to move this motion?

    Mr. Pickard moves it. We have already had a lot of debate.

    Ms. Catterall has an amendment.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: After the words “other working arrangements”, which you'll see on the fourth line at the top of the fourth page, I propose we add “and any other security function within any government department or agency”.

    The Chair: The motion has been amended by Ms. Catterall.

    Is there any debate on the amendment or the motion?

    (Motion negatived)

    The Chair: Does this mean we will defer this to the next meeting for some refinements?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Before we adjourn, can I ask the clerk about future business?

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: I would like to move that the following two motions be added to the routine motions of the standing committee:

That whenever the Main Estimates or the Supplementary Estimates are tabled in the House, the Committee invite the Minister and any relevant Senior Officials of a Department to appear at a televised meeting, if possible, of the Committee.

That whenever a Chapter of a Report of the Auditor General refers to a subject under the mandate of the Committee, the Committee invite the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and any relevant Senior Officials of a Department to appear at a televised meeting, if possible, of the Committee.

    The Chair: Normally, as the clerk points out, there is a 48-hour notice rule; however, we are setting up the committee. This motion may be regarded as procedural and routine, much like the other motions.

    The motions pretty much speak for themselves. Is there any debate on these two motions? Do members have them? Have you read them? I'll just give you a moment to read those.

    Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I understand from the mover that this is a motion that every other committee passes and that this is fairly routine.

    The Chair: Are there any questions or any debate on the motion? We've accepted the motion. It has been put.

    Seeing no debate, I will call both motions together—Mr. Cadman's motions numbers one and two.

    (Motions agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: The motions are carried. Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

    The clerk informs me, colleagues, that apparently we have two private members' bills before the committee now that have come back to us from the House in the new session--Mr. Mills' bill on child custody and access under the Divorce Act and Mr. Cadman's bill on the Criminal Code on street racing. The committee has seen both those bills before.

    I understand Mr. Mills is having discussions with the Department of Justice, so we might want to wait to see the fruits of those exercises.

    Mr. Cadman, this is your bill. You're probably anxious for it to proceed.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: I would like to see it proceed as soon as possible.

    The Chair: Good.

    There is one private member's bill we should get to in reasonably short order and another one we are waiting on.

    Ms. Torsney, did you have a question?

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: At tab 5, page 2, there is a list of proposed legislation. I believe Bill C-20 was reintroduced, as were bills pertaining to the Divorce Act and the sex offenders information registry.

    Am I the only one who has the binder?

    The Chair: I don't have what you are referring to, Ms. Torsney.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: It was sent to all our offices.

    The Chair: Which are the two bills you have referred to?

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think the bill dealing with the protection of children and other vulnerable groups was reintroduced. I'm not sure if the Divorce Act was, but I think it was, as was the sex offender information registry and the Criminal Code amendments. There's a bill on capital markets fraud and evidence gathering. I think that was introduced as well. There were four bills.

    The Chair: All of those bills have passed committee stage and have been reported back to the House.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay, but the one on the Divorce Act has not been, I don't think.

    The Chair: The clerk corrects me. The Divorce Act bill has not reached the committee. It has not been referred to the committee yet. The three other bills have and they have gone on to better things in life.

    Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind you and committee members that when the House adjourned, we had been debating a motion that had been unanimously adopted by the House respecting the appointment of judges. The former committee had pursued this matter with considerable enthusiasm and I would like us to resume consideration of this important motion.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Marceau has a motion dealing with the scrutiny of judicial appointments that was before the House.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: The motion had been unanimously adopted by the House and the committee had held two meetings on the subject. As the mover of the motion, I attended the meetings along with a professor from the University of Ottawa.

[English]

    The Chair: I take it that the committee had not completed its work on that; there is still more work to do. Let us put that on the future business agenda. Make sure it is there.

    I asked the clerk if there was any business in the pipeline from the previous session. This wasn't mentioned.

    Let me be real clear when I ask the question again. Is there any business left over from the previous session that the previous committee was working on that we didn't finish? What are those items?

    Ms. Torsney.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: This committee has a time slot on Thursday between 3:30 and 5:30. Perhaps we could have the subcommittee on agenda and procedure go through the agenda and get it back to everybody. If there are things that different parties are going to be putting forward and know they want to study, they can come prepared to discuss the other issues they want, and we can have a more focused subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

    The Chair: We're going to need a committee on agenda and procedure. We have adopted it. Its membership is set out--the actual members are not, but the representation on the subcommittee is set out in the motions we've adopted.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: Could those people come back together at 3:30 on Thursday and have all the information so we'll have a very focused meeting on Thursday about the agenda for upcoming business?

    The Chair: What I'll do, if there are no further comments on future business....

    Go ahead, Ms. Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: We have two pieces of private members' business, but what is the deadline for this committee to report back to Parliament?

    The Chair: It's 60 sitting days, which would make it June 1, according to the clerk.

    Ms. Torsney suggests we convene a meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure in order to focus on future business. In view of the fact that there's nothing pressing...Mr. Cadman's bill appears to be ready.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: It's ready, but I would prefer to wait, if possible, for the week after the break. I have to leave this week, and I'm not sure what next week is going to look like for me.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Ms. Torsney has made the very wise suggestion of bringing together the subcommittee for the purpose of fixing our future agenda. Let us select Thursday at 3:30. I think that will be fine. The chair will call the meeting sometime later today or the first thing tomorrow, envisaged to be at 3:30 on Thursday.

    If that's okay with members, we have a rough idea of what the future business looks like now, and we'll refine it at the subcommittee meeting.

    Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, I'm curious as to whether the Thursday afternoon time slot is carved in stone, or whether other options can be considered. Moving the meetings to Thursday mornings might be a better solution for members from the West or from Quebec who need to return to their ridings.

[English]

    The Chair: I think we all want to be very flexible here, given that this is the first meeting being called for the justice committee. We'd better make sure members are conveniently available for that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: All I'm saying is that I would prefer a Thursday morning time slot, if at all possible. I was led to believe by someone in my whip's office that the committee could adjust its schedule, if it so desired. I don't know if anyone else would be interested, for instance, members who have to leave on Thursday to return to their ridings. The committee could meet Thursday morning instead of Thursday afternoon.

[English]

    The Chair: The chair and the clerk will canvass to make sure we get maximum attendance at our first subcommittee meeting. We can target Thursday afternoon, but if we can move it to a more convenient time to ensure more attendance, we will.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think there are two suggestions on the floor. One is about the subcommittee and whether or not it should meet at 3.30 p.m. on Thursday; the second is, should this general committee meet on Thursday afternoons?

    The challenge is that time slot has been established by the House, so you'll be canvassing to get that moved. But you're going to have to see if you can get that within the House process. It's not up to the committee members, even.

    The Chair: No one has proposed moving the normal meeting slot.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think that's what was moved.

[Translation]

    That's what Mr. Marceau is asking. He wants everyone...

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, well, let us take note of the meeting slots already envisaged by the House. It's Tuesday afternoon and Thursday afternoon.

    Monsieur Marceau was suggesting that we try to alter that. Let us deal with that at the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which unfortunately now is looking at Thursday afternoon as a meeting time, but we may be able to move that to a more convenient time.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine then. I therefore give notice of motion that the committee meet on Thursday mornings.

[English]

    The Chair: All right.

    Colleagues, I'd prefer to put this issue of our meeting slots over to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We have no certainty that we can unilaterally move our meeting times as a committee. We're dealing with how the House manages the rooms and the meeting slots, and if we're going to move it, we're going to have to make arrangements to move it; we just can't do it unilaterally. So we can take this up, Mr. Marceau, at the subcommittee, and if you want to leave your motion on the table, that's fair.

    You indicated that you were going to move a motion.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Can I give notice of motion verbally? I want to move that instead of meeting Thursday afternoons, the committee meet Thursday mornings from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

[English]

    The Chair: I realize that's your preference, but I think we had better canvass that amongst all the members, and the best way to do that is to put it on the subcommittee's agenda, canvass the pros and cons, and then make a case; take it up with the membership.

    Your wish to move the Thursday afternoon meeting slot has been noted, and we'll deal with it.

    Is there any further business?

    Seeing none, we're adjourned to the call of the chair. Thank you.