JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 0942

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

This is meeting nine of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today we're dealing with future business of the committee. Notice has been sent. The agenda is before you.

Just before we get into the business of this—and it is, I think, quite consistent with future business—I want to establish a bit of a ground rule here. At the last future business meeting I chaired, there was some discussion around a motion put by Mr. Maloney around the order of that motion, since notice wasn't given.

I want to articulate for everybody, just so that we're all operating under the same sense of the rules, that my view is that as long as the business being conducted or any motion put is consistent with the business being conducted, it is not, to my mind, a surprise. It is not, to my mind, an attempt to catch anyone off guard.

So as long as there's a notice of future business, and the motion that is put is consistent with the discussion contained within that, I believe it is in order, in the same way we all accepted Mr. Blaikie's motion when it was put. Nobody asked for unanimous consent. I think it was natural that we would proceed in that fashion, because it was quite consistent with the discussion taking place.

I want it understood that if one wants to have the committee consider a motion that would not necessarily be consistent with what is the debate of the day, or not in terms of our ongoing schedule as agreed upon or whatever, then clearly notice would have to be given. Otherwise, if we're having a discussion around something, I would see anything that does not depart substantially from that as in order. That's just so that we all understand the rules as the chair sees them.

• 0945

Now, we have an agenda before us.

Yes, sir, Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Chairman, that is how you see things, but I am not in total agreement with your interpretation. I'll be honest with you, I don't know whether I can question your interpretation or if I have to live with it, but I think we have to make a distinction between what Mr. Blaikie has presented, or even Mr. Cotler, who presented a motion where there was... You did not ask for unanimous consent, but everybody was in agreement with what was submitted. There is a major difference between consensus, where everyone is in agreement on an approach suggested by a member of Parliament, and a motion which falls from the sky, even if it does have a certain bearing on the issue. Who will decide whether it has a bearing on the issue or not? You will. Although you are very impartial, Mr. Chairman, you will forgive me if I don't give you a mandate and a blank cheque as to what will be done in the future. Your interpretation, I believe, runs counter to the rules and what we have always done at the Justice and Human Rights Committee since 1993. I do not agree with your interpretation, which is a dangerous one, especially for the opposition parties.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[English]

The reason I wanted to express myself, I think, was that I didn't want a blank cheque. The amount has been written in, and we all know the amount. The cheque is no longer blank.

With that, according to the agenda for the day—

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): It sounds more like a ballpark figure than an exact amount.

The Chair: Well put, Mr. Blaikie.

I don't think many of these items on the agenda will take a great deal of time, but I do want to attend to them.

The first item is Bill C-15. That's still in the House at first reading, but we can assume we'll be receiving it.

The second, though, Bill C-24, I know is a bill of interest to many members. I wanted to get some sense from each of you in terms of your disposition on this, because I think it will inform our discussions around Bill C-7 in particular. Would anyone like to... We have a list of witnesses for Bill C-24, just so the staff can begin the process of getting in touch with people.

On the question of Bill C-24, we would like to give notice to the people we will be calling. It will be impossible, I think, to set times and dates, but I am in your hands on this. Does anyone have anything to offer on this discussion?

Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Perhaps I'll start with Bill C-24, because I find that it is an extremely important bill and because the Bloc Québécois has been demanding one for several years now.

As to Bill C-24, we do have a certain number of witnesses to be heard, but we do agree with 80% of the bill. We will cooperate with the government so that it is adopted quickly. It is obvious that we want to have some witnesses heard in order to try to convince the government to make certain changes, but generally speaking, I don't have a large number of witnesses for Bill C-24.

As to the omnibus Bill C-15, Mr. Chairman, I have at least four points to make. I think that if things remain the same, on Thursday we will be dealing with second reading in the House. There are four major points to be raised, and I believe that the officials will arrive at the same conclusions as we of the Bloc Québécois have on these four issues. It shouldn't be that big a deal and we should be able to come to an agreement quite quickly. Here again, I would have two or three witnesses to be heard on Bill C-15. As to the others, I'll have to see who you intend to hear.

As to Bill C-4, regarding harmonization with federal legislation, we've already done something similar and it is not a very controversial matter before the Justice Committee.

Lastly there is Bill C-7 that I want to discuss later on. I will be moving the motion of which I gave notice and I want it to be discussed.

[English]

The Chair: I would refer members, including Monsieur Bellehumeur, to the list of possible witnesses that has been prepared already. If the people you are thinking of are included here, let us know. That way we'll know the kinds of numbers we're dealing with.

Mr. Blaikie.

• 0950

Mr. Bill Blaikie: With respect to Bill C-24, I'm just looking at the list of possible witnesses. I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but it would seem to me that we may want to hear from some of the provinces who have major gang problems in their cities. I'm thinking of my own province, where there is a gang phenomenon. It may be that the Manitoba government would have some views on the bill.

Pursuant to that, I'm just not sure, depending on how the testimony goes, whether or not we would want to hear from—and I say this tentatively at this point—somebody with respect to the aboriginal dimension of this, at least in Winnipeg, as to how this bill may or may not work itself out in the context of the aboriginal gangs and related cultures, that sort of thing.

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CA): I echo some of the comments that Mr. Blaikie has stated. One of the things that I find is missing on this list is particular police forces, because particular police forces approach the issue of gangs and investigation in different ways. I think it's very important to have the Association of Chiefs of Police or the Canadian Police Association, but they don't really speak for individual police forces that may have specific needs or concerns.

Specifically, I would like to see the RCMP here. I would also like to see the Winnipeg city police here. There may well be other police forces, perhaps Toronto, and some from the Maritimes, but I think some individual police forces could give us more specific information in terms of the concerns they may have about the bill.

The Chair: Mr. Owen.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to add to that, Vancouver, and British Columbia in general, has a real interest and a real worry with regard to this topic. Two years ago it created the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, which is now up and running, working to coordinate the activities in joint-force operations of all of the various law enforcement agencies against organized crime.

British Columbia has probably the most complex array of increasingly networked criminal organizations in the country. On top of that, although Quebec has a Hell's Angels jurisdiction widely known in police circles to be the most violent in the world, British Columbia has the Hell's Angels jurisdiction that is the wealthiest in the world, which is actually a more serious problem. So I think we should have the head of the Organized Crime Agency and perhaps the head of E division of the RCMP, who have worked on this extensively.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I would like to add to that very briefly. I think we certainly should have somebody from the RCMP, but we also should have city police and municipal police forces from the coast who are dealing with that. I would also ask the committee to consider whether we might go a little bit further afield and perhaps have an American counterpart who is dealing with some of the cross-border crime that is going on.

I know that would be a little bit of a break from precedent, but I think it would be very helpful in our deliberations to know a little bit about the American approach and to get some of their concerns with the cross-border trafficking that's going on with respect to contraband.

The Chair: Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): I'd like to suggest Julian Fantino, who could give the Toronto police perspective, as someone who's been involved a lot in the organized crime aspect, as well as Ben Soave from the RCMP, whose designation, certainly within our jurisdiction of Toronto, is specifically to do with organized crime.

Now, I don't know at what point certain people can or cannot speak to the committee in a public forum, but I'll put those two on the table for consideration.

The Chair: Monsieur Bellehumeur.

• 0955

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If ever the Canadian Federation of Municipalities decided to appear before us, I would like the mayor of Blainville, Quebec, to appear, since he is the one who communicated with me. Blainville was the first municipality in Quebec to adopt and anti-bunker by-law. It would appear that they have some difficulties in applying the by-law. There are some things that we could add to the anti-gang legislation to help them. I am not asking for the mayor of Blainville to appear alone, but he could be part of a delegation from the Federation or part of another group. It will be interesting to hear what he will have to say, and he is interested in appearing.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I think we've identified a couple of things—one, the interest in the bill, and two, I think an expression... I listened to the debates in the House when the bill was introduced, and there seems to be some interest in moving on it quite quickly. So keep in mind, as everybody loads up the process here, that if we can get representative arguments, they don't have to be exhaustive as long as we make sure we have all of them. We don't need more and more people basically saying similar things.

The next bill on the list before us is Bill C-16, charities and security information, but I understand there may be a decision that it's not coming to this committee. It could possibly go someplace else. So I think we should table discussion on that bill for the moment. Similar discussions may take place with regard to Bill S-4, the harmonization bill.

Because we're probably going to discuss Bill C-7 a little longer than the rest, maybe I'll just bring to your attention the fact that next Wednesday, May 9, the Solicitor General will be appearing on main estimates, and the following Wednesday, May 16, the Minister of Justice will be appearing on main estimates.

I would also remind everyone that we still have on our work plan, or under our responsibility right now, a statutory review of mental disorder provisions in the Criminal Code and a request from the Minister of Justice to consider conditional sentences under the Criminal Code.

So there are a lot of things this committee could be doing.

I say all of this by way of bringing to your attention the discussion we will now have on Bill C-7. We have received three notices of motion with regard to Bill C-7. In order of receipt, they are from Monsieur Bellehumeur, Mr. Maloney, and Mr. Peter MacKay.

The first, from Mr. Bellehumeur, requests that the committee call a number of further witnesses. I believe you have a copy of the motion. With that, I think we understand the nature of Monsieur Bellehumeur's argument and the strength of his conviction.

Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I don't know to what extent you will understand my motivation and my position concerning the Young Offenders Act, or rather Bill C-7.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure you at the outset. It is not my intention to stall on this issue. However, I would like the members of this committee to be aware of the importance of this bill. I would like to expand on this by saying that, in Quebec, many believe that Bill C-7 is complex and costly, that it will further extend delays, and that it must not be applied, that it hinders Quebec's approach, as I mentioned on numerous occasions, and as was explained when we were studying Bills C-68 and C-3, as people are now saying with Bill C-7.

As I did, you heard from provincial representatives who came to testify. If I were in the minister's shoes, or with the Department of Justice, I would not be in such a rush to adopt Bill C-7, given that those who will have to enforce it on a daily basis, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, in the Maritime Provinces and elsewhere, think that it is a bill that is far too complex and, if they could choose between money and the amendments, they would choose the money, which more and more resembles Quebec's position.

• 1000

Witnesses who testified before us recognized that the Quebec approach was the right approach, but that tools and money were missing, and that Bill C-7 would in no way improve the situation. On the contrary, it will cost more and delays will be extended, and no one will be able to make heads or tails of it all.

When the minister testified, she told us that amendments to Bill C-7 were in response to the Quebec witnesses' requests. I met with all of them. I met with members of the coalition and the judges that testified before us on Bill C-3, and it is not true that this bill responds to Quebec's wishes.

The witnesses from Quebec called me and I met with them, but they did not have the opportunity to meet with all of the members of the Justice Committee. It would be useful to hear from them before pursuing this. Yes, the minister did make some changes in response to one of Quebec's comments, but in doing so, they destroyed something else which was fine before, and now it is even more complex. We need to hear from these witnesses. They need to give us an idea of the quantity of work that would be required to implement this bill if ever it is passed. The date for coming into force will be extremely important. It must not be set for January 1, 2002. Anyone who thinks that this is possible is living in a dream world. That is what the Minister of Justice is saying.

I have contacted a number of the Quebec witnesses, who gave me dates. It would appear as though a number of them have already contacted the clerk because they would like to testify. We cannot tell them that we will be proceeding immediately to the clause-by-clause study, as the parliamentary secretary is proposing in the next motion that he will table. It is absolutely crazy, Mr. parliamentary secretary. I do not know why you want to do this. We really must hear from these witnesses. They will tell us why they are against this.

I have written to all of the government members from Quebec and I have told them about specific cases. There is a member who was kind enough to answer me. I know full well that it was not her own work, but rather officials from the Department of Justice. I would like to thank those officials from the Department of Justice, because their document provoked a reaction from the members of the coalition. They would like to respond to the government regarding statements and falsehoods that are contained therein. We must give them the right to come and express themselves.

It is ridiculous. Mr. MacKay has also proposed witnesses. It is just as important to hear from the witnesses from the list that Mr. MacKay tabled. We cannot do a quick botched job.

The minister wants to invest some $200 million and then some, apparently. The provinces say that they do not have enough money, and that this figure may represent the cost for the first year. We know how good the minister and the Department of Justice are when it comes to assessing the cost of programs. I remember voting for a bill on registering firearms. I figured that this program would be self-funding every year once the firearms had been registered. I voted, knowing that for the first year, it would cost approximately $150 million. We have now spent $800 million, and not all of the firearms have been registered. And now we are being told that there will be an annual deficit of $150 million to $200 million a year to maintain this registry.

I am not prepared to sign a blank cheque for the ministry of justice. Their assessments aren't worth the paper they are written on. However, I do trust those who will enforce this legislation on a daily basis and who say that it will cost much more than the $200 million that the minister wants to allocate for this, especially, when at the end of the day, it will not attain the objectives set out, both in terms of the delays and of the level of understanding of the legislation.

I would hope that the representatives from the department do not come here just to know what is going on. I would hope that they will take notes when the witnesses speak. Also, I would hope that they will want to hear from the Quebec witnesses. Apparently the 100 and some odd amendments that the minister tabled were in response to Quebec's demands. I would hope that you will at least have the courage to hear from them and that you will not rush this matter.

Mr. Chairman, you know that I am capable of a filibuster if I really wanted to. Once again, I am prepared to have you stay late, because I have quite a few documents. It is not my intent, however I would like you to be as understanding as I am and I would like you to hear from these witnesses. I would be pleased if only for one person, Mr. Myers. I know that deep down inside, he yearns to hear me speak for hours on end. It might give him something to think about. However, I will not stall, quite simply because the circumstances today are not the same as they were in the 36th Parliament. I'm sure everyone understands.

• 1005

I also wanted to say that we should pay attention to what is in the papers. On January 29, in the Gazette editorial... It would be hard to describe the Gazette as hard-core separatists or supporters of independence. The headline read: “The Bloc deserves to be heard”. The article ends by saying:

No Quebecker, whether or not they are a Bloc supporter, wants to see Ottawa interfere in an area where we are successful.

This is regarding the Young Offenders Act. The Gazette states that the government should listen to the Bloc Québécois. You are making a mistake by wishing to pass a bill that no one in Quebec wants.

To the contrary, you should follow Quebec's example. If the Department of Justice has some $250 million to spend, invest that money in the provinces so that they can enforce the Young Offenders Act. That is what is missing for enforcement. There is nothing to guarantee that even with $250 million, with a bill that nobody wants, that it will work at the end of the day.

I imagine that people in the Justice department think as everyone else does. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will not even need to speak out and vote on a motion that was moved with the intention of hearing witnesses on a very important bill and the many amendments that were tabled.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

I think the witnesses to date have indicated that the bill is complex, it's cumbersome, and it's costly. It's also moving money out of the programming areas, as all the provinces we've heard from have testified, out of the real delivery of services and into the pockets of lawyers. That's essentially the testimony from the provinces. So we're feeding the legal machine at the cost of our youth and real programming. I have no doubt that further witnesses will confirm exactly that point.

I still want to hear from other provinces, if we are calling more, but I certainly heard from the ones there, and they confirm the conclusion that I think any reasonable person, looking at the evidence to date, would come to.

Now, I'm not going to participate in a filibuster, and nor could I, in good conscience, support a filibuster, but I agree with my colleague, Mr. Bellehumeur, on the very real, substantive concerns he raises. Confederation is a cooperative effort. If we expect provinces to carry out the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government, at least we can have the courtesy of listening to others who can demonstrate that what we are asking the provinces to do is destructive of cooperation, is destructive of confederation, and is destructive of programming to our youth.

If there is no real will by the government to make even small amendments in the face of the real concerns of the provinces that administer this bill, I don't know the value of hearing these witnesses from a legal point of view or from a point of view of the bill.

• 1010

I think it's important that the record discloses that the minister is proceeding on a bill that every rational, reasonable person realizes will fail. It will fail, shortly, there's no question about that, and yet hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent in a futile attempt to get us past the next election, essentially. We'll see that scenario roll out, and only after we're past the next election will we be in a position to really evaluate. That's what the government is going to tell us.

I think it's very important, and I support what Mr. Bellehumeur is saying in terms of witnesses. I also support Mr. MacKay. If these are witnesses who can contribute in that respect, I think the committee has an obligation to hear from them, to have a few days of sitting and listening to witnesses. When I look at the cost of $200 million or $250 million and I think of what this could do for programming to the children and youth of my province, to see this money going into the pockets of lawyers, decent as they may be—

An hon. member: Honourable people.

Mr. Vic Toews: Honourable people, I agree. But I say that in a time... and I don't exactly agree that the minister is rolling in cash. In fact, it's not her cash at all, it's taxpayers' cash. That cash needs to go back to taxpayers. If it's not going back to taxpayers, it needs to be put into proper programming.

So the few days that Mr. Bellehumeur is asking for in terms of these witnesses, even if half of these witnesses say absolutely nothing, I think is worth the effort. I think we owe it to Mr. Bellehumeur out of courtesy.

I will also support the motion by Mr. MacKay. Who knows, maybe there's a glimmer of hope that somebody on the opposite side will say “Look, we're making a mistake”, and will be able to convince the minister in a manner that I am not able to do.

I'm very discouraged about this bill. I prosecuted under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I had to administer the Young Offenders Act. I can say, after taking one look at this bill, that we are going to be back at this effort in a couple of years.

Let's hear from Mr. Bellehumeur's witnesses. What's it going to hurt, a couple of days? Because $250 million is the alternative. So let's hear from his witnesses.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'll just go on record as saying that I support the calling of further witnesses. I suspect that we're going to hear from the parliamentary secretary momentarily, who will put an end to all of this, so I'm going to take the opportunity now to also go on record as saying that I would like to hear from more witnesses—Mr. Bellehumeur's, my own—who are, in a practical sense, going to have to administer this legislative nightmare that is going to be thrust upon the Canadian justice system.

I would also like to reiterate what has already been said. It's an absolute travesty that we are going to rush something through Parliament that is quite possibly the most important legislation that we will have seen in a decade. We're going to rush headlong for the sake of stifling dissent. Because the more witnesses we hear, the more dissent we're going to hear. The more provinces we call, the more individuals are going to come forward and say “This is impossible. We're not going to be able to do this with the funding that's attached to it. Give us the money rather than the bill.”

I would suggest that these individuals I have put forward on a list—and I realize I'm speaking to Mr. Bellehumeur's list of witnesses—are, similarly, people who are going to be working in the system, who are saying “We will be hamstrung. We will be completely floundering, and frustrated, because we have been given all kinds of new responsibilities but insufficient funding to carry them out.”

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, then Ms. Sgro.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I admit I'm new to the culture of the justice committee. My experience in the past is that there would have been some kind of discussion about whether we were going to hear witnesses, and instead of individual parties submitting motions with lists of their witnesses, there'd be some kind of negotiation as to, first of all, whether we were going to hear witnesses, and secondly, to hear some of Mr. MacKay's, some of Mr. Bellehumeur's, some of mine, some of Mr. Toews', some of the government's, and then we'd try to agree on the list.

• 1015

I don't think this exercise, motions with lists, is a very productive exercise. But I guess what is at stake in the first discussion here is whether or not we are going to hear more witnesses.

Even though I think this is a bad bill for all the reasons that many have stated—it has so many problems—I can see that we will not be perceived by the public to be rushing it through, because they already feel that this bill has been before Parliament for a long time. So not in terms of public opinion but in terms of genuine process, the fact that the bill has been altered, ostensibly to meet of the concerns raised the last time it was before Parliament, it seems to me to be a decent reason for hearing at least some witnesses as to whether or not the bill now does what the minister says it does. To just go on the minister's word, or the government's word, that these concerns have been met without hearing from at least a representative sample of people who will have an opinion on whether or not that has been done does not, to me, seem to be the way to proceed.

I think we need to proceed with this as quickly as possible but as properly as possible. We have other things we want to do. I want to get to Bill C-24 and to Bill C-15. Both those bills contain matters having to do with public safety that I think are very important. But we can't let that become an excuse for not doing at least the minimum of what is proper with respect to Bill C-7.

So I would hope that rather than passing and defeating motions, there might be a will to have a steering committee meeting or something like that to see if we couldn't work out a representative sample of witnesses, hear them expeditiously, and then get on with it.

Failing that, I'll have to vote for motions that contain the ideal of hearing witnesses and vote against motions that say we hear no witnesses.

The Chair: It may be the culture of the justice committee, and it may be the culture of Bill C-7. I think you'll find, as we do Bill C-24, that we'll be functioning in a way that is more consistent with your experience, and mine too, I suspect.

Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: When I moved the names of Julian Fantino and Ben Soave, it was in respect of Bill C-24 and organized crime. I suggested witnesses for consideration. I just wanted to clarify that.

I don't have the schedule in front of me, but you know, as I sit here and listen to some of the colleagues on the other side of the table, it suggests to me that this hasn't had a lot of due process.

If I'm not mistaken, did you not give us a chronology of events as to when this got on the table, how many hours we have listened to witnesses, and where we are today? Perhaps you can go through that, because when I listen to Mr. Toews... And I know where Mr. Bellehumeur is coming from. I would just like to get a bit of comment back from you as to just how much time has been used to date to hear witnesses on Bill C-7.

The Chair: As the table attempts to put that together, I'll say that I think we know that the amendments to the young offenders legislation have been the subject of debate since the government was elected, I think. I don't know how many witnesses there are here. In the last round it was 98 witnesses. Before that, there was a white paper. There's been a lot of discussion and debate around this.

So I think that's known. I think arguments on the other side have been put around the fact that amendments have been made.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Could we add to that list of questions how many amendments between Bill C-3 and Bill C-7? I know there were substantial amendments. How many were not included in Bill C-3 that are now included in Bill C-7?

The Chair: The clerk tells me he can't tell you offhand.

Can we get a rough estimate just for the purposes of discussion?

• 1020

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: One hundred and sixty-six amendments tabled by the government.

[English]

The Chair: It's 106, I'm told. So I think we've had the discussion.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: There were more amendments to the bill than there were witnesses heard on the previous bill.

The Chair: In any case, I think we've had the discussion. We have, I'm guessing, 12 to 14 sitting days before summer. We have a lot of business that we have to conduct. We have two appearances by two ministers on estimates. We have the organized crime bill. We have to put it in context, as well.

I think we've had the discussion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Why is it urgent to pass Bill C-7? I understand, Mr. Chairman, that if a government tables a bill, it wants it to be passed. I do understand that. But I think that a government will table a bill if it thinks that the population wants it. To a certain extent, governments have priorities. I think that our committee should have certain consensual priorities. Everyone agrees that Bill C-24 should pass. We could do this quickly so that everything is passed by June.

Bill C-15, an omnibus bill, apart from a few minor changes, could also be quickly passed.

But regarding Bill C-7, why is it urgent? The provinces that apply the Young Offenders Act told us that they were not in a hurry to pass such a complicated bill. They also told us that they will be short of money and that they are ready to continue with the Young Offenders Act.

My proposal, Mr. Chairman, is that we should pass or work on bills that are not as controversial as C-24 and C-15 and that we get our work done. I understand that June is not far away, but if Bill C-7 does not pass before the June adjournment, it will not be a national catastrophe.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to call the question. We've discussed this. I think everyone knows everyone else's position.

The motion is before you. I needn't read it in total. Mr. Bellehumeur has proposed that a number of witnesses appear.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would like a recorded vote.

[English]

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

The Chair: Let's go to the second motion. We were given notice by Mr. Maloney at one of our earlier meetings.

Mr. Maloney, would you read the motion, please?

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Perhaps the clerk would assist me, since I don't have the actual wording here. The substance of it is that we now move to clause-by-clause of Bill C-7.

The Co-Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Roger Préfontaine): I have it in my minutes that Mr. Maloney moved that the committee not hear further witnesses on Bill C-7 and proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Chair, as you're aware, we adduced the evidence of the previous Parliament, in consideration of Bill C-3, in Bill C-7. We heard from 98 witnesses. There was concern that we hear from more, specifically the provinces. We set aside a week. Four of the ten provinces and three territories did appear.

We've had witness lists presented by both Mr. Bellehumeur and Mr. MacKay. Many of the witnesses we heard from previously in consideration of Bill C-3.

• 1025

Mr. Blaikie also makes a point about the public perception that we've discussed this a lot, and in fact we have, over years. Even when we're discussing other legislation in the House, I hear it certainly from the reform alliance and from the Tories that amendments to a new Youth Criminal Justice Act are taking so long to get here. Mr. Bellehumeur said there's no rush, but why do I keep hearing this as we discuss other legislation, most recently organized crime? We had 106 amendments in response to those witnesses.

You say, “Well, why not have more people back on these?”, but if this was the case, no legislation would ever get through, because we're constantly amending it, either after we hear witnesses, at committee stage, or at report stage in the House. At what point do we say enough is enough?

The essence of my motion is that we've reached that point and it's time to move forward.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: There were more than 106 amendments, by the way. I think that the minister tabled about 166 amendments for Bill C-3. I think it was in answer to Quebec's requests and positions; I repeat this because I think that the government did not hear and that Mr. Maloney did not hear what I said earlier. Now, you do not even have enough courage to hear witnesses from Quebec. Especially as a Quebec member voted against my motion. Ms. Allard, you don't even have enough courage. You did not even hear...

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I am making a call to order. Do I have to listen to Mr. Bellehumeur every time someone speaks out?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, you have to hear me out.

[English]

The Chair: There's a point of order, Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: He has been emoting all morning. Do we have to listen to all that?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Of course you do.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Is that how things will work in the future?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: How come he can speak each time a Liberal member answers?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Just keep it up, Ms. Allard, and you will encourage me to make a filibuster. You will hear me for hours and for weeks on end, if you carry on like that. I am quite capable of doing it.

I was saying, before I was interrupted, that I deplore the fact that the government, which is supposed to have tabled amendments to a bill in order to respond to Quebec, refuses to hear Quebec witnesses who might even support the government because you are so sure of your position. But we know very well, Mr. Chairman, that this does not answer the requests and requirements of the Quebec population.

I was saying that the government was lacking in courage. Besides, there are Quebec members here in this committee who voted against my motion to hear Quebec witnesses so that they could tell us that this does not meet their expectations, that this will eventually fail with its position on how youth should be treated in Quebec. By not receiving those witnesses, you display a flagrant lack of courage. I insist on this point. Mr. Chairman, we should have, and I think that...

Let me take a little more time. I have no problem with that at all.

I sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman, that the government is on the wrong track. We could have negotiated. I might have up to 30 witnesses. I do not know; I did not count them. Perhaps we could have called eight of the most representative witnesses. We cannot simply dismiss people who want to testify.

I would like the clerk to tell us whether anyone was in touch with him, because people have things to say. Among others, from the beginning, the Quebec Bar Association and the president of the Bar supported some of the broad principles in amending Bill C-3. I am quite aware that now the Quebec Bar has lost its great enthusiasm for the great principles stated in Bill C-3. It may be useful to see and to hear those witnesses.

Mr. Maloney, I know that you are responsible, but I do not understand how you can just blindly deliver this kind of order, without doing your work. That is what you are doing, Mr. Maloney, with your resolution and your motion. You are refusing to do the work that you were elected to do. You're refusing to hear witnesses regarding this very important bill and to try to improve it.

Do not try to tell me that we had a White Paper, that we struck a committee, that we did this and that and that we have been debating the Young Offenders Act since 1993. That is true, but we were also told that the provinces had collaborated on this bill. This is false. We heard them one after the other. They all said, loud and clear, that they were not sufficiently consulted, that they were not consulted at the drafting stage, that it is a complicated matter and that this is not what they wanted.

• 1030

The same thing applies to those who implement the Young Offenders Act on a daily basis: you are not consulting them before enacting the law. And then, after having drafted the act, you introduce some 160 odd amendments into a bill of this complexity. This is a brand new bill, and this is tantamount to saying that we do not want to hear any witnesses on this new bill.

Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, the work is not being done correctly, especially as Quebec members are not rising to ask for some of their people to come from Quebec and testify against this bill and to try to convince the government. This is beyond me. It seems that this bill is not all that partisan. It involves neither Quebec sovereignty nor the government's prerogatives.

During 1994-95, you passed a fine resolution in the House stating that Quebec is a distinct society. It seems to me that this would be your opportunity to demonstrate that it is true, that this is worth more than the paper it is written on. This would be your opportunity to show it very clearly in the Young Offenders Act, after having heard Quebec witnesses tell you that they do not want that act, but that they either want to have the right to opt out or to introduce certain amendments.

It seems to me that it would be time for the Liberal government opposite, which talks about promoting the Canadian Constitution and about how it is very open and flexible... It is about as flexible as a two-by-four, since it does not bend very much. It is time to indicate very clearly in the Young Offenders Act that Quebec is a distinct society and that it does things differently, especially that everyone agrees around the table that Quebec does things differently and that we succeed, in contrast to other provinces whose policies on young people have failed, when it comes to reintegration and rehabilitation.

Right now, there are 15 or 16 cases of murder committed by young adolescents in the system in Quebec. There has been no repeat offenders. That is significant. Why would we want to treat them like adults and give them adult sentences? Even if Quebec passed an order with respect to 14 and 15-year-olds, they would still have an adult trial, with all that that entails. It seems to me that you should understand this. You should be able to draft something that would satisfy all the provinces. In the West, this bill is seen as not going far enough. Work with the West to change certain things, but allow Quebec to continue in its present course and apply the Young Offenders Act where there is no agreement on the amendments. But do not put your heads in the sand. Do not close your eyes and say that everything is fine, that there are no problems.

People want to begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill right away. They want to try to gag everyone: opposition members, people from Quebec. Hello, people. We do not want to hear from you. That makes no sense. Wake up! I am talking to you, Mr. Maloney, since you are the one who has taken the despicable action of tabling this motion. I hope that you are paid well for doing this.

Mr. Chairman, it is not too late yet. Perhaps Mr. Maloney knows that he has gone too far. We could take one week to hear from as many witnesses as possible, we could postpone consideration of the bill or we could do something else in the meantime. We have work to do, as you said. We have a lot on our plates. We will not be doing nothing. To my mind, it is much more important to pass a genuine anti-gang law to deal with real criminals than to have stiff measures for 14-year-olds, since they are still developing and can be rehabilitated, as we do in Quebec, whereas Mom Boucher and others like him are hardened criminals. It is time we had anti-gang legislation. It seems to me that we need to work on that as quickly as possible, and not on divisive legislation.

It is obvious that the young offenders bill is divisive. And it is obvious that you have understood absolutely nothing about Quebec's approach, neither the members opposite nor the people from the Justice Department. And now it is a personal issue. You are making it into a personal issue: we will ram it down their throats even if they are opposed, you are saying. The department officials have exactly the same philosophy. They tried to play tough and to meet groups from Quebec. The department officials do not want to listen to the Quebec groups, since they would see that they have failed in their task.

• 1035

Despite all those visits...

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Give me two minutes and I will be done.

[English]

The Chair: You can take on members of the department who are sitting around the table, because they're all in position to defend themselves, but I suggest to you that you go easy on the people from the Department of Justice who are not sitting at the table, because they have no opportunity to defend themselves. I'm sure you realize they're doing their jobs in good faith, and I think as members of Parliament we owe them that dignity.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I am very polite to them, because if I said what I really thought, then I would not be polite. It is just the tip of the iceberg.

That said, I think that you know my position and that you know Quebec's position about the possibility of being heard at least by the committee. The Liberal government will bear the responsibility, as it will bear the responsibility for many things, for passing this divisive legislation, this bill that nobody wants, not even its allies, those that it called its allies, that is, the western provinces. Those who will be implementing the legislation have told us that they do not want it. If you want to bulldoze this through, refusing to listen to your constituents, governing more like an autocracy than a democracy, that is your business. I will have no part in it and I am totally opposed to this motion.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: I want to put a few comments on the record. I am concerned about this motion being brought, and I think I owe it to both my constituents and the broader public in Canada.

Mr. Maloney has indicated that this matter has been thoroughly discussed in a previous Parliament and that there we previously heard witnesses. I want to make it clear that “we” didn't hear them. People like me were elected just in the last election. The member who was the member for Provencher prior to me was a Liberal member. He was a very good member, he was a decent person, and I have the highest respect for him. But he and I disagreed on a number of matters, and obviously the election in my constituency reflected that the people of that constituency had concerns about not the individual himself, perhaps, but some of the philosophy he was representing as a member of the Liberal Party.

Now, 166 amendments have been made. The minister has indicated that she has been responsive, and that we have heard witnesses. I think we have to make it clear that there has not been appropriate consultation, and neither have we heard from an appropriate number of witnesses.

I also want to just briefly mention in respect of Bill C-3 that when Bill C-3 was going through this House, I wasn't a member of this House but a member of a provincial government. I was Minister of Justice in the province of Manitoba. I want to tell you about the consultation that took place.

My staff was allowed to attend meetings with federal justice officials. I could not attend, and neither was my staff allowed to tell me what they discussed. That was the condition imposed upon my staff. So I was responsible for those staff and yet those staff could not disclose what they discussed with members of the federal justice department.

I respected the conditions placed on them, but I thought it was a horrible subversion of the democratic process. In fact, it was the bureaucracy making decisions and keeping the minister out of the loop. That was wrong.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's quite common, actually.

Mr. Vic Toews: My friend Mr. Blaikie says it's quite common.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That doesn't make it right.

Mr. Vic Toews: I've been a civil servant, a public servant, for much of my career, and I never would have thought that this could happen in our democracy. And yet, if that is common, then I'm more fearful of our democracy than perhaps I have been to this date.

• 1040

So not only was I prevented from receiving the details of the discussions around Bill C-3, or Bill C-7, or wherever we were at then—I really didn't know, because I wasn't allowed to be a part of that, nor was I allowed to have the details of that discussion—but when I requested that I attend the hearing as a witness, I was refused because I was an elected member.

First of all I'm denied information that my staff got because I'm an elected member, and then I'm refused the ability to attend because I'm an elected member. Something is very wrong here. What's happening to our democracy? It has become an impediment that I am an elected member.

So I want to put that on the record. The next time I hear about consultation, let's make sure that everybody understands that the elected representatives of the people of Canada received no consultation. Indeed, when we attempted to at least be briefed by our staff, there was an impediment placed against that.

Now we are proceeding to closure. We are proceeding with the fiction that witnesses have been before us, which is not true. Those witnesses were not here. I didn't hear those witnesses. Previously I was refused attendance here. My staff was refused the ability to brief me. That's the true state of affairs here, and I want the record to disclose that.

Those are my comments.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, then Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: On that theme, Mr. Chairman, on top of that, we tried to have the elected ministers of justice come before this committee and they were refused. So at every turn in the maze, so to speak, there's been a blockage in terms of hearing from elected people.

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, for the record, that I think the motion to go immediately to clause-by-clause is a regrettable one, and certainly one I oppose. I think we could have come to some kind of understanding, but it's been clear for some time that this is not where the mind of the government is at on this.

I think there's too much carry-over from the experience in the last Parliament. This is even more incomprehensible to those of us who didn't experience that, but I don't think it's any excuse. I think people should try to put aside their feelings coming out of the last Parliament. That has not been done.

I think the point that Mr. Toews makes is worth dwelling on for a second, because there is this culture in the country of information being available to senior civil servants and to bureaucrats that's not available to political people. It doesn't happen just in the justice area. I'm familiar with it happening just recently with respect to the text on the terms of the free trade agreement. I have reason to believe that bureaucrats across this country had access to the text that was being discussed at the FTAA, and for provincial ministers and members of Parliament and others it was “Sorry, you're only elected, you can't have a look at that”.

So there is this kind of invisible government, if you like, that goes back and forth between provincial and federal bureaucrats. But that's a debate for another day. It doesn't have to do with just Bill C-7. I simply thought it was worth referencing one more time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think what we're doing today is not only regrettable but also quite regressive. It's obviously been the intention of the government for some time. We know that the motion we've heard reiterated was trotted out some time ago. There really wasn't any intention to call witnesses. So it's nice that we've been given lip service today to at least put our objections on the record.

The other thing about the composition of this committee that I think bears repeating or emphasizing is that we have some very capable members of this committee who were added since the election. I say that with great sincerity. We have Mr. Owen, in particular, and Ms. Allard, who bring a great deal to this committee, and who, given the opportunity to question witnesses, I suspect would have done good work.

• 1045

We also have the addition of a justice minister from the province of Manitoba. We have a new, experienced member of the House of Commons in Bill Blaikie, and others who are, I think, great assets to this committee, and who, given the opportunity to question witnesses, would have benefited, not only on behalf of their constituents and their parties, this committee as a whole in terms of making potential amendments to improve this legislation, if that is in fact possible. That's been completely abrogated and thrown out the window by virtue of this government motion.

I really regret that it has come to this point. There were other options available. We could have put other bills ahead of this one, if necessary, or, as suggested, we might have been able to come to some conclusion.

I certainly haven't brought forward a list of witnesses to embark on any kind of delay. These are individuals who are going to be tasked with administering this legislation. They had brought to my attention their concerns, and I had hoped to be able to demonstrate to this committee ways that could have improved this legislation.

All gone. All for naught. It's black Tuesday, Mr. Chair. I think it's very unfortunate that one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last ten years is going to be jammed through and forced into place. It's going to be cross-threaded with our current justice system and it's something that we're going to live to regret for a long time.

The Chair: Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CA): At our last meeting we had three witnesses from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Those are the only witnesses I've ever heard regarding this material, other than personal witnesses from my own community. They were all giving us warnings.

I asked those witnesses that day if they thought it would be a responsible government decision if we approved that bill. Our acting chairman thought I was a little borderline there, but let me say that I include myself when I ask about a government decision, because I take very seriously my commitment to come here and represent my people. I committed to them to come and represent them with honesty and integrity. I am a part of what happens in government. I am not on the government side of the House, but I am very responsible. When something passes in this House of Commons, I also will be associated with it. And I have a hard time always laying everything off onto the Liberal Party. I don't appreciate needing to do that.

I find it very questionable, and I really wonder how seriously we take our individual responsibility and commitment to be as honest about this legislation as we could be.

When I've heard only negative witnesses, how can I be expected to be for the changes here? When I go back to my people, I'll have to say that I voted against it because the only witnesses I heard were not in favour.

It seems to me, as Mr. Bellehumeur has said, it's so important that we get it right. There's so much more we could do with the young offenders legislation.

I was in Toronto last week at the drug treatment court, and I saw there a whole new approach to assist those who were charged with drug offences. I viewed that court with thoughts of “Why can't we expand that kind of approach more into the young offenders situation, and take a more proactive role in that instead of simply allowing others to figure out everything?”

So I would just appeal to our own sense of integrity and honesty. If you fellows and ladies can tell us that you really like this bill, that it's really the answer, and that you're committed to it, then I'd be interested to know that, even.

Thank you.

The Chair: I think that's why we vote, Mr. Spencer.

And now, on that note....

Okay, Madam Allard.

• 1050

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Chairman, I heard the representatives from Saskatchewan and Manitoba last week, and it was not my understanding that they were against the bill. I understood that they were against some aspects of it and that certain provisions were of concern to them. If I remember correctly, they were pleased with other aspects. A representative from Saskatchewan, I believe, said that she admired what Quebec had done, except that when I went to speak to her afterwards regarding what she knew about the Quebec experience, she told me that she did not know anything about it and that she was just repeating what she had heard from the Quebec people. I wonder if there is not an effort to manipulate opinion here.

Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about Quebec's interests and the future of young people. If I was convinced that my government was not interested in these things, I would be very shocked, but I am convinced that this government and the Minister of Justice have the interests of Canada's young people at heart. The current Young Offenders Act has been in place for many years. It was passed in 1986. It needs to be brought up-to-date so that it can better help young people.

I have already begun a dialogue with people in my riding concerned by this issue. I have read the opinions expressed in the newspapers. I find that they are all about the same and that they seem to have been orchestrated by an invisible hand. Without wanting to attack anyone here, I think that, while we are doing clause-by-clause study, we can certainly refer to groups in our own ridings, listen to them and, if possible, improve this bill as it is being studied in committee.

As we saw last week, these people come with a vision that seems to me to be too broad. There are provisions in this bill that are of concern to me as well and I will be pleased to consult the people in my region about it. There is a regional consultative group where I am from, and they have already invited me to discuss this with them. I have already begun these discussions and I absolutely do not see any need to bring all these people to Ottawa yet again. They have already been here.

That is my position, Mr. Chairman. I think that we should support the motion by my colleague, Mr. Maloney.

[English]

The Chair: Let's have the vote. We have heard Mr. Maloney's motion.

Would you like to repeat it, Mr. Clerk, please?

The Co-Clerk (Mr. Roger Préfontaine): The motion is as follows: That the committee not hear further witnesses on Bill C-7 and proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6)

The Chair: Since the motion is passed, that would rule Mr. MacKay's motion out of order.

Having said that, and wishing to proceed with the legislative agenda before us, regardless of how one feels in terms of this, I would propose that we would begin clause-by-clause tomorrow afternoon, and notice will be sent accordingly. That gives people 24 hours in which to prepare.

• 1055

In terms of the question of Bill C-24, the organized crime bill, I take Mr. Blaikie's point. It has been the pattern of this committee not to have a steering committee—for reasons that predate my being here—and perhaps as a group we can come up with a list of witnesses for Bill C-24 that will meet everybody's needs without having to go through the kind of exercise we went through on this.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We don't have to call it a steering committee if we're just going to have a huddle.

The Chair: And huddle we shall.

I would ask everyone to give to the clerk, ASAP, their list of recommended witnesses on Bill C-24 so that we can begin that process now. We'll start doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-7 on Wednesday at 3.30 p.m.

Meeting adjourned.