JURI 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, June 1, 1999

• 0915

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): I will call our meeting to order.

I'd like to acknowledge the presence this morning of a study group from Kenya, consisting of four Kenyan members of Parliament and two senior staffers. Welcome to the meeting of the justice committee.

Our first agenda item is the consideration of proposals for a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1998. The committee may recall that we reviewed these statutes last week and went over them in some detail. All the proposals have been circulated, as have been the amendments that we discussed. I would like to call for a motion at this time that the proposals for a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1998, as amended by our committee, be adopted.

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I would also call for a second motion: that the chair be authorized to report the proposals for a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1998, to the House.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): That always makes me a little nervous, Mr. Chair. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, I'm prepared to move it.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I'd like to move for consideration a motion from Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Abbott, we have your motion on the table. Would you like to speak to it?

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Yes, I would.

As a brief history, if I may, it's very clear that the discovery or the so-called discovery of the century was a con game from start to finish. Many clues were available even at the time it was ongoing. Bre-X was a small mining exploration company that traded on the Alberta Stock Exchange for pennies a share. There was an awful lot of propaganda that came out of the company at the time.

I might note, obviously, that the propaganda was coming from the company in Canada, although the find was in Indonesia. And to confuse the issue even further, a major number of the principals who were actually on the ground in Indonesia were Filipino, and most of them, in turn, have returned to the Philippines.

It basically started in 1994. It was a very small company. It told the world that it had found gold of significant value, and it moved its hope for production from 20 million ounces of gold, at that time, to 70 million ounces. Then in February 1997 John Felderhof told an uncritical group of reporters that he was comfortable with a figure of 200 million ounces—quite an escalation.

At that time, in 1985, Bre-X sold new shares on the Alberta Stock Exchange at a post-split equivalent of 20¢ each. A year later they were at $15. The Toronto Stock Exchange ended up welcoming Bre-X, put a seal of approval on it, and drew an awful lot of money into it, to the tune of $16 billion.

At the same time that there was an investigation by the RCMP, there were a number of other investigations taking place. On the Deloitte & Touche website out of Calgary, you will find a 450-page report from an organization, FAI, and it's pretty clear from that one report alone that there is a lot of ground for criminal charges to be laid.

There was an article in the National Post about one week ago that said there were allegations—unproven allegations, it was very clear—floating around as of one week ago that in fact there were directions given to the RCMP, or some wink-wink, nudge-nudge, whatever, at the time the RCMP investigation was undertaken, that they go lightly, particularly on the Canadian side.

• 0920

The investigation is a very strange one, in that on May 4, 1997.... That's a very important date; that was the date on which the Strathcona report came back. The Strathcona report was one that was commissioned by Bre-X and by a number of the shareholders of Bre-X. The Strathcona report said that the whole thing was a scam. It was their investigation on the ground to prove that there were just absolutely dry holes, that there was a salting process ongoing.

The report was received at 11 a.m. on Sunday, May 4. At 5 p.m. the same day, the principals of Bre-X invited the RCMP to come and attend, which they did, and they took advice from the RCMP as to what to do. Within two days of the RCMP visit, there was a full day and a half of paper-shredding going on at the Bre-X office. We know this from a deposition taken from Mr. Walsh, who was the principal at Bre-X. When asked if the RCMP were aware of this, he indicated that they were, that in fact they had been informed by a lawyer of some repute who was representing Mr. Walsh, and this lawyer had undertaken with the RCMP that they were going to be doing this.

It strikes me as unusual that a full day and a half of shredding would have been ongoing with the full knowledge of the RCMP. Further, a full week following that, the RCMP finally took charge of the offices there. When asked why they were doing the shredding, Mr. Walsh said, “Well, we had five interns who were going to be doing promotions for us, and their desks were just absolutely cluttered with paper, so we decided to clear their desks”.

If we can believe that a person who was a multi-millionaire as a result of this find in Busang, having been made aware of the fact that indeed it was a complete scam, would have treated the clearing of these desks as being a priority at that particular point and those were the only documents that were shredded, then I think there are some bridges we could sell to each other.

We have had a situation there where very clearly there were documents. Walsh claimed that the documents that were being shredded were documents that were simply duplicates, triplicates, or quadruplicates of things like press releases. I mean, come on. He said, “Well, the reason we had to shred them was because if we put them into the garbage and put them out back, the reporters would be going through all these bags and coming across notations, telephone numbers, and all the rest of it”.

All I'm setting here is the scene for this: We have a situation in Canada where, as Canadians, we are responsible for a tremendous amount of world commerce. A debacle like Bre-X is a massive black eye on Canada. We have the Ontario Securities Commission, which last Friday said—this is Michael Watson, who said yesterday, as of last Friday:

I think it's safe to say that in relation to that aspect of the investigation we've concluded our efforts.

They are not going to be doing anything more than going after Mr. Felderhof, who they cannot extradite because we don't have extradition between ourselves and where Mr. Felderhof is at this particular point.

• 0925

What we have here is a $6 billion debacle. We have the OSC only going after Mr. Felderholf, and as they say, he's in a jurisdiction where we can't get at him. And we have Canada's national police force, which has said, after an investigation that had more questionable parts to it than the one I outlined by way of example, “We're just throwing up our hands on this”.

I think as members of Parliament we owe it to the Canadian public, certainly to Canadian investors, and to business in Canada to make an effort to at least inquire directly of the commissioner. Should he give us the direction that there are other people who would be better equipped to give us the information, then so be it, but that would be his call and for us to judge.

I believe as the Standing Committee on Justice we owe it to Canadians to make an effort to determine what went wrong in this particular instance in terms of the investigation process, but more importantly, on the basis of what went wrong, what we can do in the future. Obviously this $6 billion debacle is a very black eye on us in Canada, and we have to be prepared to do something about it. So that is the reason for me making this motion.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Lee indicated he wished to speak.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, that was a very long statement explaining the motion, and I'm going to quibble with a couple of points. In fact I'm going to raise a moderately strong objection to the way a couple of things were addressed in the remarks. But I don't want to lose focus on the thrust of the motion here.

Firstly, I don't think it's appropriate for us to continue to discuss this for as long as we shall or may. To characterize the work of the RCMP as being some kind of collaboration with the corporate executive of Bre-X I think is very unfortunate, and I'm sure Mr. Abbott will accept that his characterization of it was at best circumstantial.

I don't mind members justifying their motions and putting forward arguments in support of them; we have to do that. But I think it would be very wrong for any of us to accept that somehow there was a collaboration without having some direct evidence or factual basis for saying that. Maybe Mr. Abbott has. He certainly has a circumstantial context for it.

Secondly, I don't think we should accept prima facie some of the references to statements that were made by someone who's now deceased. Even if the person were not deceased, I think we ought to be cautious about relying on hearsay as we make a decision here.

Now, having said those two things, I accept that this is one of the major or biggest, whatever adjectives we might want to use, stock frauds in a long, long time, and hopefully for some time to come. It's as significant in the securities trading world perhaps as some other criminal acts that have gone on in and outside of the country. So it at least requires a thorough investigation in order to ascertain whether or not there was criminality and if charges are warranted.

I'd like to know that an investigation was done, completed, and closed from the point of view of the police investigating. I think we accept now that the RCMP has closed its file, or at least stopped working on it. There are certainly some questions Mr. Abbott has raised—at least that one general question of if the file has been closed, why has it been closed? This is a pretty big stock fraud. So he's suggesting that we have the commissioner of the RCMP here.

• 0930

If members around the table want to have an answer, I think we should ask. The member opposite isn't going to like this too much, but this being June 1, we're sort of moving toward a summer break, and what I'm going to suggest is going to put us face to face with that summer break. I would have suggested that if we want the answer as to why the file was closed, if it is closed, and what has happened to the investigation, then I think as a committee we should ask the chair to write the commissioner of the RCMP and ask for a reply within a specific period of time, short enough so that we get our answer before the summer break. This is something that could be turned around in a few days. Having seen the answer, if committee members then wish to pursue the issue, we would be at liberty to invite the commissioner on short notice.

To conclude, I see the need to address the issue from a public policy point of view. There are some questions that perhaps can be asked. I think we should use the simplest route first and ask the commissioner to give us a reply promptly in writing. If that reply causes us to want to pursue the matter further and if we all feel that way about it, then we're at liberty to invite the commissioner, as is proposed in the motion. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): That statement was just about as long as the first statement.

An hon. member: Maybe longer.

Mr. John Reynolds: I don't think anybody is trying to attack the RCMP, but it is the largest stock fraud in the history of this country and probably one of the largest in the world. A lot of money has gone missing out of the pockets of Canadians. It has also hurt our reputation. That's probably more important than anything else in this country.

I'm not one to criticize the RCMP, far from it, but in the Airbus affair it was the RCMP that wrote a letter and had to pay a lot of money and make an apology. So there are always questions you can ask in these areas.

I have some serious questions about why an investigation of this type has been stopped. There's enough evidence, as we've seen from private companies that are investigating individuals involved and investigations that are taking place in the U.S. right now, that indicate very serious criminal activity. The fact that after making hundreds of millions of dollars, the person who died left an estate that is probably smaller than any of us would leave if we were to pass away today raises some questions. I know it may be expensive to do all the proper research that needs to be done in order to maybe lay charges in a case like this, but I think we have to leave no doubt in the minds of anyone that those types of things are not going to happen in this country.

Mining exploration has been funded primarily from British Columbia for a long time. We have a reputation in the Vancouver Stock Exchange that has been hard to overcome, but they've overcome it in the last little while. The Bre-X situation didn't happen in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It happened in Toronto. I have a question as to whether the reason it was stopped so quickly was in order not to harm the reputation of that exchange. The question should be asked as to who in that exchange and whether criminal charges should be laid in the exchange for letting this thing get right on to a major trading company.

This doesn't happen. I was a director of the largest gold find in North America, Hemlo, and I know what the responsibilities of directors are in these companies. I know what the responsibilities are in trading stock when you have information in these companies. I've seen people in British Columbia being charged for a lot smaller offences than what we're talking about here.

To me, it just seems that somebody has looked at it and said “What's the cost of this going to be, maybe $20 million or $30 million? No, it's not worth it. Let's put it aside.” But we know they're still doing the Airbus search. Why don't we close down Airbus and put them on this? I think it's that kind of an issue we have to ask the commissioner about. Was it stopped because of money? I know it's going to be expensive. It's all over the world. It's in Indonesia, it's in the United States, it's everywhere. But I think as a country that does most of the mining exploration in the world, it's extremely important for our own integrity for us as parliamentarians to know that the best possible job was done.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John McKay.

• 0935

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chairman, my principal reaction is that I'm not in the business of micro-managing decisions of the RCMP. Usually a decision to prosecute or to proceed with an investigation lies entirely within the purview of the RCMP, and it's usually set up on the basis of whether or not a charge can be laid and a conviction obtained. I have heard nothing that would indicate anything other than the RCMP has arrived at a conclusion that there's either not sufficient evidence to proceed with the laying of a charge, or if there is some evidence, it's not sufficient to obtain a conviction. I would think that is the operating principle of any RCMP investigation.

That leads us into an area where the proponent of the motion rightly says this is the largest stock fraud in the history of the country. The fraud itself actually occurred outside the country, not inside the country, and it will be subject to, I assume, Philippine law.

I took exception to the wink-wink, nudge-nudge comment of the proponent of the motion that seemed, by implication, to link the RCMP into some level of wrongdoing, which none of the material points to that I can tell.

I also note that the principal of the investigation is dead and the other principal of the investigation cannot be extradited. All of this leads me to think that Mr. Lee's suggestion is the most appropriate one in the circumstances for those who feel some inquiry is warranted by this committee.

On the basis of Commissioner Murray's correspondence, if there is some basis for inquiry, then I would revisit this motion. Given this motion as drafted, I would not be supportive of it. I have not heard anything that indicates anything other than the RCMP conducted itself in a proper fashion, given the parameters of the usual RCMP investigation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Yes, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: The case of the fraud took place outside the country. I just wanted to point out that the head office of the company was in Canada. All the phony press releases were issued from an office here, by executives here. The fraud took place right here.

Mr. John McKay: You were saying the fraud took place at the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's inside the country.

The Chairman: Withdraw....

Mr. John Reynolds: The fraud took place inside the country.

Mr. Derek Lee: You said at the Toronto Stock Exchange. I don't think that's fair to the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Mr. John McKay: They conducted their own investigation, as far as I know.

Mr. John Reynolds: And they laid some charges. How did it happen?

The Chairman: Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I would like to follow up on that point. It's fair to say that the people who were most affected were North American; most of them were in Canada. A lot of people lost their life savings; a lot of people committed suicide over this. So to say that it didn't affect Canadians is fairly short-sighted.

Mr. McKay is partly right when he says the police have the discretion not to lay charges. When it comes down to it, again, at the end of the day, it's public interest that drives the prosecution that decides whether or not to proceed with charges and the likelihood of a conviction.

There's also the fact that not only is the principal dead, but another gentleman, Mr. Guzman, who was very involved in this, took flight in a helicopter. The other individual is outside the jurisdiction, but that's not to say we shouldn't pursue the investigation just because at this point it doesn't look like we can extradite Mr. Felderhof back to Canada.

The reputation of the resources industry that was affected was certainly besmirched by all of this. Mr. Lee referred to a sworn deposition by Mr. Walsh that can't be used in evidence. That's simply not true. You said you couldn't rely on it. Mr. Walsh's sworn deposition is certainly admissible in a court.

The size of this stock fraud and the circumstances surrounding it would make John Le Carré blush. This is an unbelievable case in terms of complexity, and I suspect it has more to do with resources than anything else as to why the RCMP haven't pursued it. Less than two years into the investigation they publicly announced that they'd broken off. I find that extremely troubling.

Mr. Reynolds has already mentioned Airbus. That's been going on for six years, and they're increasing the number of investigators who are on that file. Air India, ten years, and there are still a lot of RCMP resources wrapped up in that. To suggest this isn't something we should be pursuing or we should at least be getting answers from the commissioner on is extremely short-sighted. I fully support it as worded. It doesn't have to be any more complex than let's have the commissioner come forward.

• 0940

With respect, Mr. Lee, I also suggest writing a letter. We're going to get a very bland answer and we're going to want to have him come here and expound on what he's told us in any event. So in terms of timeliness, he's here, he's in town. We're here probably until the middle of June. I don't see any difficulty in getting him to appear.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): I think where some of these discussions go off the rails is not so much in the motion, but in some of the statements made in proposing the motion. I don't know that anybody has offered any evidence that the RCMP have done something wrong. So the motion says that you want to inquire into the reasons for the termination of the investigation. That strikes me as a fairly legitimate request. I agree with what Mr. MacKay said. This has impacted a lot of people.

I also am interested in some of the things Mr. Reynolds said about the exchanges. They have some responsibility here, also. So I'm a little surprised. I was surprised when I saw that it was terminated. As a member of the committee, I don't understand the harm that would be involved in having Commissioner Murray come here and answer questions for an hour. I think it's a legitimate role for this committee.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I'd like to raise a couple of points. First, Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Abbott said that what might be dangerous or bad for the system is the insinuations about the role of the RCMP. Some say that the RCMP did not do its work or that it was complacent. This is, according to me, a very dangerous and unfounded statement.

[English]

There is a more important issue here at stake, Mr. Chairman. On a number of occasions now, whether in the House, whether in committee, whether on the Hill generally speaking in our political life, the opposition has requested sometimes to have inquiries started, investigations started, sometimes to have it stopped, sometimes to have it pursued. I feel there is a great danger—and perhaps I'm flying too high here—in authorizing any action that could be viewed as interference between the political bodies and the application of justice and law enforcement.

Fundamentally, it would be flawed, it would be wrong to do that. The RCMP have the upper hand on their operational matters and decisions. We should not interfere with that. I think we are a democracy, and a democracy is just that—no interference between justice and law enforcement. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I have really very strong reservations, in any form, about asking the RCMP to justify what they did.

The Chairman: I don't necessarily want to go all the way around again.

Mr. Abbott, it was your motion.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I am not interested in arguing any further. What I would like to say is that I'm going to have to check Hansard to understand why Mr. Lee and others have taken my comments to indicate that there was collaboration between the RCMP and the people involved. If that was what was taken from my comments, that was not intended in any way, shape, or form.

I was raising the question about procedure and I did report that in the National Post last week there were reported rumours that there was some kind of pressure from the top down. I was simply reporting on what had previously been out in the public domain. I just wanted to clarify that.

I have a very high regard for the RCMP, and it would be my judgment that giving an opportunity for the RCMP to further elaborate on this would be to the benefit of the RCMP in this issue.

• 0945

The Chairman: Thank you for your clarification.

Mr. Reynolds, a short point.

Mr. John Reynolds: I wanted to stress to Jacques over there that if this case were still being investigated I could understand why we would have a concern, but we've had a very public statement that it's finished. I think we have a right to know why. Did it have to do with finances? Was it a decision made at the management level of the RCMP that this was going to be an extremely expensive investigation and the head guy's dead and somebody flew out of a helicopter, and is it worth it? I'd like to have an answer to that, because I think the Canadian public deserves better, no matter what the costs are, to get to the bottom as to how it happened so it never happens again.

The Chairman: I don't wish to go around again. Everyone has had an opportunity. I appreciate the clarification. Mr. DeVillers has not had an opportunity.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): In response to Mr. Reynolds' last comment on whether there's interference from the top, I think that's what the crux of this motion is all about: it's the opposition wanting to use the committee process to try to determine that there's been interference from the top. In my opinion, and I've said it before, I think that's abuse of this committee's time. So I'd suggest we call the question.

The Chairman: Questions.

Mr. John McKay: May I suggest a friendly amendment, or to be interpreted as necessarily friendly, or at least move an amendment and see how the amendment goes before you go to the motion? The amendment would be along the lines of Mr. Lee's suggestion, namely that the committee write to Commissioner Murray and ask for the reasons why the RCMP investigation was terminated and leave it at that.

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I have problems with that too. I'm not questioning the good faith of anyone here, of course not of my own members obviously, but neither also of the opposition asking for this process to take place. But I do have a serious problem asking the RCMP to come here and be accountable for their operational decisions. I have a serious problem with the precedent it creates.

The Chairman: If anyone wants to speak, please put up their hand. Are you finished, Mr. Saada?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee has his hand up.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'll just point out very quickly that for a number of years now, ten years, it's pretty common for this committee to ask the RCMP how they're doing on the investigation of what has become known as the Air India tragedy. And I'm sure if they concluded their investigation one way or another, this committee would ask them questions about why they did or didn't do what they did. It's a matter of such a high profile that this committee has felt it appropriate to ask the question. The issue here is whether or not the Bre-X issue has such a high profile that we would interface with the police investigative decision-making.

The Chairman: There being no further indications, shall I call a vote on the amendment? As I understand, the amendment is that the justice committee write to Commissioner Murray of the RCMP, asking for reasons of termination of the investigation into allegations of fraud in the Bre-X Minerals investigation.

Mr. John McKay: Can we put a specific time because of the House rising?

The Chairman: It's your motion, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, to be returned to this committee by 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 8.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Sorry, it's my fault, but I lost concentration for a few seconds here. What are we voting on exactly?

The Chairman: This is Mr. John McKay's amendment to the original motion.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That means on the letter?

The Chairman: On the letter, requesting that Mr. Murray respond by 10 a.m. on June 8.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of clarification, if this process takes place—and I'm not speaking only about this one here, but generally speaking about what is the tradition—when we ask for a letter, do we enclose a date by which this letter should be in to the committee? And then what happens with this letter? Do we follow it up and do we eventually take it as a first step toward calling the commissioner in? How do we see that? I would like simply a clarification of that.

• 0950

The Chairman: I think once we get the letter we can decide to proceed further. That's what happens.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Or we could just write it ourselves.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: The amended motion certainly changed the main focus of the original motion. Are you content to withdraw your original motion, or do you want us to proceed with that?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, I will withdraw. Is it my understanding that we have agreed in a vote of whatever to—

The Chairman: Seven to five.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Seven to five to submit this letter?

The Chairman: To write to Commissioner Murray, inquiring—

Mr. Jim Abbott: Then I will withdraw my motion.

The Chairman: Fine, then that is concluded. Thank you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, on a point of information again, I'm sorry, it might be Tuesday morning and I might be slow, but I would like to know exactly what this letter is going to ask for. What is this letter going to request, specifically?

The Chairman: The motion read that the committee write to Commissioner Murray of the RCMP, asking for the reasons for termination of investigations in the allegations of fraud in the Bre-X Minerals investigation, such response by 10 a.m. on June 8, 1999.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay.

The Chairman: That matter being concluded, we'd like to move on to the next order of business: a discussion by the justice department on the issue of mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code. This was a concern of Mr. John Reynolds. I think we'll certainly have to look into this a little bit further, but we'd like to get a little taste of it before we recess for the summer.

From the department we have Catherine Kane. Welcome, Catherine.

Ms. Catherine Kane (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Thank you.

The Chairman: It's good to see you again. And I apologize for the delay on having us move into your presentation.

Ms. Catherine Kane: As committee members may know, in 1991 the Criminal Code was amended by Bill C-30, amendments that substantially reformed the law governing people who come into contact with the criminal law who are suffering from a mental disorder. Part of the provisions of that bill is that when the bill was passed, a clause was added to the amending act to require a review of the provisions of that act within five years of the date of its coming into force or the coming into force of any of its provisions.

A majority of the provisions of the bill were proclaimed in February 1992. So the time is now right for the committee to conduct a review. The scope of the review will be entirely up to the committee, but I would like to provide a brief overview and some background about these amendments to help you put it in context and also then to raise some of the issues that have been brought to the attention of the Department of Justice over the last several years about the implementation of the bill, and some of the concerns that will likely be raised with this committee by other witnesses.

The provisions of the Criminal Code are all in part XX.I, section 672.1 to section 672.95, so there are at least 95 sections that will be subject to your review. I don't want to get into a great deal of detail, although certainly I'll be happy to answer any questions. I thought I'd just provide the most general overview possible, because this is a fairly complex area of the law.

As I said, this part is the law and procedure governing people who are now termed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, or unfit to stand trial. So all the provisions are in part XX.1, and the other two provisions that are relevant are the definition of “unfit to stand trial” in section 2 of the Criminal Code and the test for “not criminally responsible”, which is found in section 16 of the code.

• 0955

Prior to 1991 we referred to certain people as not guilty by reason of insanity. When that was the verdict, those people were held at the pleasure of the lieutenant-governor, more or less indefinitely. Early in 1976, the Law Reform Commission of Canada began a review of the law governing people who were otherwise considered to be insane, and a number of recommendations were made. They recommended certainly the abolition of the lieutenant-governor's scheme and that there should be some sort of advisory review board to replace it.

In the early 1980s the Department of Justice took the report of the Law Reform Commission and started to do some other research, studies, and consultations on reforming the law in this area. In 1986 a draft bill was released publicly, but it wasn't formally introduced in the House of Commons. The bill was consulted on widely, and a number of concerns were raised.

Then in 1991 there was a case in the Supreme Court of Canada called Swain. In that case the Supreme Court of Canada basically said the scheme governing those not guilty by reason of insanity was unconstitutional. That decision prompted the government to introduce the amendments that were in Bill C-30. The work had been largely done in the law commission's work, the work of the department and the draft bill, but several revisions were made and a package of amendments was introduced.

In the Swain decision, the Supreme Court made it clear that it was certainly part of the criminal law power, and the federal government could legislate to govern those persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, but two aspects of the former scheme were called into question.

One was it should not be permissible for the crown to raise evidence of an accused's insanity, unless the accused had already put that issue before the court, because that violated the accused's right to control his own defence. More importantly, the provision of the former law that required that upon a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity that person would go into strict custody, to be held there at the pleasure of the lieutenant-governor, without any assessment of what the appropriate disposition should be for that person, also violated sections 7 and 9 of the charter.

The Supreme Court gave the government six months to pass remedial legislation. We almost made it within the six months, but the new legislation was enacted in February 1992. As the bill was going through this committee and the Senate, because it was going through with what was regarded as a lot of speed, a provision was included to ensure there would be some review mechanism down the road, so certain provisions could be revisited if there were need for further reform.

As I've indicated, the provisions of part XX.1 govern those found unfit and those found not criminally responsible. For a person who is unfit, the critical time is at the point of trial. They may have been perfectly fine when they committed the offence, but when it comes time to stand trial, they may be unfit to stand trial.

The Criminal Code sets out a definition of “unfit” as being a person who is “unable on account of a mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so” and who is particularly unable to “understand the nature or object of the proceedings, understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or communicate with counsel”.

Case law has interpreted that as a fairly low threshold. It doesn't require the person to have an analytical capacity to plot his own defence strategy, but he has to be able to relate the facts and communicate with counsel in order to mount a defence. There is a presumption that a person is fit until the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, they aren't fit.

The section also governs those who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is the terminology that has replaced the former term of “not guilty by reason of insanity”. However, the test is largely the same as it has been for centuries. Basically, a person is not criminally responsible if they've committed the act—and the relevant time is at the time of the commission of the offence—while they were suffering from a mental disorder that rendered them incapable of appreciating either the nature and quality of the act or the omission, or of knowing it was wrong.

• 1000

Again there is a presumption that a person is not suffering from a mental disorder until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities. The burden of proving that someone is not criminally responsible is on the party that raises the issue.

A mental disorder is described simply as a disease of the mind. There has been a lot of case law interpreting what is a disease of the mind. Basically it includes any illness, disorder or abnormal condition that impairs the human mind and its functioning. But it excludes self-induced states, such as those caused by alcohol or drugs, hysteria or concussion. It is a question for the trial judge to decide whether the particular disease of the mind, which will usually be supported by medical evidence, is in fact a mental disorder, so as to come into the test under section 16.

The major changes brought about by Bill C-30 first of all did away with the notion of insanity and replaced it with mental disorder. Before the verdict can be rendered, it must be shown that the accused did commit the act, and but for the mental condition, would have been found guilty. Everyone is presumed sane until the contrary is shown. The crown cannot raise the accused's mental disorder until all elements of the offence are shown.

However, where the accused puts his mental capacity at issue, the crown can also lead evidence of the accused's mental disorder. Where that doesn't happen, the crown has to wait until after the verdict but before the conviction is entered. Then the crown can raise any evidence of the accused's mental disorder and the accused can, at that point, call other evidence.

The legislative scheme covers both summary and indictable offences. Under the former law, only indictable offences were covered. A court can order a psychiatric assessment to determine whether the accused is fit to stand trial, or determine his mental condition, for the purposes of determining a not criminally responsible verdict, or making the appropriate disposition following the verdict.

Instead of relying on the lieutenant-governor, a review board has been established in each province and territory. The review board is tasked with the responsibility of crafting dispositions for those found not criminally responsible. The review board consists of a person who is qualified to be a judge, usually as chairperson, and must also include someone who is a psychiatrist, and other mental health professionals. Basically it's a five-member panel, and in some cases three members of the review board sit.

Where the review board or the court is making a disposition with respect to a person found not criminally responsible or unfit, the Criminal Code sets out the dispositions that are available and the considerations they must take into account. They must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused at the current time, the reintegration of the accused into society, and any other needs of the accused.

Then they have three dispositions at their disposal: an absolute discharge, which is applicable only to a person who has been found not criminally responsible—you can't absolutely discharge a person found unfit; a discharge subject to conditions; or detention in a hospital. An absolute discharge cannot be ordered where the review board or the court is of the view that the person is a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Following the verdict, a court may make the first disposition or they may defer to the review board. Where the court makes the disposition, the review board will still review that 90 days later. Where the court does not make a disposition, the matter is referred to the review board and they must make a disposition within 45 days. In the meantime, the accused's status is governed by whatever bail conditions or other conditions existed prior to the verdict. However, those can be changed by the court if there is any concern that the accused should be detained or should be at large.

• 1005

There are a number of procedural safeguards for the accused who is subject to the regime. They can be represented by counsel, and where any person is unfit the court shall appoint counsel for them if they don't already have counsel. There are rights of appeal from both the verdict and from any disposition. The disposition has to be reviewed at least every year, or more frequently where there's any change in the condition of the person or where the person requests that their disposition be reviewed.

There are also several provisions of the act that were not proclaimed into force in February 1992. The most significant is the capping provision. When the bill was developed, one of the features was a scheme that would require that at the expiration of a certain point in time, mentally disordered accused would be absolutely discharged if they had not been previously discharged by the review board at their annual reviews. Capping was meant to set up some sort of equivalence between the length of time that a person would be detained had they been convicted and if they were found not criminally responsible.

For example, if a person would have otherwise been subject to a life sentence, the cap would be life. But for other offences the cap would be either ten years or the maximum set out in the Criminal Code, or two years or the maximum set out in the Criminal Code.

It was clear at the time the bill was passed that those provisions were not going to be proclaimed immediately. The provinces had indicated at that time that they needed some time to make amendments to the provincial mental health legislation so that it would complement the federal legislation and ensure that if someone were released at the expiration of their cap, they would be governed by the provincial mental health legislation if there was still some need for their ongoing treatment or supervision.

Also, there was a need for all the people already in the system who were held under the old lieutenant-governor scheme to be reviewed to determine if the cap would apply to them retroactively. For example, if they had already been in the system for twenty years and the applicable cap was now five years, they would be automatically released. There was a need for some review to ensure that they were ready for that release or that the cap should be extended, because in addition to the capping provisions, there are complementary provisions, called the dangerous mentally disordered accused provisions, which would permit an extended cap for certain offenders. The review would be necessary to determine if any of those people already in the system should have an extended cap.

The dangerous mentally disordered offender provisions would be proclaimed at the same time as capping. The two go together as a package. Basically, as I've indicated, those provisions would permit the cap to be extended up to life for anyone who would otherwise, had they been found criminally responsible, be subject to a sentence of ten years or more.

So it doesn't cover every person who would be subject to the regime. Basically, it's similar to the dangerous offender provision. So anyone who might otherwise be eligible for a dangerous offender designation, had they been convicted, would perhaps be eligible for DMDO designation, being found not criminally responsible.

The other provisions that were not proclaimed were referred to as hospital order provisions. Those provisions deal with people who are convicted of an offence but are suffering from a mental disorder at the time they're about to be sentenced. These provisions would permit them to serve part of their sentence in a psychiatric facility.

Some of the issues that we anticipate will be raised before your committee in the scope of its review will deal with the proclamation or the non-proclamation of the capping provisions, since they have not been proclaimed. Since 1991 the public has expressed some concerns about the potential danger to the protection of society if capping were proclaimed. There have been several coroners' inquests and conferences, two of them sponsored by CAVEAT, that highlighted the fact that someone who is going to be released at the expiration of their cap may not be ready to be reintegrated into the community; they may still pose some danger to society. On the other hand, they may not. But if they do not, it is likely they would have been discharged by the review board before the expiration of the cap. They've called on the government to re-examine the capping scheme.

• 1010

We've consulted also with the provinces on the issue of the proclamation of capping. At the moment there is very little support for proclamation of capping. Provincial mental health acts have not been amended in such a manner, as to complement the Criminal Code scheme. Basically, the purpose of provincial mental health legislation is not to detain those who are dangerous, but rather to treat those who are in need of mental health rehabilitation. The provincial mental health legislation in some cases wouldn't be able to deal with the person who would be released at the expiration of their cap.

There are also several cases that have argued that someone should be released because of the length of their detention in an institution. There are several cases that the Supreme Court of Canada has considered where judgment has been reserved. They will address the issue of the potential for indeterminate detention of a person who is not criminally responsible.

The names of the cases that will hopefully be released in the next little while are Lepage, Orlowski, Winko, and Bess. In those cases, the court dealt with the whole regime for dealing with those found not criminally responsible, and the issue of the potential for their indeterminate detention.

In the Ontario Court of Appeal, in the case of Lepage, the court made it clear that the scheme provided a great deal of flexibility for dealing with mentally disordered offenders. There was a variety of conditions that could be imposed on someone's release. There was no discrimination of people found not criminally responsible on account of their mental disability. The inquiry that followed the verdict was necessary for the protection of society and was, more or less, an assessment of risk. The tools were available in the Criminal Code to deal with any risk a person posed, and where they did not pose a risk they should be released into the community.

Another issue that may be raised is the interpretation of the section 16 test. As you may recall, in January of this year a person by the name of Chaulk was charged with murder in Manitoba. It was disclosed that Mr. Chaulk had previously been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a previous murder in 1985. The Chaulk case had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada had interpreted the word “wrong”, which is part of the test in section 16, as in “appreciating the nature and quality of the act...or of knowing that it was wrong”, as meaning morally wrong rather than legally wrong, legally wrong being too narrow a test.

In January, following the press coverage with respect to Mr. Chaulk's more recent charges, there was some suggestion that test was too low and too many people were being found not criminally responsible. However, that is really not supported by the case law or any of the data that has been gathered.

Although there has been an increase in the number of people found not criminally responsible since the amendments in 1991, there are many factors that can be cited for that, one being that it covers more people. It covers indictable and summary conviction offences. The other is there are more people coming into contact with the criminal justice system in general, and there's more scope for a person to be treated appropriately under the new regime.

Previously, there was a great deal of uncertainty if you sought a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict—your future was basically in the hands of the lieutenant governor. With this scheme and all its safeguards, those who are truly not criminally responsible are availing themselves of these provisions, hopefully to get the necessary treatment.

Since 1991 the federal and provincial governments have been working together to try to identify some of the housekeeping-type implementation problems with the legislation. Several amendments were included in Bill C-17, which was an omnibus bill two years ago. These amendments came into force a year ago to clarify that there is a right of appeal for both the Attorney General and for the person found not criminally responsible to provide immunity for review board members for decisions made in good faith and to clarify that consensual or voluntary treatment can be a condition of a person's release. They also came into force to clarify the responsibility for payment of counsel and for a variety of other technical changes, to make the right section references and so on.

• 1015

There have also been submissions by review board chairmen recently who want an increase in their own powers. There are certain provisions in the Criminal Code that are only applicable to courts and not review boards. For example, only a court can order an assessment of a person and only a court can discharge a person who's found unfit. The review boards want those powers also. They also want to see psychologists used to conduct assessments instead of psychiatrists, and they want the power to address breach of conditions of disposition.

Last year at the Uniform Law Conference there were several resolutions put forward to look at some of the mental disorder provisions, including the test for fitness to stand trial, the expansion of the review board's power, and the mechanisms to deal with the arrest of those who breach the conditions of their release. All of these issues will be the subject of discussion papers that will be brought back to that Uniform Law Conference this summer.

Basically, that's the not-so-quick overview. I realize I've been rambling, but these issues require some more careful consideration. I would certainly be happy to provide additional material in writing or whatever might be in the interests of the committee so that this will assist you in review. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Kane.

We'll start the seven-minute round. Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I thank you very much for your briefing. It was very good.

What I would like to know is who appoints them on the review board, and for how long?

Ms. Catherine Kane: It's my understanding that the review board is appointed by the provinces, by the provincial Attorney General in consultation with the Minister of Health, because it has a blend of expertise. I'm not sure for how long members are appointed. I think that might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, because the review board is governed by provincial legislation that governs other administrative tribunals.

Mr. John Reynolds: Could we get an analysis of that from your department to show us, by province, who is doing it and how they are doing it?

Also, how many hospitals do we have in Canada to handle these types of people? How sure are we that they are getting the proper treatment they need?

Ms. Catherine Kane: In each province the Minister of Health designates the hospitals in a jurisdiction that are considered as forensic beds. There may just be forensic beds in a local hospital, but then there are some that are specifically designated as psychiatric facilities. That would be the information that would have to come from each province.

Mr. John Reynolds: Can we get that by province?

Ms. Catherine Kane: I can inquire about that.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Peter MacKay.

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

As a follow-up to that, it would be important to know how many forensic psychiatrists and psychologists would be employed in that capacity specifically for those purposes.

I had a question about the DMDO designation and at which point that can come into play. Can this designation occur after the fact, after the court and the review board have made their final disposition?

Ms. Catherine Kane: The DMDO designation would be applied for following the verdict.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So it's similar to a dangerous offender.

Ms. Catherine Kane: By the crown...exactly.

With respect to your question about the number of psychiatrists, there are psychiatrists and psychologists who are employed in institutions, but often assessments are done on a fee-for-service basis, as needed.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's all I have. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You talked about the Chaulk case and the Supreme Court decision, you said that one should not base ones arguments on what is legally but morally wrong. I know nothing about that and I would like you to tell me what tests are used to determine that something is morally wrong.

• 1020

[English]

Ms. Catherine Kane: The court recognized that in most cases there would be little distinction between what is legally wrong and what is morally wrong. As an example, they referred to a case where somebody may know that it's against the law to kill somebody, but they feel they're acting under a divine order because they're mentally disordered. They know it's against the law, but according to their moral code they think it's right, so saying that they know it's legally wrong is too narrow. If you limit it to legally wrong, you would be excluding them from the defence of mental disorder. So according to the ordinary moral standards of reasonable members of society, morally wrong is a better test to capture those who truly should not be considered criminally responsible for their actions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So it is really a judgment call every single time.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes, but the court makes it clear that you're not judged according to your own particular moral standards, but those of society in general. So it's a mix of a subjective and an objective test.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Many things struck me from what you said, but it was the only thing I had some questions on.

The Chairman: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm trying to remember how the current provisions kick in. I did a couple of these trials where we actually went through the trial first to determine the facts and the actus reus had been committed. Then we got into having to make this decision about criminal responsibility at the time of the commission, and that's still the case. That can occur after the actual trial.

Ms. Catherine Kane: That's correct. Where the accused doesn't put his mental capacity in issue, then the crown must wait until they've proved the case and then raise it at that point in time. If the accused puts his mental capacity in issue in any way, then of course the crown could raise evidence of mental disorder during the course of the trial and that could be the outcome, rather than almost waiting for the verdict to be rendered.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Then you get into the interesting scenario of duelling experts about whether the person's insane or not.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Exactly.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, thanks.

The Chairman: Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I had trouble figuring out where the philosophical divides are here in terms of the issues the committee will be asked to study. What are the points of contention as we review this legislation? Where are the clear conflicts?

Ms. Catherine Kane: In the big picture the conflicts will be between mental health advocates, on the one hand, and others who want to see a more liberal approach to dealing with mentally disordered accused persons.

Mr. John McKay: What does “liberal” mean in that context?

Ms. Catherine Kane: For example, the proclamation of capping would ensure that there was some outer limit on the detention. There would be a certain point in time when a person would receive an absolute discharge, rather than perhaps being under the supervision of the review board, even if that's a fairly loose supervision, for an indeterminate period of time.

On the other hand, it would also be between those people who are very concerned about the protection of the public and those who assume that a person who is suffering from a mental disorder is dangerous. That's not a proper assumption. The dangerousness assessment is quite distinct from whether they are suffering from a mental disorder or not. There is still that perception.

So on the one hand, there's a concern about the protection of the public, and on the other hand, there's a concern about dealing appropriately with people who are mentally disordered. If the Supreme Court doesn't resolve one way or the other in the cases that are now before them, I expect that one of the issues will be whether the scheme we have in the code is constitutional in the absence of these capping provisions.

Mr. John McKay: I ask this as a general proposition. Should the committee commence its investigations prior to the disposition of those cases that you referred to as being before the Supreme Court presently?

Ms. Catherine Kane: That's certainly a consideration.

• 1025

Mr. John McKay: Can you just give us a timeline? I obviously don't follow these cases, and obviously you do. Where are they on the Supreme Court's agenda?

Ms. Catherine Kane: The cases were heard and argued last June.

Mr. John McKay: Last year.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes. So I anticipate that the judgment will be rendered very soon, although it's impossible to predict exactly when.

Mr. John McKay: So I suppose that by an efflux of time we're going to have that disposition prior to the launching of this investigation in any event, so it becomes a mute question then.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes. I would hope that we would have the judgment very soon.

Mr. John McKay: Are there other points of divide where the committee is going to have to wrestle with how people with mental disorders are treated?

Ms. Catherine Kane: I don't believe there will be any other major issues. I think there will be a number of issues raised by witnesses, such as review board chairpersons, mental health professionals, and mental health advocates, that basically deal with the day-to-day operation of the scheme. It's difficult to predict exactly what those issues will be. For example, even at the time this committee was looking at the Bill C-30 amendments, review boards had advocated for an increase in their powers. They wanted basically the same powers as courts to order assessments and discharges of unfit persons and a few other issues. I anticipate that they will raise those concerns again.

Mr. John McKay: So those would be issues outside of code amendments, I should think.

Ms. Catherine Kane: No, they would require Criminal Code amendments.

Mr. John McKay: They would require code amendments.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes, they would. The scheme sets out what the review board can do and what the court can do, and in some situations only a court can do certain things, rather than have the review board exercise those functions.

Mr. John McKay: Are we going to be into our usual Canadian dialogue of jurisdictional conflicts between provincial and federal jurisdictions?

Ms. Catherine Kane: I don't think so. I think you may hear that the act is administered in slightly different ways in different provinces, based on the size of the province and the number of people in their own system. I think most of the submissions will be in the nature of what amendments they need, in their view, to help them do their jobs better. I don't think it will be a situation of jurisdictional battles.

Mr. John McKay: Is there a relatively unified position in this area on the part of the provinces?

Ms. Catherine Kane: The review board chairmen have set up an association. They share information, and I think they will likely speak with one voice before the committee.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a few questions arising out of Mr. McKay's questions. Ms. Kane, the other thing I suppose we also should be waiting on, on top of the Supreme Court decisions, is these issue papers that you mentioned are going to be due out this summer.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Those papers are going to be presented to the Uniform Law Conference. I can't indicate at this point in time how extensive or comprehensive they will be, but certainly they would be shared with the committee if the committee were interested.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. With regard to the expansion of the review board powers, as I recall, they currently have quite extensive powers after the fact when it comes to revising and adapting dispositions that have been previously adjudicated. But are they looking for the ability to actually arrest and make dispositions in the first instance? Are they looking for those powers?

Ms. Catherine Kane: The issue with regard to arrest is a concern, where a person has a conditional disposition and it comes to the attention of the review board that they've breached those conditions. Currently, the Criminal Code provides that police can arrest without a warrant, but they have to bring them back to the review board, and then the review board has to review their disposition, rather than charging them with some new offence. They don't have a contempt power. This has been a concern to them because they feel that some individuals are flaunting the lack of power of the review board. On the other hand, if that person were to be arrested and charged with a new offence, then they would be in the traditional criminal justice system and out of the mental disorder system that may be in their best interests for their long-term rehabilitation and treatment. So it's a bit of a conundrum.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But they currently set the release plan, for lack of a better phrase.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes.

• 1030

Mr. Peter MacKay: They take a stepladder approach, they get temporary absences, temporary unescorted absences, and they follow along that path.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Yes. They loosen the string as it's appropriate, and they review, at least annually or more frequently, exercising the same criteria as they do initially, to determine what the appropriate disposition is for that person. There are only about three or four provisions that differ in terms of the power of the court and the review board.

One of the other ones they've expressed concern about is the power to order assessments, because at some review board hearings the review board may feel they need more information and they want the person assessed. But only the court has the power to order an assessment, which leaves the review board either making an application to the court to have an assessment done, or counting on whoever is treating that person in the hospital to conduct an assessment, with the consent of the accused and so on.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That seems rather perverse.

Ms. Catherine Kane: It's basically for better information that they want that power.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So currently they're in a forensic hospital, they take a turn for the worse, and the psychologist or the facility has to go back to court to order a reassessment?

Ms. Catherine Kane: Likely it would be the crown attorney that would apply for the assessment—

Mr. Peter MacKay: At the review hearing.

Ms. Catherine Kane: —if it were deemed to be necessary.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Does anyone else have any questions?

There being none, I wish to thank you for being with us again as this constitutes our first session on review of the mental disorder provision of the Criminal Code. You're very knowledgeable in the area and we very much appreciate the comments you've made this morning.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Thank you.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I wanted to ask one question. It may be my error, but usually I'm well equipped for my committee meetings. I didn't have any background material for this. Was there some prepared? Will we be receiving some to enable us with our task?

The Chairman: Yes. Ms. Kane has indicated—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes, excellent.

The Chairman: What I would suggest is that we continue this into the fall. It may not be fresh in our minds again when we start in September, so we'll perhaps get the blues and circulate these to committee members again. I'd appreciate it if you could perhaps provide the papers that will be discussed at the Law Reform Commission to the committee clerk, and we'll distribute those as well.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It would be opportune to have them over the summer. Sometimes you get a little more reading time.

Ms. Catherine Kane: Those particular papers won't be available until the end of August.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You could send any other background material that will help us.

The Chairman: Aileen, I can help you there. What we intend to do over the summer is that the researchers will be preparing a position and issues paper, and a list of witnesses that he suggests we hear. In the meantime, we'll also be writing to the provinces asking for their input on this legislation, so that we can get into it in an organized manner right off the mark when we get back in the fall. We'll get as much material as we can.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I guess because I'm with justice, I'm never shy to ask. What we often get from parliamentary research branch in advance of our meetings on environment is something that enables you, before you sit down to hear witnesses—

The Chairman: That's exactly what we'll have.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'd appreciate that.

The Chairman: This was certainly an issue of concern arising out of the Chaulk situation and Mr. Reynolds. I wanted to get the process moving so it wouldn't get further down the line, because we are beyond our mandate for a five-year review.

If anyone can advise our researchers as to any potential witnesses they might wish to bring forward on this issue, I'd ask you to bring these names forward to our researchers. It would be very much appreciated.

I'm going to adjourn the formal portion of the meeting. I just want to go over future business for a rough idea of where we're going.

Thank you, Ms. Kane.

I'll give you a sort of heads-up on what we've got until the summer recess. We now hopefully have consideration of a letter from Commissioner Murray on the Bre-X situation.

We have a visit to CPIC on June 8, hopefully in the afternoon. That's next Tuesday.

We have Mr. McTeague's Bill C-440. We were going to deal with that in the fall, because the justice department would like to have input from the provinces on this issue, and Mr. McTeague had already agreed to that prior to our suggesting we move forward to clause-by-clause. So that will be taken care of.

Mr. Cadman has acknowledged that his Bill C-260 can be done at the same time as our consideration of Bill C-68, which has not been referred to us yet, but it's anticipated that we'll likely be looking at that in the fall as well. I don't know if we'll get it before the end of the recess.

• 1035

That's what we've got. What we expect, again, is Bill C-68, the conditional sentencing, the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court hearings began around May 25. There were five cases that we were going to hear. It will be anywhere between three and six months before a decision may be rendered, and we'll agree to put that on the fall agenda as an item. Hopefully we can get to it.

There's another statute, which has not been referred to us, Bill C-50. This is an act to harmonize the federal law with the civil law of the province of Quebec and to commence certain actions in conjunction therewith.

Mr. John McKay: Do we see the money-laundering bill?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. John McKay: Does it go to the finance committee, or does it go to the justice committee?

The Chairman: I believe it's gone to finance. I haven't seen it. I haven't heard of it coming our way.

So that's a rough idea of what we've got left. I don't anticipate having any more meetings this week on the main committee. The subcommittee will meet tomorrow afternoon, and this committee will again congregate next Tuesday for the CPIC trip.

Is there a subcommittee meeting this afternoon as well?

Mr. John McKay: Coming back to the money-laundering thing, it strikes me as extremely strange that this bill wouldn't end up here, because the criminal justice implications are enormous.

The Chairman: We'll make some inquiries for you.

Mr. John McKay: I am not looking for work, but....

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Chairman, I think before we get sluiced by the work that's coming down the pipeline in the fall, I for one regret that the committee has not been able to chart its own course, or at least a course of its own, in the last while, and I think all members should give some thought to what we want to accomplish in the next session. I will note with considerable regret that our committee has failed to maintain a connection with the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is one of the major pillars of Parliament's oversight of CSIS.

We have, in my view, a dysfunction developing here, and it's not just that there are other things that haven't happened. So I'm suggesting that we as a committee deal with this issue of future business with a strategic point of view, and that we decide what we want to accomplish in the fall and set about doing it and organize our time appropriately.

I've been a member of the committee here for over ten years, and I don't want to see the committee fail to do what it should be doing and what was expected of it. So I leave those comments for everyone's consideration. We'll look forward to a meeting when we can discuss these kinds of things.

The Chairman: That was a most interesting comment, Mr. Lee.

Are there any other comments or concerns? There being none, we are finished.