JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, January 31, 2002

Â

1200

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Â

1205

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.)

The Chair

Mme Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

The Chair

Â

1215

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mme Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 059

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, January 31, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

  (1200)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good morning. Bonjour et bienvenue. Welcome to the 59th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    Today we have a number of business items to attend to, and I would like first to simply run through the agenda of the items that I'd like us to speak to.

    The first item has to do with the questions on the Order Paper and the results of the modernization committee's work. We'll have to attend to a question that was put and wasn't responded to in 45 days.

    We have Mr. Radwanski's report as the Privacy Commissioner, which was tabled on December 12, and consequently, there's Standing Order 108(1)(c), which directs us to decide what to do with that report, and I'll put the options in a moment.

    We have to deal with the budget for the next fiscal year.

    We have to speak to the question of the request made just before the Christmas break about inviting witnesses to appear on the supplementary estimates of last fall, and whether we would want to continue that with Mr. McCauley and Monsieur Cauchon.

    I have a note about mental disorder provisions in the Criminal Code and our proceeding on that. On Bill C-217 there is a request that the Commissioner of Corrections appear before the committee. And we have two requests from the Minister to contemplate.

    Though it all looks rather long, I think we'll be able to move through this quite quickly.

    The first order of business, then, is this new procedure that was born of the modernization report adopted last October. I think it's important that everybody understand that question 98, which is the question in question, is not before the committee, but rather, as in Standing Order 39(5)(b), the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond to that question within 45 days. I'm going to ask members of the committee to respect the intent of the rule, and I caution members that I won't entertain questions or comment on substance, as that isn't what this exercise is about, but only on why the ministry was not able to or did not respond to the question.

    Since the procedure is new, I want to allow the committee to decide how we wish to deal with this. We can consider the question as resolved, because the answer was given, though a day late. In case the committee would like us to pursue the question of the fact that the ministry did not respond, we have officials from the ministry here to answer that question.

    Consequently, the first item of business is the fact that the Department of Justice did not respond to a question put on the Order Paper within the 45 days, and we are compelled to meet to decide how to react as a committee to that failure to respond.

    I'm open to members, and I'll go first to Mr. Toews and Mr. Maloney. I would remind everybody that the folks from Justice are here, in the event that we want to call upon them.

    Mr. Toews.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): What I did there, Mr. Chair, was simply put the matter on our order paper and give notice that this is to be discussed in 48 hours. So I don't believe there's a jurisdiction to hear this matter or discuss that issue at this time. Essentially, all I'm doing is putting the committee on notice that we need to discuss this, and because it is a new proceeding, we want to make sure it's done properly. I understand that the import of the rule is not to talk about the substance of the answer, but in fact, why the answer was not given. So this is more notice than the actual setting down of the substantive issue, to talk about why the answer wasn't given.

    The Chair: Mr. Toews has submitted this. Do people have this?

    Mr. Toews has submitted the following:

That the committee or a sub-committee study and hear witnesses with respect to the total cost and economic impact of the Firearms Act.

    This was received as a notice of motion, so we'll be entertaining it in 48 hours, but that still doesn't discharge us from our responsibility today of deciding how we would wish to respond. I think it's important that we do this correctly, because we're probably the first committee to respond to the new procedure that was the result of the modernization committee's work.

    Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.): The Hansard was filed a day late, so in my opinion, this wasn't a case where there was an arbitrary abuse by the minister's department in responding to it. The point is moot now, I think, provided there's a reasonable explanation, and because it was just filed a day late, I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation, which I think we should hear. Following that, depending on what the explanation is, I think the matter should be at an end.

    The Chair: Would you still like to comment, Madame Girard-Bujold?

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I can't understand why the Alliance Party member wants to postpone the debate for 48 hours. Why didn't the department respond before the deadline? I think we should hear from these officials and find out why they did not respond within the time frame.

[English]

    The Chair: Here's the situation. Mr. Toews' motion would take the committee beyond the requirements in the standing order. Because of that, he has to give notice, so that we would debate this particular substantive motion in 48 hours. It will be put and it will be on the order paper for our committee the next time we meet.

    That said, Mr. Maloney has made the point that we can ask the members of the department to come forward to explain why they were late, in response to our requirement to be seized of that question and that question alone, and therefore establish the precedent that in the first meeting after the question was not answered the reason should be placed on the record. Then Mr. Toews' motion would be entertained, next Tuesday I presume.

    Mr. Vic Toews: What I've done is put the matter on the paper. The notice to hear any substantive evidence isn't ready, the matter isn't ready to proceed. I'm certainly not ready to question the witnesses on this. All I've done for the committee is bring it forward, so that the witnesses can be questioned within 48 hours. We can't hear any evidence at this time if the other members have not received any notice of this issue.

    The Chair: I want to make a very clear point here. What Mr. Toews has given us is notice of a debatable motion that will be debated as a motion the next time we meet. In the event that this motion passes at that time, we will proceed with the calling of witnesses. This in itself does not oblige us to arrange witnesses for the next meeting. The witnesses who are here today are here only to answer the question why the ministry did not respond.

    Mr. Toews.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Chair, that is the substantive question. In fact, that is the only question.

    The Chair: And that's the question we'll entertain today.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Well, no. There has not been the appropriate 48 hours notice to consider that substantive question.

    The Chair: We are compelled by Parliament to do it within five days, that's the rule. The reason we're meeting today is that if the government does not respond to a question on the Order Paper in 45 days, the rule is, as passed by the modernization committee last year in October, that the appropriate committee must be seized of the single question, why did the ministry not respond? We are not to speak to the substance of the question. You are putting a motion on our order paper for us that would allow that to happen, if this is passed. Rather are we to speak to the question why they did not answer in time. It's very clear in the order.

    Mr. Vic Toews: So the committee now, by my giving notice, has become seized of the matter. The notice has been given, and every committee member here is entitled to 48 hours of notice before any evidence is heard or there is any debate on the matter. How can you debate the substantive matter or hear evidence on the substantive matter as to the reasons it was late without giving the 48 hours notice?

    The Chair: Because we are compelled by the House to meet today for this purpose. We have to meet within five days.

    Mr. Vic Toews: And we've met.

    The Chair: For the specific purpose of answering a question: why were you late? Your question is beyond that. Your question is that we study and hear witnesses with respect to the total cost and economic impact, which is a substantial motion we will entertain next week. But what we're talking about today is in response to the order we were given. It's very clear.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Maybe if I could read the--

    The Chair: I can read it for the record, since it's the first time this has been done.

If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond. The question shall be designated as referred to committee on the Order Paper and, notwithstanding Standing Order 39(4), the Member may submit one further question for each question so designated. The Member who put the question may rise in the House under "Questions on Order Paper" and give notice that he or she intends to transfer the question and raise the subject-matter thereof on the adjournment of the House, and the order referring the matter to committee is thereby discharged.

    The committee is required to be prepared to put the question to the ministry, why?

    Mr. Vic Toews: Today?

    The Chair: Today. We need an answer to that question, which in no way interferes with the notice of motion that has been put by Mr. Toews to deal with the substance of the question.

    Mr. Vic Toews: For clarification, then, these same witnesses can be brought forward to be dealt with in respect of the substantive issue.

    The Chair: If you get your motion.

    So, if we're all understanding, then I would....

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): We seem to be a little confused here. Mr. Toews' motion is really irrelevant to what we're doing here today. I'd just like to find out from committee members whether they want to call witnesses as to why a question, whatever the question was, was answered a day late. Is that what people want to spend time doing? That's the question.

    The Chair: The question Mr. McKay is asking is whether we wish to have the officials from Justice on the record with an answer to the question as to why the Department of Justice was late in answering this, beyond the 45 days? I won't prejudice your feelings about this. I'm looking for some response. Generally speaking, Mr. Maloney suggested that perhaps....

    Mr. Cadman.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I suggest that one day is important, because if we say one day isn't important, next time it's two, then it gets to a week. No, I think we have to start this off on the right foot. Maybe some day in the future we may find out we don't have to, but I don't think I want to let even one day go by now. There's a reason for the House asking us to do that.

    The Chair: Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the Reform Party's actions. The department responded to the report, albeit one day late. We are interested in the reasons for the delay. That's all. Since a response was received, why stir things up again? In my opinion, the committee has far more important matters to attend to, given its full schedule and mandate to consider important issues. This is nothing more than a technicality and frankly, in my view, nothing more than a waste of time.

[English]

    The Chair: I want to call a vote, so we'll know for sure and we won't waste any more time, if that's the case. Therefore, all those in favour of calling the witnesses from the Ministry of Justice to offer an explanation--I want to be very precise about this--as to why the department was late, please indicate.

    We'll have to do this again, because I think I saw a tie and a number of abstentions.

    Madam Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Are we asking them to provide us with the reasons immediately, or are we giving them 48 hours' notice? How does the motion read?

[English]

    The Chair: The question we're putting is whether or not we would like the Department of Justice to appear right now to answer the question. The reason I have to put this question to the committee is that the rules compel us to entertain the question. I want the committee to absolve us from that deliberation. Right?

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Understood.

[English]

    The Chair: Now, once again, all those in favour of hearing the Department of Justice, please indicate--four.

    All those opposed, please indicate--five.

    Okay, defeated.

    I thank the representatives of the department for being here to allow us to do this. I think the record will reflect that the committee has expressed its satisfaction with the explanation that they were a day late, given the fact that we received a substantial notice of motion for further debate on this subject next week.

    Mr. Vic Toews: For clarification, Mr. Chair, what this means is that we will not be hearing any evidence from the department as to why the department handed in the answer late.

    The Chair: That would be what the committee's decided.

    Mr. Vic Toews: What is the significance of a hearing in 48 hours?

    The Chair: You've given notice of a motion that will be debated in 48 hours, and that motion is that the committee or a subcommittee hear witnesses with respect to the total cost and economic impact of the Firearms Act. That motion will be put in 48 hours. Okay? I look forward to the debate next week.

    As I mentioned, the next item on the agenda has to do with the report of the Privacy Commissioner. Mr. Radwanski's report was tabled on December 12, and all members have received a copy. The relevant Standing Order is 108(1)(c), which directs the committee to decide at its next regularly scheduled meeting following the referral by motion whether or not the committee will hold hearings on the report and shall report the decision to the House. Therefore, we need someone to move either that we hold hearings or that we not hold hearings on Mr. Radwanski's report as tabled on December 12.

    I would remind everybody of our schedule in this exercise, but I take Mr. McKay first.

    Mr. John McKay: For the purposes of debate, I'll move that we establish hearings on that report. I suppose the argument is that this has been a very controversial issue in the last six to eight months, and I think we would be somewhat remiss not to hear what the Privacy Commissioner has to say?

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Are there any other comments?

    I take it from the nodding of heads that I can proceed. I propose that we simply hear the commissioner and make any further judgment as to how we want to respond to that then, rather than box ourselves into something more lengthy now. Agreed? So we will call the commissioner on his report.

    I'm going to read a motion, John, if it's acceptable.

That the committee hold a hearing on the annual report of the Privacy Commissioner for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, and that pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(c), the chair be instructed to report this decision to the House.

    Mr. John McKay: So I just move that?

    The Chair: If you....

    Mr. John McKay: I so move.

    The Chair: Eloquently done, John.

    Mr. John McKay: Wasn't it? It was as if I read it.

    The Chair: I believe everyone's in agreement.

    Now I'm going to take the committee in camera to deal with future business, which is the balance of the agenda.