Justice Committee on Nov. 1st, 2006

[John Carpay]

It's not my fault that I received the invitation so late. The answer is yes, since I read what I read. I did my research as best I could in the circumstances. It's beyond my control if I receive an invitation on Monday.

I would add on this subject that I received the invitation concerning what we're going to discuss at 4:30, the Court Challenges Program, last week. So I know that subject better.

As regards what we're considering right now, the moment when I receive an invitation is beyond my control.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lemay. Your time is up.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to welcome our guests.

First of all, so you don't waste any time asking me whether I'm a lawyer, I'll tell you that I'm not a lawyer.

of common law. It's just that I work on common sense. Common sense prevails.

I'd like to ask a question. Appendix A contains the letter that was sent to Justice Minister Vic Toews. I don't want to waste too much time with the other witness. I believe he's on the side of the Conservatives, who want to abolish all the programs, abolish the Court Challenges Program—we'll talk about that a little later—and abolish the women's rights promotion programs. That makes me think of the American system. I'm so glad to live in Canada, when I think of the great system we had until quite recently and that I wouldn't want to lose for good.

Let's see the people who signed. If I'm not mistaken, 238 people signed a letter to tell the minister that they thought he was headed in the wrong direction. Even Simon Fraser University supports you. Even the university professors signed the letter, and yet Mr. Carpay says he has the support of all the universities we're talking about.

If I understand your mandate correctly, you've been given the objective of gathering all that together. I can't imagine a professor at the University of Ottawa going to Manitoba to consult people and see what they need. I can't imagine a professor from the University Moncton going to Newfoundland or Fredericton. That's not his mandate. His mandate is to be at the university teaching our young people. That's his mandate.

What did the governments give your commission? They gave you the power to go and see citizens. In a democracy, a minority government can't pass laws and regulations and take things away from us without people having a right to say something. Democracy isn't that.

I've travelled in other countries. Some governments even asked us how to go about doing things. Even the government of South Africa asked us last month what it could do to reach the people, to involve the people. When I was elected member, it was to represent the people. If we don't want to listen to the people anymore, if the government no longer wants anyone to help it listen to the people, I think it's making a fundamental mistake and that, at that point, we're headed toward dictatorship. If we don't have a counterweight somewhere, if we can't discuss differences, opposing views in public so that we are able to get the best, I think we're making a mistake and that this government is mistaken. It should remember that it's a minority. It doesn't represent the majority of Canadians.

If we were to vote today, what would the majority in Parliament think of all this? You wouldn't be leaving. You'd be here to represent Canadians. I'd like to have your opinion on my view of the matter.

[Yves Le Bouthillier]

I'll simply say that I'm a university law professor. That was my career until I joined the commission. I must say that the commission has been a marvellous experience for me, in that we are in a world of specialization where the commission is an open entity. First, it studies various subjects; second, it's open to various disciplines; and, third, as was said, it goes across the country and does so within its limits. It must be said that it tries to involve as many people as possible, in view of its resources.

Since this committee confirmed my appointment a year and a half ago, I've acquired experience that I couldn't have as a law professor at a university. That's clear. In that respect, is this an instrument for reaching people? That was the mandate that parliamentarians gave the commission in 1996 and that it wanted to carry out to the best of its ability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Godin. Your time is up.

The hour is about at an end as well, but I'm going to give the Conservatives an opportunity to speak or ask questions.

I'm going to direct the time to Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everyone for being here.

I always think it's interesting that when the opposition finds someone they disagree with, or who doesn't particularly subscribe to their world view, they give them a thorough cross-examination. I would hope that we—

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I like it.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

You're to entitled to it. They're your questions.

First, for Mr. Carpay, you've suggested that the work of the Law Commission could be done by other sources, universities and so on. Could you describe that a bit? Why do you think the work of the Law Commission is done?

I tend to agree with you that we all have our biases. I think everyone in this room has their own world view, and you've said your organization does too. So how do you see this idea, already mentioned, of a neutral way of addressing law reform? In my view, if we have any recommendations to change the law, we're making some value judgment on whether we like it, whether it goes too far, or whether it doesn't go far enough. The Law Commission, in its recommendations, would draw some conclusions. I'm wondering how you see that role being filled by other organizations.

[John Carpay]

Not only could it be fulfilled, but it is being fulfilled every day.

We've heard Mr. Bagnell's question about aboriginal policy. There are numerous public policy research institutes that have been publishing articles and doing research on aboriginal policy. The Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change, based in Calgary, is one example. There are numerous examples.

Labour law, as far as I understand, is primarily provincial jurisdiction. But even if it is federal jurisdiction, different unions put forth their perspectives and management groups put forth theirs.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay, thanks.

Ms. Des Rosiers and Mr. Le Bouthillier, your suggestion is that this can't be done by outside groups. Mr. Carpay has mentioned that his group receives donations, and we know there are all kinds of groups out there. And the Law Commission, of course, receives public money; this was part of a spending review by the government. What do you feel perhaps is unique about it and can't be fulfilled by others?

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

I think its value is the attempt to bring together the range of groups. That's the way the commission was formulated, that it should do partnership, that it should engage Canadians in defining the agenda, and that it should bring these forward in a report to Parliament and say that at this point in time, here is the range of views in Canada. And the report would say this is one possibility and these are the dangers of going this way—because their mandate is to evaluate the consequences of going one way or the other. The five commissioners are appointed by orders in council, and having read or done the consultations, they consider what is the best policy option at the current point. Certainly the government can decide yes, no, or in five years or in ten years. The point is to join in.

I think it's fabulous that there are groups throughout Canada, and we know this. In fact we supported them, supported their exchanges in bringing them together.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

What do you say about—

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

I'll give you just two examples.

On restorative justice, the points of view are polarized. So we did sessions where people could express why they were afraid of restorative justice and how they would measure whether in fact their fears were real or not. If somebody moves on a restorative justice agenda, we ask them what guarantees they would like to see, with things like private and public security.

The very fact that we started this work brought, for example, the chief of police of Quebec to invite the CEO of a private security firm in Montreal so that they could talk together and see the difficulties and the way in which each of them could cooperate. That doesn't require a change of statute, but it was a hole that we were able to spot and to bring together all the players, the actors, to try to bring about a bit of a consensus.

There are some more charged issues, obviously, in public policy, where there are some more technical ones. In the report on federal security in intellectual property, for example, which is a more technical area, we were able to bring the commercial lawyers and small business.... We had the Ivey School of Business helping us—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Des Rosiers.

One more question, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

At the end of the day, the commission does make recommendations in their reports. Mr. Carpay, I don't know what the exact facts were, but I think it's important. I noticed at the beginning that you made some comment about recommendations for legalizing incest or something like that. And then I saw you both shaking your heads.

[John Carpay]

I mentioned its predecessor as well. I said specifically that it was the Law Commission and its predecessor. I apologize if that was missed or if I didn't articulate that clearly.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

If that's in fact the case, I'd like to know, and if it's not the case, I'd like to know.

[Nathalie Des Rosiers]

It's not the case. The Law Commission did not have a project on incest, and it did not make that recommendation.

[Yves Le Bouthillier]

None of what I heard is from this.... I thought we were here to talk about the Law Commission.

[John Carpay]

Well, yes. This was printed off the website today. It has the date on it and what not:

Registration Instead of Marriage: A registration scheme could be used to replace marriage as a legal institution. ....Accordingly, the Report recommends that Parliament and provincial/territorial legislatures move toward repealing legislative restrictions on marriages between persons of the same sex.

It's on their website today.

I don't know if it's silly or arrogant or misguided to declare yourself to be this neutral body worthy of tax dollars when you're coming out with very specific recommendations from a particular perspective and world view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the end of the first session.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

May I make a quick point?

I would like to thank the people for coming. They did very well in their presentations. I want to especially thank the commission. You really did remind me, and I hope the rest of us, that we have a job to do. You have been doing a lot of work that we need to be doing. I'm going to improve on that myself, and I hope the rest of us will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing.

I invite the next set of witnesses to come to the table. I know you're going to be among them, Mr. Carpay.

Thank you.

I will suspend the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the meeting to order.

I would like to set out some new ground rules. The question period will be limited to five minutes per person so that more people can get involved in the line of questioning. Secondly, since there are four organizations presenting, I would ask that only one person present for each organization.

Yes, Mr. Murphy, go ahead.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chairman, on a scheduling point of order, if you like, we did start ten minutes late, and I know we have a vote. Would there be agreement to sit until twenty minutes to six?