Justice Committee on Nov. 15th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Number 7.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Number 7, correct.

Mr. Chairman, it states here that clause 5 be amended by adding the following after line 35 on page 6: “If a court of competent jurisdiction”—and again, we are vesting jurisdiction in the courts by reason of this legislation—“has determined that a foreign state that is set out on the list referred to in subsection (2) has supported terrorism...”. And that refers to the list as drawn up by the government.

I might just say, parenthetically, to the query from the parliamentary secretary that I don't impute to the government any sense of arbitrariness in the setting of that list. I'm worried about the consequences of that list--namely, the consequences that would limit the civil remedy. I don't question the government's good faith; I question only the effectiveness. That has been the purport of all my amendments here.

To continue, it said, “that foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings against it that relate to terrorist activity by the state, as defined in subsection 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code, on or after January 1, 1985.”

I think it speaks for itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Having no other intervenors, we'll call the vote on Liberal amendment 7.

(Amendment negatived)

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to note for the record that the government is voting against the remedy to be taken against the list they proposed, once again defeating the effectiveness of their own proposed amendment. This is a set of very anomalous situations, Mr. Chairman. We are seeking to give the victims more effective remedies, while supporting the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I think if you wish, Mr. Cotler, you could ask for a recorded vote.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, I do ask for a recorded vote on this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We already took the vote. I'm sorry.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

No, we already took the vote, and this is further debate on a matter that's already been voted on.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Now, shall clause 5 carry?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Absolutely.

(Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

We now move to Liberal amendment—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Chair, just a point of order, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Sure.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I just wanted to point out for the record, Mr. Chair, that we have 208 clauses; we've dealt with five clauses in almost two hours. By my calculation, it's going to take about 40 meetings to get this through. The House has specifically directed this committee to deal with this matter within 100 days of sitting. I think Canadians have had enough, or thereabouts.

The point is, Mr. Chair, if we're going to sit for 40 meetings to get through these clauses.... And I understand they're very important, but we've debated and debated this. We debated it in previous Parliaments. We've dealt with this matter intensely.

I just want all members to recognize that this is going to take 20 meetings to continue, which means 10 consecutive weeks. We will not have this matter done until March or April. So I would just like to direct all members' attention to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I realize that your mathematics may be correct if we're looking at the first five clauses. But I will just point out that when we get to clause 10, I have a motion to in fact pass 25 clauses in one vote, if the committee so wishes. If you apply that logic to it, we should be finished by noon. I think it's very early in the game to be suggesting how many days or hours or years it's going to take to go through clause-by-clause. We haven't been sitting for 100 days since May 2. So there's lots of time to give this due and proper consideration.

We have a job to do here, on both sides of this table. I, for one, and our members here, intend to proceed to do that. If the government doesn't want to have proper consideration of this, they can move a motion of closure, as they did in the House, but we would oppose that strongly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

I appreciate the interventions, but obviously the time in clause-by-clause is always the time it takes. We'll try to move along as quickly as we can, but that is the nature of it.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this first bill we have supported in principle. That is number one. Number two, this is precedent-setting legislation. Maybe the government doesn't realize the importance of the legislation they are themselves proposing. I find it actually strange that they would object to the kind of consideration we're giving to precedent-setting legislation, which purports, for the first time in Canadian legal history, to amend the State Immunity Act to give a civil remedy to victims of terror. That deserves, and the Canadian public I think would wish, that this committee would give it the informed consideration it warrants.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that it has not been considered by this House before. It has been considered in the Senate. It has not been considered by this House before. And the amendments so proposed for the first time in this chamber, the amendments I've been proposing here today, are designed to improve the legislation for the purposes for which they seek to have it enacted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, this part of the bill has never been reviewed clause by clause.

I did not feel that anyone here has tried to monopolize the discussion in any way whatsoever. This is being done in all intellectual honesty, at least on this side of the table, in order to improve the bill.

I take some issue with this attempt to make us swallow, as if it were just a question of math, 208 clauses over 109 pages dealing with nine fundamental pieces of legislation that are going to change our whole criminal justice system in a number of ways. It will take the time it is going to take, but at least we will be able to leave here saying that we did what we had to do to get the job done.

If my colleague opposite really feels that someone is trying to take up all the time and prevent matters from moving forward, we can talk about that later. I personally feel that the current discussions are very important and are worth pursuing by the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

We are on clause 6 and Liberal amendment number 8.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

The amendment is that clause 6 be amended by replacing the lines 39 to 42 on page 6 with the following:

agency of a foreign state or in respect of proceedings that relate to a terrorist activity or the support of terrorism engaged in by a foreign state.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to seek to clarify and make more effective the remedy for the victim of terror against the foreign state, its sponsors, and its agencies in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Seeing no further intervenors, I call the vote on Liberal amendment number 8.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Shall clause 6 carry?