Foreign Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You're going to amend your new clause with three years?

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Oui.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Thank you.

I've taken names now for discussion.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, my first question is, if this clause says “Within five years after this section comes into force”, then within a year that would have been approximately six years, right? Five years and then a review and then one year to report back to Parliament. That's what this motion is talking about. Am I right?

Oui?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Yes, it's maximum. It could be six months or a year.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

It's the max.

We have a problem with the three years, to be very frank with you. The minister already clearly said that we are going through the whole review process, we are doing all these things to this, and if every three years this committee has to be seized with this, it is just extra work and too much work. I think a five-year review is a pretty good one, with enough time for that. I don't have any problem with the five years added, as stated here, but three years is I think not.... We just cannot keep coming back and seizing on all these things. This is, as we have stated, filling in a gap of something that is there. There are concerns, questions. I think five years, as originally proposed...but three years for me is too short a time for us to keep coming back and looking at this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

On the list I've got Mr. Dorion and then Mr. Lunney.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think that it would be too much work, since we have just adopted all the clauses of the brand new legislation in less than one minute after discussing it for an hour. So, I don't think that we will need to discuss it for hours every three years. I think that the review can be done very quickly.

However, if someone has something important to say about the legislation, they should have the opportunity every three years to bring it up and to say what provisions need amending.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Dorion.

Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Things change quickly, but inasmuch as it is new, what will happen is that as time goes by you will develop all kinds of people who will have opinions and probably witnesses who will want to come and express an opinion on how the law has been applied or if it's been applied and so on. I suspect we'll end up, if we do a review--or the committee in the future, whoever is on that committee, would probably end up hearing witnesses on it, and I imagine it would take a little more time than we have spent on it at the juncture, which is why I think it's appropriate to leave it at a five-year interval. You've got to give some time for these things to play out.

Second, I think Mr. Dorion does make a valid remark, though, when he makes a point about a one-year period of review. Maybe that's a little bit long. Why wouldn't we say six months, as opposed to a year, for a committee to review that, so we can shorten it up on that end?

And the way it's worded in this, “such committee of the Senate and of the House”--are we talking about a combined committee here? We had some discussion about this, it seems to me, recently. Is it a combined committee of the Senate and the House or both committees? Which committees in fact? The way this clause is worded, “such committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the Senate and the House”, are we talking about a House of Commons committee, a Senate committee, both committees, a joint committee?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It you read it in French there is an “s” at the end; that's plural, and that means it's two committees.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

So we need two committees to examine this?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Yes. That's the French.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Why is it necessary to have both committees review this? I would just ask for some discussion on that point.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

The Senate will look at it--

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

So the Senate would--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Hold on one second here.

I've got Mr. Rae on the list.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I'd just say to my colleagues that I'm a strong proponent of the need for review, and the reason for that is because I think that we have to understand that this is an improvised piece of legislation. Governments have to respond quickly to situations, and you respond quickly with an improvised piece of legislation. But don't let anybody tell me that this is the product of deep consideration with respect to how this fits into the general framework.

I'll just make a couple of points.

One is I think the review should include a review of the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, as well as this legislation, so we see how all these things fit together and consider how it could be done better.

I have no problem with a joint committee. I think that's a possibility. I don't see how there's anything wrong with that. I think it's a committee that should have the ability to hold meetings and hearings in camera because I think there's a lot of information that needs to be received that's confidential. I don't know whether my colleagues in the New Democratic Party object to having a joint committee. I don't know. They may do it for their own reasons, and that's fine.

People have to appreciate that this is a new area that we're all learning about as time goes on. Three months ago, people wouldn't have said that if a government writes you and says, “I want you to seize the assets of Harry Jones”, and you say, “Oh, okay, Harry Jones, we'll get them”.... This has an unprecedented nature to it.

I'm prepared to pass the legislation, and our party is prepared to pass it, but we do think that the House has to take a deep breath after this is passed and ask how all these pieces of legislation fit together. Can we do it better?

I don't think that's unreasonable. We're not being difficult here. We're just saying we should be doing our work as legislators.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I have a point of order on the suggestion Mr. Rae has given.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I like the officials, they do a great job, but we should be able to have a look at it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Now you're bringing in all the legislation, all these things.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Yes, sure.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I would ask you the simple question: would that fall under the purview of the justice committee or would that fall under the purview of the foreign affairs committee?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We don't know.

If you actually read the wording, Deepak, it says “by such committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons as may be designated”. So it's up to people to sit down and ask how they're going to do this, and we have to figure out a way to do it. I don't think it's unreasonable. I think it's perfectly reasonable.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to do a review. We have agreed to the review, and I think the review is fine.

We don't see many problems. If you really added all the others to a review, it's fine with us. The only question I have is that three years is a little too early. I think we would need a little bit more time. I think five years is fine, and then what Mr. Rae has recommended is acceptable to us.