Justice Committee on Nov. 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Your essential argument, Minister, revolves around the independence of the Law Commission. Yet I suggest to you that your position is deeply conflicted. You are both Minister of Justice and you are the Attorney General. As an Attorney General you are involved in a huge number of lawsuits, both as a plaintiff and a defendant, and as Minister of Justice you have other administrative responsibilities. It would hardly do for the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice to be undercutting his own department by floating out a paper, for instance, on aboriginal rights and things of that nature when in fact you're involved in literally hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits with aboriginal groups.

I don't quite understand how you think you're going to get the same quality of advice from your own department. Given that the Canadian Bar Association, in its letter from Mr. MacCarthy, says that they are somewhat surprised to hear that the CBA could fill this role, and given that law professors aren't by nature given to doing this kind of stuff, I fail to see your argument. When we were in government the Law Commission produced reports, some of which were, frankly, a pain in the patootie. You and I would probably agree Beyond Conjugality was a report that neither of us thought was particularly helpful or useful to that debate, and Mr. Ménard, of course, would disagree with that, but that's another point altogether. I think your position is that you have cut off from dialogue among, if you will, the judicial community and legislative community a source of reports that is really forward thinking, that is beyond independent legal advice that you would get from other sources.

I'd be interested in your comments on that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

All I can say, going back to the Canadian Bar Association, is that the bar association says it can't do all of the work. Obviously no one has ever indicated that the bar association would do all of the work, and yet they have a legal research component. They must be doing something in that legal research component. The chiefs of police have a legal research and legislative committee that does this type of work. Will they do all of it? No. The thousands of professors here in Canada all do research on areas that the government does not tell them to do research on.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Isn't it the point, though, that the Law Commission would ask the deep jurisprudence questions like what's a crime, and should we update our notion of what is a crime? Your own department is not going to ask that question, and if it is, it's not doing its job.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

But, Mr. McKay, what's stopping a law professor from asking that question and publishing a work on it?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

There's probably nothing to stop a professor from doing that sort of thing. A law professor, on his or her own, doesn't provide that kind of area of central decision-making and collection of that kind of dissemination of material. I put it to you that even while we were in the government the Department of Justice didn't produce these kinds of papers and thinking, if you will, in terms of blue sky thoughts as to where the law should be going. I would submit to you that we in fact are losing something very significant by not allowing this commission to continue to exist.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

What I can tell you is that what we are doing at this point is doing needed research. It's not open-ended, but we don't ask researchers, for example, for a cooked issue. We in fact ask them on specific matters to provide us with an opinion, and they provide us with opinions on these matters on a regular basis.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The Law Commission provides--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

I want to thank the minister. If I'm correct, this is your fourth or fifth visit to this committee. Certainly you've been very generous with your time, and we appreciate your candour here today.

My question relates to what my colleague Mr. Thompson was discussing so eloquently before, that we really don't need the crutch of taxpayer dollars to have good policy development when it comes to law in Canada. You look at MADD, and do they need the crutch of taxpayer dollars to put forward ideas on back levels? Did Joe Wamback in Newmarket, when we talked about young offenders? Certainly not.

The question I'd have for you, Minister, would be this: is there an example you can share with us of a group that doesn't require taxpayer dollars whose proposals or policy developments ideas you found useful for you and your department?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Certainly my colleague from the Bloc, Mr. Ménard, indicated that the Canadian Police Association has given us very good advice, and it is certainly independent of government, but there are all types of other individuals who provide us with advice. For example, when the former government had that inquiry a number of years ago into APEC, into the riots that had occurred—maybe “riots” is a little too strong a word—as I recall, it was Justice Hughes who did an excellent report into that entire situation—the relationship of the police to the enforcement of law, the relationship of government to giving police orders. It was an incredibly helpful piece of work. I can see that governments have in fact reacted in many cases to those types of reports. On the O'Connor report on Arar, Justice O'Connor did excellent work--23 recommendations that our government has accepted, and some of them involve the changing of laws.

What I find puzzling is the staunch defence of the Law Commission of Canada by Liberals who totally ignored the reports, never had a response, and then come to the committee and say, this is horrible that the funding has been cut off because of all these wonderful reports--reports that they never once acted on.

What Canadians are telling us is they want us, as parliamentarians, to spend money efficiently and effectively, and that's exactly what we are doing.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Minister, when we talk about efficiencies, are there any areas that with the funds saved from cutting down on inefficiencies, you'll be able to better protect Canadians? Are there any new initiatives that you and your department embarked upon to better protect Canadians? Maybe, in particular, you could share with us the investment we've seen in the RCMP as an example of an area where new funds have been put, because it's important to focus on the money that has been actually spent to protect Canadians, as well.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

In this particular case, the money all went to pay down the debt, as I understand it--all of those particular cuts. But I can say that on the other hand there have been hundreds of millions of new dollars invested in programs that in fact benefit Canadians in a very direct and real way. For example, my friend Mr. Bagnell talks about the aboriginal report that they did absolutely nothing with. Actually, I would prefer to see housing for off-reserve aboriginals, to which our government added more money, and on-reserve housing, for example. Those are real things that I think aboriginals actually want, rather than producing a report that has gathered dust now for I don't know how many years.

So it's a bit of a difference. The Liberals want to spend money on reports that they never used and never responded to; we want to take that money and spend it on real programs that make the difference in the life of a community, whether it's aboriginal or non-aboriginal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Thank you, Minister.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Could you verify whether the minister, in his capacity as Minister of Justice and member for Saint-Boniface, would agree to come back to discuss the rights of Francophones outside Quebec and the Court Challenges Program? Would the minister agree to come back soon to discuss these important issues, since his colleague from the Department of Canadian Heritage has made off in a cowardly manner? I think you have a responsibility, minister.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

As the member knows, Mr. Chair, I can't do that, as much as—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You can, I checked with my leader. There's no rule. There's a convention.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No, I can't discuss—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, we will discuss in the steering committee meeting as to what other issues will be discussed here in front of the minister and the committee.

Right now, the minister has consented to stay for an additional 15 minutes. I know there were a series of questions regarding the amendments to the Judges Act. I believe Mr. Lemay would like to set those questions on the floor first, and Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Lemay, please.

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

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, I thought it was Mr. Cotler's turn first, then mine. As Mr. Cotler isn't here, I think it's Mr. Murphy's turn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Cotler was unable to make it today, and so it falls to you, between the two of you, as you had made that request.

The floor is yours, Mr. Lemay.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'd be prepared to have another 15 minutes added on to another committee hearing so that Mr. Lemay has perhaps a little more opportunity. I don't want to deny him that opportunity. I understand it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Lemay.