Justice Committee on Nov. 6th, 2006

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Were there any responses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Your minute's cut short, Mr. Bagnell. I know the minister's question is left unanswered. I guess it will remain unanswered for the time being.

Mr. Lemay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, minister.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Good afternoon.

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

You must sense around the table, at least on our side, that we don't agree with the idea of abolishing the Law Reform Commission of Canada.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It wouldn't be the first time we've had a disagreement, would it?

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

No, that's obvious. I was a lawyer for a number of years, and I feel the Law Reform Commission of Canada did an essential job with all the new ways of viewing, describing and practising law in the future. Let's take information technology law for example. The advent of information technology has created a new branch of law. The Law Reform Commission of Canada worked on issues concerning cyberpedophiles.

The first question I have to ask you, minister, is very specific. When will the bill abolishing the Law Reform Commission of Canada—because it takes an act to do that—be tabled in Parliament for discussion purposes?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

As you know, we have a number of priorities in government. You've seen some of my bills; there will be more bills coming. I have no bill on the table to abolish the Law Commission of Canada.

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

There must be something I'm not grasping here. By cutting off its funding, you're starving it to death and you don't dare table a bill. Have I understood correctly?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No, the legislation is not mandatory, it's empowering legislation. Why would one want to put that bill through the House? It's not necessary. It's empowering legislation. It's not mandatory. It doesn't mandate anything, in a required sense.

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

You can check with your 295 experts, but, in my view, you have to abolish the commission. Will the commission stay up in the air with nothing at all? Since it was a statute that created it, you need another one to abolish it. Let's say you table a bill...

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No, that's fundamentally wrong. Just because you pass legislation and do things pursuant to the legislation, when you stop doing those things you don't have to repeal the legislation. Your premise is fundamentally wrong.

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

You're saying my premise is incorrect, but a statute created the Law Reform Commission of Canada. That act is in effect. The commission was created by an act. Do you agree with me?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's correct.

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

To terminate that commission, an act abolishing it has to be passed. No? It's going to remain up in the air. You who pride yourselves on cleaning house, can't you introduce a law to abolish it completely so that we don't have to go back to it?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't see any requirement to actually repeal the legislation, if that's what you're asking. There's no requirement to do that. Parliament may fund the Law Commission. The commission may do certain things. There isn't anything mandated that we are not doing.

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

If this committee, by a majority, asked you to restore the necessary funding for the operation of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, what would your reaction be?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'm not sure whether you have the power to do that. Isn't that a money bill?

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

That's what I want to understand. We could recommend and ask that you review the decision to cut off funding for the Law Reform Commission of Canada or pass legislation abolishing it.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes, you could recommend that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I'm going to share my time, if there's any left, with Mr. Brown.

I only have one question for the minister. I'm going to go back to the old days.

For 52 years I've been a taxpayer. For 52 years I often wondered why my tax dollars should go to a cause that I don't support. I've been on this committee now for 13 years and I've seen lots of groups come and testify and give witness. The Canadian Bar Association, Victims of Crime, REAL Women of Canada, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, MADD Canada, and the National Citizens Coalition have all come before this committee. Those are a few and there are probably a lot more that are not funded by the government. They fund themselves. They form a society, sell memberships, fight for a cause that they believe in, and I say, good for you. In fact, I contribute to two or three of these organizations because they fight for their cause. I think as a taxpayer I would want my money to be spent for those causes I support. Others who support other causes could do likewise with their organizations.

I would ask the ministerwhether there is any reason why a group of people who support the commission couldn't form a society. We have seven people here who would probably make good members. They could contribute some money and get it started and do their work like they always have before in the past, and we'll bring them before the committee as a group of people representing citizens who purport to advise on what they do.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No, there's nothing stopping them, or there's nothing stopping a government actually responding to Law Commission reports that have come out. I know that Mr. Bagnell talked very highly about the aboriginal report. I don't recall what response the government made in respect of what he considers a very important report. I'm just wondering whether maybe the committee could look at what the government actually did during the time that Mr. Bagnell was in government. It's very easy now to say, well, it was such an important, fundamental report, and yet he did nothing. Who actually betrayed the aboriginal people? Who actually betrayed the aboriginal people, if he fundamentally believed that and did nothing? That bothers me.

Your point is well taken. A group of university professors can come forward here and say, look, we would like to submit a paper on a particular issue, whether it's aboriginal rights or securities legislation or privacy. They're already funded by taxpayers in one way or another. They are very independent. If you've ever been involved in collective bargaining situations with university professors, you'll understand exactly how independent and fundamental that is to our entire university system. To suggest that simply because one vehicle is not being funded by the government, the entire law system breaks down because we don't have access to independent legal advice.... We, as the Government of Canada, have access to the same independent legal advice as the Law Commission of Canada did.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

You're telling me, Mr. Minister, that the justice department responds to these organizations that I mentioned just as quickly as they would to organizations that were funded by the government.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

My experience has been that the government, including the former Liberal government, has been much more responsive to other organizations than the Law Commission of Canada. It almost seems like a deliberate insult to the Law Commission of Canada that they simply didn't respond to any of the reports the Law Commission was coming out with. Yet I know there are organizations that the former government responded to and that we as a government do. For example, if you look at the legislation we brought forward, it indicates that we've been consulting with victims groups that are independent of government, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police--various groups. We've always taken them into account. We haven't always accepted it as policy that would be implemented in legislation, but we've responded certainly much more than the prior government did to the Law Commission of Canada.