Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Are you suggesting we have more than one organization from each of those countries?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes. But do we have to think about doing the same here as we would do if we spent the government's money to go to Europe to see them? I know that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security went. I was there, we went to Europe to study how prisoners with mental illnesses were treated. For our study, we have been to several Canadian cities to study various aspects of organized crime here, but it seems that other countries face the same problems and have developed ways of fighting them that could provide us with guidance. If we do not go, I think that we have to think about calling several witnesses from each country by videoconference and having a discussion with them to find out who could provide as broad a perspective as we would get if we went to see them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think having five witnesses over two days is sufficient. Perhaps later if there's more time we can go down that route. But if too many people are called upon to give evidence and chucked into one day, other than their statements, we don't get enough time for in-depth questioning.

The U.K. group sounds like they cover about five specific areas, all of which we have explored, so we should have them for sure. With CSIS and Homeland Security, we share the longest border in the world, so there's an intricate relationship there. We can hear from Legal Aid, but I think their message will be that they don't have enough money; they need more money. I could almost say what they're going to say. I think we know that. I'm not downplaying the seriousness or legitimacy of it, but I think we want to get into the meat of the matter--the mechanics of the matter.

So I think over those two days we should have the three groups I just mentioned--the U.K. group for sure. I would almost say that two hours will be insufficient to listen to them. Then there's CSIS and Homeland Security. I would like to hear from the U.K. group for the full two hours because of the five areas. I imagine the analyst would not have brought them to our attention unless he felt they were very worthy of our attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemay.

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

I would like to make a quick comment to my colleague, Mr. Norlock. Let us talk about legal aid, because I have worked with people who work there for a long time.

I would like to hear about their situation. I do not want to them to tell me that they do not have enough money, but I do want them to tell me how they have reacted and how they have handled major trials. They are actually very, very involved in very long and complex trials. I would like to know how they have been able to do it. I would like to hear how they would answer that question, because those very long trials have a considerable impact on the administration of legal aid funding, not only in Quebec, but all across Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Does anybody else wish to comment?

Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It just seems to me that we need three meetings instead of two, because we have a lot of material to cover. There is a lot of interest, I think, from all of us.

I appreciate what Mr. Norlock was saying, but I do believe legal aid is an aspect we should look into, and not necessarily the funding of legal aid but how they articulate their participation in these mega-processes.

Is it possible to think of a third meeting eventually, before we break for the summer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

As we've done along the way, we've added--

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

We're flexible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes, we're flexible.

I think we've actually achieved a lot on this organized crime study, and along the way we've added witnesses. We've extended the study already, and if we need another day, I'm certainly open to considering that.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Should we prioritize, then, just to give ourselves an idea of who should come first and then we'll see--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Well, the original proposal was that we were going to invite these five groups to appear. Monsieur Ménard had suggested that we actually look at each issue and invite additional witnesses on top of these.

I'm hearing over on this side that it's not what the government would like to see, because we do have some government legislation coming down the pipe. If we still have holes available in our schedule, we can always talk about that, going forward.

For example, on this work that we're doing, I'd assumed a couple of days ago that we had wound this up. Now that we have some time available and I've discussed it with the analysts, they have said, “Listen, there are some holes. Let's plug those holes so that we have a really good report.”

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Lemay and Ms. Mendes on legal aid. I think it would be instructive with respect to this whole issue of disclosure.

As I understand both from the prosecutors and from the defence bar, some parameters need to be placed on this high volume of disclosure to make it reasonable. Certainly with respect to legal aid, I agree with Mr. Norlock that their resources are always going to be finite, and from their perspective, insufficient. That being the case, certainly they might be helpful or instructive in giving us some guidance as to how we can place some parameters on the whole issue of disclosure to make it reasonable and that the lawyers they're bankrolling aren't overwhelmed with disclosure that might arguably be irrelevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Are you suggesting that we have further witnesses on disclosure?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

No, I just agree that we should hear from legal aid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, we certainly will.

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I won't bring it up again as long as we get at least two hours with the U.K. group, and perhaps have CSIS here in person at the same time in case there's some overlap.

We haven't heard from international groups about organized crime, which would be another perspective. I think we really will shortchange ourselves if we keep our blinders on and focus just on Canada.

As long as we use the two days that we know we have for those groups that were mentioned by the analyst and save legal aid for the end of that, and maybe a third day....

I think Ms. Mendes was correct in saying that we sure need more time. So let's put legal aid after the two days that we're going to go through with the other group. That's my preference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I'll suggest, then, that we schedule these five groups over the next two days. We'll do our best to schedule them. If there is an appetite to hear more, we'll go from there and play it by ear.

Is that okay, Mr. Ménard?

Monsieur Lemay.

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

I agree with you, Mr. Chair.

I have been told that, next week, the schedule in the House will focus on democratic reform for the whole week. That is what we were told about 15 minutes ago. The study of Bill C-4, that clearly we want to debate, will be postponed to the following week. So we would have next week to hear witnesses, the four hours needed and possibly the following Tuesday. Unless you are telling us that something else is coming up—but, from the way you were talking earlier, there is nothing else on the agenda—it looks like those bills will not be debated next week, but the following one. So we have time to hear witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move forward on that basis, and then we'll play it by ear and see if we want additional witnesses--wherever the next five witnesses take us.

Is there any further discussion?

We're adjourned.