Justice Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 36 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, November 18, 2010.

We are going to be continuing our study of Bill S-6. However, before we do that, members, I want to go through a couple of housekeeping items.

First of all, at our next meeting we will be hearing at least one more witness, if not two. We’re just trying to line up the final witness. We’re waiting to confirm that. Then we will move to clause-by-clause.

At the following meeting we will have the minister appearing on Bill C-4, you may recall. Then we will be dealing with Bill C-21.

Mr. Comartin, you had asked about witnesses on Bill C-21. The one witness you asked for was Statistics Canada. They have indicated that they don’t have any additional information to add to what’s already on the record. Also, incidentally, they’re not available on the two dates we made available to them.

We haven’t received any other witnesses from our members here. I just want to make sure that you’re aware of that, because our timeframe now is pretty short.

Go ahead, Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Did I understand you correctly that the committee would be moving to clause-by-clause on Bill S-6 on Tuesday afternoon?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

The notice we received previously did not have clause-by-clause on Tuesday, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

What kind of notice would you have received?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It would be the calendar of what the committee would be doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Actually, the steering committee report was adopted, and it showed Bill S-6 for clause-by-clause.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

We will do clause-by-clause on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

So we would have to have any amendments in by when?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We want to have the amendments in by Monday noon, if that works for you.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It is Monday noon. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I note that we’re planning to have a steering committee meeting on Tuesday, November 23, at 11:30. I understand that we’ve inquired about your availability, and the three members of the opposition are available at that time.

Finally, you should have before you a budget for the Bill S-6 study. It’s not a big budget. The amount requested is $3,800 to cover witness expenses.

It’s moved by Mr. Lee.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

We'll go to Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

With regard to Bill C-21, there had been some discussion between the clerk and my office earlier today about an additional witness because of the case that surfaced earlier this week, the Ponzi scheme case, where the charges were all dropped. I would like to have some indication....

For me, and I’m not being overly political here, if we are going ahead with Bill C-21, and we have that kind of process going on, which I don’t think is occurring just in Ontario, you wonder why we bother with the legislation. It’s actually going to expand the number of potential offences for white collar crime. You have charges under existing law, and then they’re stayed, and not only stayed but dropped, without any proceedings.

I would like a witness who could give us some sense of what in fact is occurring in Ontario.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Who are you proposing to bring?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The Attorney General in Ontario is actually conducting an investigation into this right now, so I am afraid that we’re not going to get anybody directly from the government, while that’s going on, who will take any kind of position.

There are several lawyers in Toronto who have been acting for a number of the victims who have experienced this consequence. It’s clear that there’s been fraud and other illegal activity. Then the charges either get dropped or stayed or there are very minimal fines as penalties--rarely jail time, usually--simply because the prosecutors do not have enough resources to take the trials on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Could I leave it to you, then, to identify any witnesses?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes. I didn’t want the record to be left on the basis that I was conceding that there weren’t going to be any witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, I would never make that assumption. It’s just that the one witness you had proposed basically indicated that there was not much to add. I would be glad to consider one more.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

With regard to the information that we got from Statistics Canada the last time, from Juristat, I'm assuming we will be able to look at that information in our consideration of Bill C-21 at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It should be part of the record, I would imagine.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

To come back to the issue of the future calendar of this committee and the steering committee report, may I ask when the steering committee report was presented to the committee of the whole and adopted?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'll have the clerk look into it while we carry on with our witness, and then maybe we can discuss it at the end of the meeting. Is that all right?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Okay, let's go back to BillS-6. We are actually dealing with two items. We have Bill S-6 and we also have a review of an order-in-council appointment under Standing Orders 110 and 111.

We'll begin with the review of the OIC appointment. We're considering the order-in-council appointment of Susan O'Sullivan to the position of federal ombudsman for victims of crime. During the second hour, as requested, Ms. O'Sullivan will make herself available to answer questions on Bill S-6. We'll also have with us Mr. Howard Sapers, the correctional investigator, and his executive director and general counsel, Ivan Zinger.

This is what I'm proposing to do. Typically we allocate one hour for the order-in-council review. If we don't need all that time, I'll take the balance of the time for our meeting and split it in two. Half of that would go to Ms. O'Sullivan, and half to Mr. Sapers. Is that acceptable to the committee members?

All right, we'll proceed on that basis.

We have Ms. O'Sullivan with us.

I think you know the drill. You have ten minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

The floor is yours.