Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We'll get the meeting under way. This is meeting 13, dealing with Bill C-10 , the clause-by-clause. I think we're at clause 8.

There's a Liberal amendment on clause 8.

Mr. Cotler.

(On clause 8)

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Continuing with the amendments with respect to this bill, I just want to say by way of quick preface that I remain in support of the bill. I proffer the amendments only with the view to refining both the protection for the victim and the liability of the perpetrators.

With regard to clause 8, the purpose here is to amend Bill C-10 by replacing lines 22 to 37 on page 7 with the following:

section 6.1, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall, within the scope of the powers and to the extent that is reasonably practicable, assist any judgment creditor or the court that has rendered the judgment in identifying and locating the property of that foreign state or any agency or instrumentality of the foreign state.

(1.1) In this section, “instrumentality”, in respect of a foreign state, means a legal entity

(a) that is separate from the foreign state; and

(b) in which the foreign state has a direct or indirect controlling or majority ownership interest.

The rationale for this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that the states that are successfully sued should not be able to shield their assets through instrumentalities or proxies they direct or control.

Again, the purpose of this amendment is in order to increase the effectiveness of the proposed legislation, section 12.1 of the State Immunity Act should expressly reference legal entities formally separate from the state but in respect of which the state has a beneficial or direct or indirect controlling or majority ownership and interest. It just really is to facilitate the execution of judgments in that regard where a suit is successful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Liberal amendment 12. Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, this is continuing along the same lines, with the purposes of making the execution of judgment more effective.

I move that Bill C-10 , in clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 37 on page 7 with the following:

creditor in identifying and locating property—namely, financial assets that are held within Canadian jurisdiction or property situated in Canada—of the foreign state or any agency or instruments thereof, unless the Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that to do so would be injurious to Canada’s international relations or either Minister believes that to do so would be injurious to Canada’s other interests.

Again, the definition of “instrumentality” remains the same. The amendment is being offered for purposes of making more effective execution of judgment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

(Amendment negatived)

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I want to mention by way of addendum that I understand these motions are failing. I just want to acknowledge both the witness testimony and the work of the Canadian Coalition Against Terrorism, which provided the background, the rationale, and the purpose of character for these amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Just for the record, Mr. Chair, although we didn't speak to these amendments, we supported these amendments. We're not having recorded votes on them, but I just want it on the record that we supported the work that has been done to try to improve this legislation, and I want to thank Mr. Cotler for bringing the amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

So there is nothing further?

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 9)

On clause 9, Mr. Cotler, I believe you have an amendment.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

I would move that Bill C-10, in clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 16 on page 8 with the following:

agency of a foreign state or in respect of proceedings that relate to terrorist activity or the support of terrorism engaged in by a foreign state.

Mr. Chairman, I basically spoke to this the last time we met as part of my overall discussion, so I will not engage in any more discussion on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We support this particular amendment because it does in fact replace the existing wording that refers to the list, and as we said on the last occasion, when we debated the merits of this last Tuesday, we take the position that this list is not an appropriate way to deal with the addition of a civil remedy. So we will support Mr. Cotler's amendment because it talks about foreign states in general. As a result, we will support the amendment but then vote against the clause because of the contents of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Again, Mr. Chair, the purpose of that amendment is to make sure this legislation is more effective. And I just invite the government MPs to maybe revisit this at report stage or otherwise, because this is all being offered for the purposes of strengthening the legislation, the government legislation, in this regard.

(Clause 9 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, I have a motion that clauses 10 to 31 and clauses 35 to 38, inclusively, be voted on together or severally.

The reason is that we have no amendments to propose to these clauses. There appears to be a general consensus that the offences against children are ones that should be dealt with separately, that the increase in penalties and the creation of new separate penalties are desirable. I'd like to speak to them as a group, and perhaps that procedural aspect could be dealt with first.

On the reason for separating out clauses 32, 33, and 34, one would have to ask the drafters, but it appears that everything from 10 to 38 deals with the sexual offences against children, but clauses 32, 33, and 34 are related to other aspects of conditional releases and not necessarily in the same category. So if that's acceptable to the committee, I would propose to have them discussed afterwards. It's out of order, out of sequence, but if we can do clauses 10 to 31 and clauses 35 to 38 together, which would involve ultimately one vote, I would propose to speak, but I would speak perhaps for a little longer than ten minutes, since we're dealing with approximately 25 clauses.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Would you do clauses 32 to 34 immediately afterwards? Is that what you're saying? Or what do you propose?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, I'd suggest we do clauses 32, 33, and 34 immediately afterwards.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Sir, I have no objection to going with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Is there consent that we deal with clauses 10 to 31 and clauses 35 to 38 as a basket right now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Having heard the discussion, shall clauses 10 to 31 now carry?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

No, Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You want to speak to it first?