Justice Committee on Feb. 6th, 2013

[Donald Piragoff]

Yes, I know.

Your more fundamental question is really not a question for us to answer. It's really a question for Parliament and for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for treaty negotiations.

As you know, the process changed two years ago, in that treaties are now deposited in Parliament for the purposes of comment by MPs. That's a new progression from the way it used to be before, when actually the treaty never even appeared in Parliament. I think Parliament is starting to take lessons from other countries as to how they do it. We have had some progression. That's not to say there isn't more room for moving forward with others.

In terms of a background brief, that is not the practice of most common law countries. I think the countries that you're referring to are usually civil law countries, a different constitutional system. In some of those civil law countries, international treaties become part of their domestic law upon ratification. They don't even need to have implementing legislation. They're not dual states, they're monist states.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Our next questioner is Mr. Armstrong, for the Conservatives.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I welcome you to the chair, as we've heard before.

This is my first day on the committee. After 18 years as a professional educator before becoming elected, I'm really pleased to see that the department continues to put forward legislation that protects children from sexual predators and other predators who prey upon one of the most vulnerable segments of our society. I appreciate the work you've done on those particular pieces of legislation.

We've heard a lot of talk today about timing. Am I right to say that this is the first time this bill has been actually tabled and pushed through by a government?

[Greg Koster]

Yes, that's correct.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

So even though the Liberals originally signed on to the agreement, it was never tabled by the Liberal Party. It was never actually put in legislation by the Liberals in the previous government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

It will be after this.

[Donald Piragoff]

The treaties were negotiated in 2005. I'm not sure which year we signed. I'd have to check with the Department of Foreign Affairs on whether we signed in 2005 or signed subsequently.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

But it wasn't tabled by the Liberals while they were in power.

Different governments have different priorities, and in criminal justice, our Conservative priorities—stopping people from grooming children as sexual predators, raising the age of consent so that we stop international sexual tourism, or mandatory jail sentences for sexual predators—might slow some of these things down. Those would be the priorities of our party.

When much of this legislation was already contained in the criminal justice system, Liberal priorities, like persecuting long-gun owners, hunters, and farmers—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Did this come straight from the PMO?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

—and softening the rights of violent criminals or slapping young offenders on the wrist might have slowed them down as well.

I have another question for you on a different subject area. Across Canada we have several nuclear facilities. What can you say to Canadians who question whether those facilities are safe? Are you aware of how safe those facilities are?

[Donald Piragoff]

I can only talk about the criminal law. If you want to talk about the actual safety of facilities, you should be talking to the minister who is responsible, the Minister of Natural Resources.

In terms of criminal law protection, the facilities have had physical protection for a number of years. As the minister indicated, there were some early conventions—they even go back into the mid-1980s—that required countries to seek the safeguarding of physical facilities. Canada has been a party, and has had legislation since the mid-1980s to deal with the physical protection of the facilities in terms of criminal protection.

There are other treaties that deal with nuclear regulation, but they are not within the purview of the Minister of Justice. As I said, that is the responsibility of another department.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Then going back over 20 years ago, the government has taken strong steps to make sure that all nuclear facilities have adequate protection. Would you say that's an accurate statement?

[Donald Piragoff]

Yes.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you very much.

In terms of this bill and the international treaties signed, we talked about some other countries, such as Australia. I think when Australia introduced this bill, they cut and pasted things piecemeal into their criminal justice act. I think we've taken a different approach.

Can you talk about the different approaches in how the two different countries are implementing this legislation?

[Greg Koster]

Well, I can speak to what we've attempted to do here.

It's true that a plain reading of both British and Australian laws shows that they use much of the same wording—not just the subject matter of the offences, but the way it's set out in the convention. I doubt it was a cut-and-paste, but it looks very similar.

Now, the way we did it here in Bill S-9 is that we wanted it to fit within the existing Canadian law so that it flowed nicely within the code and had a good relationship with the existing terrorism offences and the way the existing law defined certain activities. That's why our law looks a bit different from, for example, the Australian and British laws.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Would you say that the process would have reduced a lot of duplication—that since a lot of this legislation already existed in our criminal justice system, putting the whole compartment in would have caused a lot of duplication in our current legislation?

[Greg Koster]

I don't think it would necessarily reduce duplication, because it's very specific.

What this did do is tie it together. The British law is a number of pages and the Criminal Code is already quite thick, so we attempted to be as concise as possible while still capturing all the required elements of the treaties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.

Our next questioner is Madam Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thanks very much.

I'd ask the minister if this bill will help and if there were any cases. I wonder if you could let us know if there were any cases acquitted under the previous provisions in the Criminal Code, cases you would be able to get a conviction on this time with the new law. In that vein, are there any current or ongoing files right now that the minister intends to prosecute with these measures once this law is passed?

[Greg Koster]

We can undertake to look for past cases, although in our research I haven't come across any. For example, under the original 1980 convention, I'm not aware of any prosecutions that were both successful or unsuccessful.

With regard to ongoing cases, that's perhaps an issue best left for the law enforcement agencies, or under the purview of the Minister of Public Safety.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I will presume that all the provincial Attorneys General have been consulted and agree with this bill.

[Donald Piragoff]

They're aware of the bill and they have not expressed any concerns or opposition, so they would be supportive.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Has the minister consulted with his counterparts?

[Donald Piragoff]

The minister generally does not consult directly with his counterparts. In terms of the department, Greg can answer that question, because he was drafting the bill.

[Greg Koster]

At the time when we were contemplating the construction of this bill, we did, at the senior officials level, advise all the provinces and territories of Canada's intent to become a state party to the two treaties. We did that primarily because of the concurrent prosecutorial jurisdiction. We wanted to make sure they were on side with that, and they were.