Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 11 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 27, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 10:05 a.m. to examine Bill C-19, respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have before us today Bill C-19. The minister will open with a statement, and then he and his officials with take questions. Following the minister, there is another witness, who will be brief, and there are statements from people who want to be heard, all of whom have been contacted and have agreed to our procedure for this morning. After the minister and his officials leave, we will break for 10 minutes and then we will come back for clause-by-clause study.
I will not take up more time. Mr. Minister, welcome to our committee. You may proceed with your presentation.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs: Honourable senators, I appreciate your accommodation of the schedule. I realize that you have been meeting extensively and oftentimes into the long hours of the evening, so the fact that you have been able to arrange your schedule this morning is very convenient for me, and I thank you for allowing me to attend before your committee.
I certainly want to ensure that we deal properly and adequately with the issues. I have read the speeches by the chairman and Senator Andreychuk. A number of important issues were raised and it is crucial that we address ourselves to them.
I am pleased to be accompanied today by Mr. David Sproule, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Don Piragoff, from the Department of Justice, both of whom have been working diligently and effectively on the Rome Statute. They can help to answer any technical questions honourable senators might have.
Let me begin with this simple question: Why an international criminal court? As members of the committee well know, there continue to be shocking violations of humanitarian law. We can see just how horrendous and horrific these violations are because, thanks to modern communications, they are displayed almost nightly in front of our eyes. What has been perhaps the most serious shift is the way in which innocent civilians have become the primary object of conflict, with 90 per cent of the victims in Sierra Leone and Angola being civilians. Not only are they victims, but they are often the objectives of the conflicts themselves. They are the ones who are specifically used or abused. We are talking in terms of perhaps millions of people who have seen their rights violated by a variety of international crimes.
I was in Sierra Leone approximately a month ago, just as the second round of fighting broke out. I can tell you that spending time in the camps has brought home to me just what kind of inhumanity really exists, where the children who had been captured as war soldiers had been violated and had had their limbs cut off.
As you know, the international community has often reacted to these crimes with inaction or indifference. A certain climate of impunity has grown up and it has encouraged other extremists to continue even greater violations. Every time an individual is able to get away with one of these crimes, it encourages someone else to do the same. We must begin to replace this culture of impunity with a culture of accountability. We must be able to hold individuals responsible for their actions.
Establishing accountability is a fundamental moral imperative that is supported by Canadians. It is certainly the underlying strength of our own rule of law. Aside from being a moral imperative, it is also a practical one. If the frequency of crimes against humanity persists, we will continue to experience international repercussions. Massive atrocities create huge population displacement, aggravate conflicts, jeopardize stability and create long legacies of hatred, anger and enmity that are carried over to poison and corrupt world opinion.
In order to create a climate of accountability, we need to look at the institutions and tools that we have internationally to respond to them. To that end, a preventative tool is of utmost importance. In about a week, Mr. Chairman, I shall go to a G-8 meeting, where conflict prevention is now the primary objective. Three or four years ago, we would have been talking about trade, commerce and investment; today, we are talking about conflict prevention. We cannot wait for disaster to occur before we respond or react.
Part of that solution is to put in place a system where violators are held responsible for their actions, the effect of which is to deter further violations and to protect potential victims.
The creation of war crimes tribunals, with the mass atrocities in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, has marked a certain step forward. However, this is an ad hoc approach; it suffers from serious weaknesses, such as substantial start-up delays. It is also dependent upon Security Council decisions that may or may not be motivated by self-interest. These factors lead to selective justice. As lawyers around this table realize, selective justice is no justice at all.
The creation of a permanent, independent institution could overcome these weaknesses. It will serve as a more reliable deterrent, because of its permanence. Significantly, the statute contains essential provisions that respond to the plight of women and children during an armed conflict. In particular, it was part of the Canadian agenda during the meetings in Rome to include violations against women and children. Again, this is why there has been such a strong sense of support for the ICC and for Canada's continuing leadership role to press for an effective international court.
As you know, Ambassador Philippe Kirsch chaired the final negotiations in which the international community adopted the statute in Rome, in July 1998. Canada is currently chairing the fifth preparatory commission. Mr. Piragoff, who just arrived late last night, has been instrumental in negotiating many of the specific technical follow-ups; in that way, the manual operations will be in place at the time of final ratification.
I would also like to give some praise to the contribution made by Canadian NGOs and legal experts who worked closely with us in government to ensure the success of the Rome Statute and to ensure that their work becomes a reality.
I would also like to take a moment to say that I am pleased to name a fellow parliamentarian and legal expert on humanitarian law, Professor Irwin Cotler, as my special adviser for the International Criminal Court. Mr. Cotler will act on behalf of the government, in terms of working with other countries at the political level, to help to develop the momentum for ratification. He has made an enormous contribution to the International Criminal Court and he will continue to work on the strategy to encourage the signing of this treaty.
As well, in New York last week, Canada launched an implementation manual on the rules of procedure and evidence. This manual will help to assist states, particularly in the developing nations, to ratify and implement the statutes of the ICC.
Mr. Chairman, respecting the bill we have before us today, I would like to point out that not only will it give the government the mandate to ratify but also we will be the first country to have actually brought forward implementing legislation. It is not simply a matter of ratification; rather, we will have been the first country to alter our codes and statutes to give us the power to implement the law. It is our hope that this will act as a model for many other countries that do not have the same breadth of legislative or legal experience, so that they can use this bill as an example for implementation on their own grounds.
Let me deal with some of the concerns that have been raised, particularly by the United States, about the ICC being a threat to national sovereignty. We have worked over the years with the Americans, to try to ensure that their concerns are addressed. I recall very vividly, in the last moments before the vote, speaking with Secretary of State Albright, to try to urge them to not be part of the small minority who would vote against it. We did not succeed at that time. However, we are continuing to work on it. The United States has made an important contribution to the statute.
For example, out of respect for the question of sovereignty, the ICC statute recognizes that states have the first right to prosecute these crimes. The International Criminal Coat is a court of last resort. That is often forgotten by people who "make faces." I heard some of the speeches, not in the Senate, but in the House of Commons, that intoned that, somehow, the court was overtaking our domestic system. That is simply not true. The court will only take jurisdiction where national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to investigate a crime. It is a court of last resort.
The court also contains a number of other important safeguards that protect legitimate national interests. There are provisions to ensure that the court will not be used for frivolous or politically motivated investigations or prosecutions. As an important example, a prosecutor must appear before a panel of judges from the court before initiating any action, to determine legitimacy and reliability. The court's prosecutors and judges must meet the highest professional standards and be elected by an assembly of states.
The International Criminal Court will be established in the Hague once 16 states have ratified. To date, 97 states have signed the statute, and 12 states have ratified. If sometime this week the bill receives passage from the Senate, we would probably be the 13th or 14th, and, therefore, we would be in the first tranche of countries. States are then required to carry out the necessary legislative changes to implement the statute.
The crimes against humanity and war crimes bill is representative of a high standard of domestic legislation that should become the norm.
As you now know, we had extensive hearings in the House, where human rights experts and NGOs were able to present their concerns. Some 18 amendments were made at committee stage and accepted by the government at that time. Therefore, the bill has had a thorough examination by the international and domestic community interested in this.
I am also pleased to report that the committee hearings in the House were very much of a non-partisan nature, as I think befits the importance of the statute that we are dealing with.
In the binder from Justice and Foreign Affairs, you have a clause-by-clause examination. Please note that tab D contains a detailed summary of the amendments that were made at committee stage. The summary of the amendments is clear, but I would like to highlight some of the more important amendments.
First, the bill originally established the definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, which differed depending on whether they are committed inside or outside Canada. Many NGOs and experts expressed concerns about this, and in response to those representations the definitions have been harmonized. The offences will now be defined in accordance with the definitions at international law at the time and place of the commission. There will be no distinction between crimes committed inside and outside Canada.
Canada's ability to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over suspected criminals has been simplified and strengthened. Canada will be able to exercise jurisdiction over suspected war criminals found in Canada, regardless of when or where they committed their offence.
That, I believe, explains in brief what the bill is about. We can certainly provide any further technical answers.
I believe that this is a watershed statute. This is one of those rare moments when, as legislators, we have the opportunity to be part of something that -- and I do not want to be overly dramatic -- changes history. It is the first new international institution of this new century. It is an institution that will play a valuable role in changing international thinking about the fundamental question of impunity.
Since the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998, we have witnessed the indictment of Pinochet, the affirmation that former heads of state do not enjoy immunity for international crimes, and the indictment of Milosevic, a sitting head of state. We now have set a new standard that will be extended to all those in authority, responsibility and positions of power.
[Translation]
Policy-makers and the general public are insisting on justice in places such as Cambodia, East Timor, Sierra Leone and the Balkans. There has been a groundswell of support for ensuring accountability, particularly among the public of the world, making it a priority for governments.
[English]
I hope that we would do our part to maintain this momentum, this fundamental change, and that the ratification of the statute will affirm that Canadians are appalled by these crimes and that we are committed to ensuring that justice is done everywhere in the world.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. You have been brief and to the point.
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Minister, I wholly support your comments about the ICC. This is historic legislation. It is legislation of the type that I have not seen in my time. The Nuremberg trials were not something that I witnessed. I must admit that I was around, but I think my age precluded me from understanding the significance of that milestone.
I would have hoped that this legislation would have come much earlier in Canada, that the momentum from Rome could have continued. Certainly, Rome was a culmination of a very long process. We knew it was coming; the issue was whether there was enough political will. I would have hoped that that statute would have come earlier.
My biggest concern is that again we are caught with something as significant as this proposed legislation in the last week of our session. In the collegial attempt to try to get this through, I have to weigh whether I am doing my senatorial job properly. I must hear all the witnesses and reflect on the evidence compressed into one day. That is unfortunate, because it is the wrong signal to send about due process and the significance of the process and procedure, as well as the substance. The International Criminal Court is a fine balance between the two. To what extent that was within your control, or the rest of the machinery of your government, I do not know. However, that is the only sour note that I have on this process. Certainly, neither Canadians nor I want to be seen as impeding the development of the International Criminal Court. However, it should have been done in a way that facilitated and supported the ICC.
The implementation sections dealing with the ICC do not trouble me. They are as good a job as can be done. We are still, under Mr. Piragoff, drafting the rules and procedures in New York. As the court begins work in the future, there may be need for further amendments. The process is highly experimental and new. I think that the best efforts are in Bill C-19 regarding the ICC. Therefore, I do not intend to dwell on them.
I do have a problem that we included other amendments to the Criminal Code in this bill. They are distinctly different. They are distinctly unique to Canada. We have lost the educative value of Bill C-19 and the ICC for Canadians. For example, Mary Robinson has spoken very strongly about the need to teach people about the Rome Statute, the need to teach people what the ICC will be.
The fact that it is not retroactive is a good thing. We can say to people, "History was not kind to civilians. From this point on, these are the rules." However, our statute says that, from this point on, these are the rules but, by the way, there are some retroactive sections. It is highly confusing as an educative tool. Why were the two put together? They could have been in tandem as two separate bills. In that way, we would have had a clean bill for the ICC. I would like your comments on that.
I am particularly concerned about that combination because both Mr. Cotler and you have said that you will use Canada's example around the world. I think it is a highly confusing example. Bill C-19 has uniquely crafted amendments to our Criminal Code. It loses its education value, but it also loses its model value.
I am not impressed that we would want to use it as a model because each country is unique vis-à-vis its internal laws. What we need to do is to give technical assistance to countries to help them overcome their impediments, so that they can overcome the lack of political will in their country due to misunderstandings. I would hope that our best efforts would be to assist countries to identify their own particular impediments, rather than using Canada as a model.
I would, however, agree that the model is valuable, in the sense of being able to say: "We did the implementation and we did the integration of our laws all in one step, and you can do the same." I, for one, as someone has been working on this around the world, know that the situation in each country is a highly complex one. We need to get all parties and the bureaucrats together in those countries and give them the necessary information in order for them to craft their own solutions.
Mr. Axworthy: First, I agree with your comment regarding the timing. If I had had my choice, Bill C-19 would have been the first bill introduced in the House of Commons, but things like budgets and other things come along. One must take ranking.
We did make a choice to go through carefully the variety of statutes that could be affected by our membership in the court. We made sure that they were done in a corollary fashion, that there was correspondence between them.
We have always followed the practice that if we intend to ratify or sign we do so with the intent of fulfilling those commitments. The legislation is as copious and comprehensive as it is because we wanted to review things carefully, to ensure that the necessary things were refined. For that reason, we spent the time to prepare a bill as opposed to simply complete the papers for ratification.
I do appreciate that you have made accommodation in the Senate to consider this bill.
I will speak to your comments on having two bills. We are dealing with war crimes. The war crimes as enunciated in the Rome Statute are a continuation of the evolution of the customary war crimes statutes that began in Nuremberg and other places, against the normal conventions. Therefore, it seemed logical to bring them together. The court made a decision in Finta to which the government had to respond. It seemed only natural to incorporate it as part of the bill, because we are dealing with the same issue. In fact, it gives us a chance to ensure that our own domestic statutes are in keeping with that broader international notion.
The fact that they are together does make more sense and does provide a model for countries that would want to follow the same kind of approach. Mr. Piragoff can give you more detail on that subject.
On the third point, I agree that we must provide assistance, but, Senator Andreychuk, we are doing that. We have now developed a manual that is available to developing countries. We have worked extensively on the development of that manual. We have supported a number of NGOs who are travelling around the world providing legal expertise to countries that do not have the same capacity in their juridical systems. We are sponsoring a number of workshops. For example, we are developing an OAS workshop on the court and its accompanying statutes.
In terms my budget on human security, we have dedicated $500,000 for direct support of the ratification. We have also recognized that countries must have the right assistance for ratification. Thus, we are committed to legal and personal assistance.
Mr. Cotler, our special envoy in this matter, will be able to identify matters of legal concern upon which our own officials can expand and complement the activities being undertaken.
Mr. Donald Piragoff, General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice: Honourable senators, as Senator Andreychuk mentioned, Bill C-19 fulfils two purposes: first, to implement the Rome Statute; second, to modernize the existing Criminal Code legislation, which was enacted by Parliament in 1987.
Let me address why the two are merged. The Rome Statute does reflect customary international law, but it does not reflect all customary international law. The Rome Statute reflects what countries were able to agree to put into a statute to give the court jurisdiction. However, there is still international law that exists more broadly than is contained in the Rome Statute.
One of the things that many human rights groups have been urging countries to do is to go beyond the Rome Statute, to prosecute international law in its broader sense. By applying a comprehensive approach, this bill gives Canada the ability to prosecute international law. Whatever is considered to be a crime under customary international law or other conventions besides the Rome Statute can be prosecuted.
The Rome Statute is one definition of international law. Our bill goes farther. Bill C-19 will allow for the prosecution of crimes under the Rome Statute, the Geneva Convention or any other convention, as well as customary international law. To some extent, this bill is more progressive than having adopted the Rome Statute. If we had simply drafted a bill to adopt the Rome Statute, the message we might be sending to countries is, "Do only the minimum necessary in order to ratify the Rome Statute."
We hope to encourage countries to go beyond the Rome Statute and to prosecute and enforce international law in its broadest sense, not simply to follow the Rome Statute. Of course, that decision rests with the individual countries. Is that a model? I would not suggest that any country should take our bill and apply it holus-bolus, as it is particular to our legislative framework. However, there are certain provisions and ways in which we address certain problems that can serve as a model for other countries.
Mr. Axworthy: A good example of that is the provision for the proceeds from international crime being allocated to a crimes against humanity trust fund that could then be allocated to victims, support or deterrence. The statute does not require that. It is a Canadian innovation that other countries can look to and say, "That makes a lot of sense; it helps to offset some of the experiences people have had."
Senator Andreychuk: I understood that one of the goals of the Rome Statute was not to say that it was a minimum standard but that it was a common standard. Up to this point, prosecuting has been highly subjective and very much dependant on whether we went to a South African model of reconciliation or to prosecution.
Where we disagree, and I ask the minister to reflect on this, is that we not refer to the Rome Statute as a minimum standard but rather as a common consensus standard. While I agree that we can do much better than the Rome Statute, there are many countries that must be encouraged even to the level of that common standard. The prognosis is not good if we do not continue to say that it is a common standard that unites us. I leave that for your reflection.
In regard to the amendments flowing out of the Finta case, while we do not have time to hear NGOs on this bill, those individuals and NGOs who could not appear have asked us to refer to the evidence given to the committee in the other place.
The witnesses from Amnesty International said that they wanted more changes. However, they were afraid that a delay would run into all kinds of impediments, perhaps even an election. They agreed to accept Bill C-19, with reservations.
I still have some concerns that crimes committed within Canada will be treated differently than crimes outside of Canada. Mr. Piragoff, it is your opinion that punishments for these crimes are completely harmonized by Bill C-19. I find that unusual because there is a differentiation built right into the bill between crimes committed outside of Canada and those committed inside of Canada. Mr. Doody, from Borden Ladner Gervais seems to think that this will have constitutional implications. Could you respond to that?
Mr. Axworthy: As legislators, we do not always necessarily agree 100 per cent with what NGOs say. It is always important to listen to them, but we must legislate on the broad common interests, to get common consensus. That is our goal.
For example, Amnesty International wanted to go to a superjurisdiction, meaning that Canada would have the right to prosecute an accused person even if they were not resident in Canada or if this country had no connection to the case. That would have serious implications, where we would be naming people all around the world. That might be helpful to Amnesty, but in the Canadian context, I do not think we would want to conduct ourselves in that fashion. Such legislation could undermine the court. Why do we need an international court if individual countries can exercise universal jurisdiction? That is a contradiction.
On the question of the retrospective matters, we have harmonized the definitions. In 1988, Mr. Mulroney's government made a policy decision when they agreed to restitution for Japanese prisoners of war. The government, in effect, said that that would be the end of the case. They set up a race relations board and a fund for restitution. The government said that that would not be a precedent. In all other respects, the definitions are harmonized.
Senator Grafstein: Minister, I know that you are trying to deal with agricultural policy, which probably affects more people at the moment than some other questions.
I share the concern of Senator Andreychuk that, regrettably, we in the Senate have not had an opportunity to thoroughly examine the serious issues that have been raised by Amnesty International, the Coalition of Concerned Congregations, and others. I have been wrestling with the dilemma of how to deal with the issue, having in mind the imperative that I feel, and I know you share, that Canada must lead by getting on with this as quickly as possible.
I will make a suggestion to see whether it meets your objectives and those that I share with Senator Andreychuk. By the way, she and I do not necessarily agree about the retrospective issue. There may be a difference of view on that policy, but, laying that aside, our fundamental position is the same.
We dealt with this in a different way when we were confronted with the new regime dealing with administrative justice within the defence establishment. Would you be open to a proposal, which would not require an amendment to the act, that there be a post study of this legislation? I believe that we must see how this operates in principle and where the other objections are.
Perhaps we could include in the report, Chairman, if the minister agrees, that there would be an ongoing review of this legislation and that we would recommend amendment three years hence. I say "three years hence" because that will give us an opportunity to know the impact of ratifications in other jurisdictions, and it will keep this issue at the top of our agenda. We hope to have a new committee of the Senate dealing with human rights. This may be an opportunity for that committee, if not this committee, to pursue that objective. It would settle the qualms of many of us about having to dealing with this matter so quickly.
After hearing your response to that, I will have a couple more questions. I wish to make it clear that I am not suggesting an amendment, merely a ministerial undertaking.
Mr. Axworthy: To clarify, Senator Grafstein, it is your suggestion that there be a three-year review of the bill?
Senator Grafstein: Yes, a study by a Senate committee, to review the implementation process and to review some of the questions that we will not be able to thoroughly explore because of lack of time now.
Mr. Axworthy: I agree, in principle. However, I wonder if we might alter the mandate. As you mentioned, Senator Grafstein, over the next couple of years there will be further work at the preparatory commission and further ratifications by other states. I would hope that this court will actually be established within that period of time, and that would be appropriate. However, I would prefer to make it a forward-looking review as opposed to a backward-looking one. I would not want to rehash old ground because this is an evolving institution. I think it would be appropriate to return and establish where we are at that time.
Senator Grafstein: I do not disagree with that. We are here to make the bill more perfect and more harmonized with Canadian values. The purpose is for us to have a study to which you could respond in a formal way. If you asked us to accelerate that study, we could, but I think three years would be an optimum time to allow all parties, including Amnesty International and others, to take a fresh look at their issues.
It would allow us to satisfy some of our serious doubts. We all have serious doubts about certain provisions, yet we are faced with the necessity of Canada showing leadership on the international front, with which I do not quarrel. I leave that with you. Perhaps by the end of this morning you may come back with a specific response.
I will deal with a couple of specific concerns. By the way, I am now more familiar with the American objections to this legislation. I would hope that this would give us an opportunity to see whether we can bring the Americans closer to participating in this legislation than they presently are. Frankly, I think you have dealt with the substantive issue to which the Americans object, that being any degradation of their sovereignty, particularly their congressional sovereignty. We understand that and it is a matter of some concern. While we do not share their critique of this bill, I do share the overarching concern that to exclude the Americans from this would weaken the legitimacy of the legislation. This three-year study would allow us to look at that question more coherently. Perhaps you could comment briefly on that.
I again want to congratulate the minister and the drafters for dealing with the Pinochet amendment. I was concerned when I first looked at the bill that there was a mighty hole exempting a future or present Pinochet from being caught in the claws of the law here. I am satisfied that you have moved to a great extent on that.
I would ask you to comment on one other question, aside from how we can bring the Americans closer to participation. It deals with the very troubling issue raised by the Coalition of Concerned Congregations -- making an international criminal offence of settlement conduct in Israel and in the West Bank.
Mr. Minister, there are two issues: the question raised by Mr. Narvey on behalf the Coalition of Concerned Congregations; and my own concern with respect to how we can bring the Americans to ultimately participate fully in this very important institution.
Mr. Axworthy: On the American question, you might want to put this on the agenda of the next meeting of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association.
Senator Grafstein: I accept that unequivocally. If I am still co-chairman, that will be put it the agenda. It was on the agenda in the past, and we will make it a much more forceful agenda item if we ratify.
Mr. Axworthy: Just last week, I met with Secretary Albright, and I also spoke in Washington on this matter. The fundamental question is that this invokes the principle of complementarity. No one is saying that you are usurping U.S. jurisdiction when the U.S. courts, which are highly developed and very active, as we know, have full jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for crimes against humanity or war crimes. The international criminal court becomes particularly important in a failed or failing state, or a state in which there is no independent judiciary. It is quite remarkable that some of the testimony before the congressional committee totally and completely bypasses that principle.
I believe that the debate in Congress about what the statute is and what the safeguards are is less than honest. We bent over backwards to build in a series of hierarchical safeguards against anyone for using this for frivolous purposes or to get back at a country or an individual. It is all there.
The case that I have made in the United States with Secretary Albright and when I gave a speech in which there are a number of senators and congressmen is this: If you provide a special exemption for one country, then the validity of the court just crumbles. One cannot say that because you are the biggest, toughest and most powerful country in the world you have a special exemption. We cannot do it.
Ambassador Kirsche, Mr. Piragoff and others are working actively with the Americans as we speak. We have suggested setting up a special committee to see if we can find more accommodating language.
Senator Grafstein, we are doing everything we can to accommodate, without bending on the fundamental principle, as we cannot do that. As Senator Andreychuk said, that would take us to below minimum. You would not have a court. That is the problem right there.
Senator Andreychuk: As a supplementary, I understand that the greatest concern, and I have some sympathy for the U.S. position, is that they have a very complex military court of accountability. Their fears on signing on are not so much about the criminal court, although they have raised that, but the fact that it leaves it open for scrutiny by civil mechanisms within their court, leading then, perhaps, to politicization of the process. I sorry that I did not bring it, but I would like to share with you a paper just written in the United States about how to overcome this impediment by looking at changing internal American law, which would then put the Americans in a position to sign this without fear of diminishing their military process.
Mr. Axworthy: Except that the U.S. military have been involved in the discussions from day one, both in the creation of a Rome Statute and since then in the preparatory committee.
Senator Andreychuk: I appreciate that.
Mr. Axworthy: It is more that they want an exemption, and that is driven in part by the Congress. Senator Helms has introduced a bill that is outlandish in terms of its provision of cutting off assistance to any country that ratifies the statute, with the exemption of NATO allies. As someone said, where the strategic interests were at work the bill would not apply.
They are responding to that very right-wing Republican attitude that does not believe in the UN, international institutions or anything else. We have to be blunt about that part of it. However, the administration has been working very actively with us.
Senator Andreychuk: It has been in the hands of one department. I would like to share with you the paper from the United States identifying some legitimate concerns and containing a strategy to approach the United States. We should use that opportunity to reinforce those forces in the United States.
Mr. Axworthy: Absolutely. I could not agree more.
On the point that Senator Grafstein raised on the position taken by the Coalition of Concerned Congregations, I do not know if they have been updated, but, in fact, during the latest preparatory meetings, where we were involved in the discussion of the elements of crime, to set up clearer definitions, a footnote has been added to that section of the statute, indicating that customary international law would apply to occupied territory and would not exceed it. I believe that that meets the concerns that Israel has raised.
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, in my opinion, the international tribunal dealing with the former Yugoslavia was a great advance in how these matters are proceeded with. They have had problems, but the general principle is a great advance. As far as I can understand, the ICC really takes that further step. The fact that someone can behave atrociously and will eventually be arrested and tried somewhere is an advance in human relations.
I am one who does remember the Nuremberg trials quite well. I remember what was wrong with them. I have read Telford Taylor's book about what was wrong with them. He argued that several of the accused were not actually guilty.
I also recall that there was a whole series, about 10 Nuremberg trials. This is a great advance on dealing with atrocious behaviour.
My two very short questions -- and I am not expecting complete answers as I do not think they are easily answerable. I have been reading, also, in a report by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House at Westminster, an interesting discussion about customary international law. There were three or four very distinguished legal scholars who said that customary international law was a pretty iffy business. It was a subjective kind of thing.
I suspect the answer, minister, from your officials and you will be that this is the way that international law is developing. They are using customary international law, but is, in fact, customary international law not a kind of moving target and a changing definition that can be manipulated?
Mr. Axworthy: Where one begins, Mr. Chairman, is that because we do not have world federalism or a central government the application of international law is done on a horizontal basis. It is usually adjudicated through domestic or national court systems and therefore subject to whatever variations and varieties one may get there, other than where you have, beginning at Nuremberg, the ad hoc tribunals, which are beginning to set standards.
I suppose you can make the same case for international law that you can make for common law, that there is the principle of stare decisis. The common law has evolved by developing principles and practices. Probably in the history of British and Canadian common law there have been a few judgments that one might want to question from their honours from time to time. Nevertheless, over time, the common law has been built up. In effect, that is what has happened. Customary international law is a series of decisions. The Rome Statute codifies much of that and puts it on paper as a basis of consensus of agreement.
Either way, it is now moving simply beyond the customary law and it now establishes part of that law in a codified manner.
Therefore, it will give it a clearer set of definitions.
By the way, this is something that the officials could give you background on, but there has been very extensive work done over the last several months on the elements of crime in order to define what those are, taking the statute and working out clear definitions of the elements of crime, what they mean and where they go. We are moving in the right direction.
If we get back to this comment, you are right, the tribunals have worked very well. However, there are problems. The tribunal in the Balkans has worked well but its work in Rwanda has not been so exemplary. There are holes in that particular application.
We are finding problems in today's world, too, in Cambodia, Sierra Leone, and others. It is a question of the kind of system that will be set up to try the Khmer Rouge, for example.
Each time, you have to go back and reinvent the applications or institutions. With the international court, it would be there as the institution in which Foday Sankoh could be referred.
Senator Corbin: First of all, I want to join the chorus -- I regret that we are not allowing sufficient time to examine this legislation. That is for the record and not necessarily for a response.
Senator Di Nino: We all agree on that.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Minister, you have appointed a special envoy, Mr. Irwin Cotler. You also had, I believe, with the same title, a special envoy in the Sierra Leone situation, Mr. David Pratt.
Is this a trend, a new development? I suppose, as minister, you can do these things, but I do not believe they were done or attempted before. I do not dispute the qualifications of these people. In both cases, they have had considerable experience in their specific fields. However, can you enlighten us as to why you are proceeding this way? You have a parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Axworthy: First, the word is not special envoy, it is special advisor. Two senators have also been appointed: Senator Pearson on children's issues, and Senator Wilson on the peace process in Sudan. So we have two and two.
Senator Corbin: That is not really the point.
Mr. Axworthy: It is important to point it out because I do believe strongly that legislators, members of Parliament in both houses, have an extremely important role. There is a change in the international environment, so that it is not simply a question of diplomats in striped trousers meeting in chancelleries to work out deals. As we saw with the land mines agreement, members of both Houses played an extraordinary role in helping develop support around the world for that initiative. They bring to these issues a certain political gravitas that is very important, and they are able to develop a certain political constituency by being able to explain things. There is no coercion, it is a voluntary matter, but it is an attempt to take advantage of some highly skilled, committed people in both Houses to provide additional support for important Canadian initiatives. Especially in cases like the land mines treaty, the court, the optional protocol for children, where success will depend to a high degree on the support of legislatures in other countries for ratification and support, it is important to have someone with political credentials to help make that case.
Senator Corbin: You, of course, obviously have the power or authority to make these appointments. Do you clear them with the Prime Minister?
Mr. Axworthy: Yes.
Senator Corbin: You said that Canada was, if I understood you correctly, the first to legislate. I thought France passed legislation a month or six weeks ago to this effect.
Mr. Axworthy: They have ratified, but they have not passed implementing legislation. They have made one constitutional amendment, but as you can see from this bill, Senator Corbin, there is a lot of detail in here. As I pointed out earlier, there are things in the bill that go beyond the Rome Statute, such as the trust fund. We would take proceeds that can be gained from those who committed crimes and put them into a trust fund that can go back to victims. This is an attempt to develop a model for others to look at, but we are the first country to provide implementing legislation.
The Chairman: Minister, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to appear. I know that you just came from Lisbon and that you are on your way to Lima, so, with the agreement of the committee, I would like to let you continue on your travels. We will do the best we can with the bill.
Mr. Axworthy: Thank you, and let me express my appreciation to members of the committee for taking this special time to deal with it. It is very important for the country. As you know, July 17 is the anniversary, and, if the bill were to pass, it would be an important statement for Canada to make in terms of leadership.
Senator Grafstein: I take it, then, that the minister does not object to the suggestion about this study, and those words can be perhaps worked out with the committee, so that it can be part and parcel of our report.
The Chairman: It is in the minutes, Senator Grafstein, and we will look after that.
We will now hear from Mr. Kenneth Narvey, and then we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
Welcome, Mr. Narvey. Please proceed.
Mr. Kenneth M. Narvey, Coalition of Concerned Congregations: Mr. Chairman, I am a legal researcher on the question of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I have been doing this full-time since 1977 on my own behalf and in association with various Canadian Jewish organizations. In 1980-81, representing a student Jewish organization, I spent 90 days at a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons that was preparing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Corbin, who is now Senator Corbin, moved the wording in French that I proposed for what is now section 11(h) of the Charter on double jeopardy. At the time, the custom was that one person would move it in English and one person would move it in French.
I also appeared before Mr. Justice Deschênes and proposed Criminal Code wording that he adopted and which is now in the Criminal Code, and which is being replaced by this bill, Bill C-19.
Three weeks ago, I appeared before the House of Commons committee studying Bill C-19. I made a number of suggestions. In one sense, one of them, and, in another sense, 50 of my suggestions are now in the bill, because in the French, in the annex, where the wording of the treaty is laid out, someone had forgotten that there have been four corrections to the treaty, the Rome Statute, issued by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. There were about 50 places where the annex was incorrect. Now it is correct.
As I say in my paper, which is a letter to Minister Axworthy that I prepared overnight and which I just gave to him -- we know each other from when we were both academics in Winnipeg some 30 or more years ago -- I would like to approve, without reservation, both the Rome Statute and the Canadian statute, but I cannot. They both contain flaws, not flaws that could not be fixed but flaws that can be fixed. Senator Grafstein raised the problem and Mr. Axworthy replied.
Unfortunately, there has been, over the years, a movement among certain persons, described as rejectionists, to criminalize Zionism, to make being an Israeli a crime. There is in the treaty, in article 8(2)(b)(viii), wording that says it is a punishable war crime for an occupying power to transfer part of its population into the territory that it occupies.
When the statute comes into effect, the things that it describes as a crime will be punishable crimes at the Hague if the perpetrator is a national of a country that is a party to the Rome Statute or if the conduct takes place on territory of a state that is a party to the Rome Statute. That means that once the statute comes into effect, being an Israeli settler in the Golan, or moving into the Golan, or giving someone a tax break so they can go to the Golan will be a punishable war crime. That is simply the result of good lobbying by people who hate Israel. It is part of a long series of such things, which, as a friend of mine pointed out, means that every international organization spends half of its time saying that Israel consists of devils.
One step before this was Protocol I, 1990, which claims that it is a war crime to move Israelis into the Golan. However, there, it is not too serious, because it is only a crime if Israel signs Protocol I, and it has not done that. You will find the details in our paper.
Do we have to hold our nose and sign on to, and be part of, something that sacrifices our friends? As I put it, to sacrifice yourself for a noble cause is noble, but to sacrifice your friends for a noble cause is slightly less noble.
There is a way out of this. As I said, the wording of the Rome Statute, in six languages, is not completely set in stone. It is full of mistakes. Four times, the Secretary General has sent out depository notifications that state, "I propose to correct the English, the Chinese, the Arabic, the Spanish, the Russian, and the French in the following ways. Does anyone have an objection?" If nobody objects in 30 days, he puts it in. The United States said, "We sort of object, but we do not object. One of your modifications is substantive, but we do not object to it," and it went through. If you were to pass this bill today, or if you were not to pass the bill today, there is something that can be done. Canada can take the lead and prepare, in the six languages, proper wording that says, "To move people by violence is a crime, but simply to move people in a non-violent manner is not a crime." We can take the lead and turn the Rome Statute from the almost perfect thing that it is to the perfect thing that it should be.
We are not required to take the wording of our own statute to the United Nations. At the moment, clause 6(4) of Bill C-19 says something that is quite wrong and puts more Israelis at risk, and in Canada, than the Rome Statute itself. Clause 6(4) says that the crimes set out in the Rome Statute are crimes according to customary international law as of the date that the Rome Statute was signed in 1998. That is quite false. Customary international law cannot be declared by a parliament any more than the common law can be declared by a parliament. It is the courts that decide the common law and customary international law. However, it is true that the Rome Statute is conventional international law for the states that are a party to it, as of the date that they become parties to it. That fact we could state.
What would be even better would be, by an amendment today or by a change in Canadian law, to simply strike out 6(4) because it no longer has a purpose.
Senator Andreychuk was quite right. There was a move before to unify the inside and the outside -- in Canada and out of Canada. Previously, before the House of Commons committee did its good work, it was stated that articles 6, 7, and 8.2 of the Rome Statute defined the crimes for inside Canada. That has been changed. They are no longer referred to anywhere in the bill, other than clause 6(4), which should be struck out. There is something to be said for striking out the schedule.
I went to see Mr. Doody yesterday and invited him to be here today. He said that he would consult his clients. I do not see him here, although I see a representative of his clients.
The House of Commons committee did half of what it should do. It is a great shame that the Senate committee cannot do the other half. It united "inside and outside Canada" as to definition but it forgot to unite it as to time. The minister almost seemed to suggest that it was deliberate -- that somehow, because then prime minister Brian Mulroney made a deal with the Japanese, it is legal, moral, and ethical to say that we will have fully retrospective, which we must have if we are to deal with Nazi war criminals outside Canada, but only prospective inside Canada. Thus, anybody who committed a war crime during World War II inside Canada -- the murder of a German POW, for example, or the killing of the survivors of a torpedoed ship in the Gulf of St. Lawrence -- would face impunity. It is absolutely wrong. They must be united as to time as well as to definition. The legislative technique is such that you simply strike out clauses 4 and 5 and reword 6 and 7. I gave specific draft wording to the House committee, but I sent it too late. Today, I will not try to get it in, because the question, now, is not what amendments you should make but rather how and when to make those necessary amendments.
If the minister were willing, the best thing to do is exactly what this committee had intended -- to study the bill in the fall. In the meantime, all the consultations could take place, consensus could be reached, and we could end up with a better treaty, and a better bill.
The second choice is something that I learned about by sitting in the Senate gallery. Senator Tkachuk described what happened at the Senate committee meeting in respect of the money laundering bill. He said that it was a strange experience that the Senate committee came to a group of amendments that it approved, but the minister refused it, promising to move those amendments in a separate bill in the fall. A three-year review is nice, but a three-month review would be better, because it will not take more than three months to actually turn this bill into what it should be.
On pages 9 and 10 of my brief, there is an incomplete list of fairly simple things that can and should be done to turn this into the bill that it should be. I will review this quickly. The definition of "conventional international law" in clause 2 is incorrect. The definition of "Rome Statute" does not tell you what a "procès-verbaux" are. I am just paraphrasing what I have in my notes here. "Intentional killing" is badly translated as "meurtre intentionnel." It should be "homicide intentionnel." The definition of "crime against humanity" has a good change in it, which was made by the House committee, but it contains some wording that is incorrect, which will confuse the courts. I will not go into the details now. The same thing applies to the definition of "genocide."
The reference to "when was there such a thing as crime against humanity" should be "when were the things that fall into that basket considered criminal?" It is not only before the London agreement and the Tokyo proclamation but before the time periods covered by the London agreement, et cetera.
The Chairman: You have been very interesting, but I think that there is a better way to go about this.
Mr. Narvey: I always take good advice.
The Chairman: I said that there were to be no questions, but Senators Grafstein Andreychuk have raised their hands. The problems and the details can be dealt with at a different time. Senator Grafstein, would you please be brief.
Senator Grafstein: I will. Thank you for bringing this precise document to our attention. First, I believe that the whole brief will be part of our record, so we will have it in front of us. Second, I hope that the minister's undertaking for the study within three years is appropriate. I want to differentiate between what was proposed there and what happened in the Banking Committee, because I happened to be there. There was extensive debate and discussion about the various changes, and the government, at the last moment, produced a letter incorporating certain but not all of the hotly debated questions, and undertook to incorporate them.
That, Mr. Chairman, is not the case here. We have not had an opportunity to listen to the government, or others, to respond to your concerns. It is not that I disagree with you, because I think I do. However, it is more appropriate in this committee to have an opportunity to deal with it. That is why I suggested it and I assume the committee will accept the recommendation for a three-year study. The minister has accepted it, and that will offer an opportunity to proceed with this continual three-year process.
That does not prevent you, Mr. Narvey, or anybody else, from proceeding via the procès-verbaux, as you have indicated in clause 2 of your submission, that would allow continuous negotiation to add, as the minister suggested, a footnote to a footnote to a footnote to, in effect, improve that specific, invidious provision.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I make it a statement, not a question.
Senator Andreychuk: I want it on the record that you pointed out the occupied territories, and the implication of not making some changes.
Would that not go even further than the territories that Israel occupied? Are there other situations that could be trapped, and, therefore, you said that the friend of the friend could be trapped? Have you looked at that?
Mr. Narvey: Sure. I think of the Kuril Islands. I think of the area in the middle of the Baltic states.
Senator Andreychuk: In other words, it has greater application.
Mr. Narvey: Yes. In some ways, it says that we are all criminals here, or at least some of us. When the English moved into Quebec they were committing crimes, as the French had, who moved there 100 years previously.
Movement of population is not in itself a crime.
I am sorry that Professor Ed Morgan of the Canadian Jewish Congress is not here, because he is more eloquent than I. He said, "a footnote to a footnote." The preparatory commission is a footnote. That footnote 46 is a footnote to a footnote, and an extremely vague footnote.
The line that says that it is a crime to be an Israeli settler will be interpreted according to existing humanitarian international law. It would have been far better to say that it is crime to move people around by force, violence, threats or extortion, but not otherwise.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Narvey. That was an interesting and provocative presentation.
Senator Corbin: You made an historical mistake when you were talking about Quebec and the English conqueror. Surely, you were referring to the deportation of the Acadians of 1755.
Mr. Narvey: I was not, but perhaps I should have been.
Senator Corbin: Then I do not see your point.
Mr. Narvey: The point is that when General Murray bought a seigneury in Quebec and when his demobilized soldiers settled in Quebec and became the ancestors of those now living throughout the St. Lawrence valley, they were not committing a crime. The Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights are not committing a crime. The deportation of the Acadians was a crime. One must make a distinction between criminal activity and non-criminal activity.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, Bill C-19 is a proposed act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to make consequential amendments to other acts. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Grafstein that the committee complete clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19.
Honourable senators, shall the title stand?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Chairman, you have obviously heard from all honourable senators that we have all needed to make the decision as to whether we feel that in the interests of protecting and ensuring that the International Criminal Court gets a chance to develop that Canada should be seen to be moving as expeditiously as possible. You have heard me on the record, and you have heard Senator Grafstein and others say that this is not the good governance. I find it unique that we go around the world talking about good governance, and how one should in a democracy conduct oneself, and we break all the rules at home.
Having said that, I believe we are in the position where we must consider -- to use the vernacular -- whether we hold our nose and pass it, and try and do something later, as Senator Grafstein and I have talked about, or do we hold it up? Obviously we will pass the bill as is, so what is the correct terminology to dispense with clause by clause?
The Chairman: There is a procedure I would like to follow, if you would bear with me. I agree with both you and Senator Grafstein. I do not believe we have a disagreement.
Senator Corbin: In respect to Senator Grafstein's comment and his interpretation of the minister's reaction, I do not think this committee needs anyone's permission to undertake any revision of any legislation at any time. Senator Grafstein, I say that with all due respect.
Senator Grafstein: I could not agree with Senator Corbin more. I wish to ensure, Senator Corbin, that the proposal I made, wherein I noted the support of Senator Andreychuk, would not be viewed as inimical to the minister. I would rather have the minister on side, and he was on side, but indeed it is the prerogative of the Senate to make that decision.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Andreychuk, the procedure that I prefer to follow would be to do a clause by clause, if you will bear with me, because it is more correct.
I will go through the bill. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Grafstein: Could I move that clauses 15 to 77 carry? We can do that inclusively, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bolduc: I would agree.
The Chairman: Let us do it that way, Senator Grafstein.
Shall clauses 15 to 33 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 34 to 41 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 42 to 46 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 47 to 53 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 54 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 55 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 56 to 69 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 70 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 71 to 75 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 76 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 76.1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall 77 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report to the Senate that Bill C-19 has been adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, I thought that in your report you would also state that it is the Senate's view, with the concurrence of the minister, that up until three years there will be a review done of this bill. I think it is appropriate to incorporate that into the report. There can be two phases: to report that we have adopted the bill without amendment, but if it satisfies all senators to do so on short notice, not on a condition but on the understanding that the minister would accept with acquiescence that a committee of the Senate study the bill, the questions that have been raised here, and the prospective action of the committee within three years. I believe that was the minister's undertaking, and I would hope that it would be incorporated into the report as well. I would move that.
Senator Di Nino: I also think that we should make a comment about the fact that this information was given to us so late. I really have had little or no chance other than to just skim through some of this. I feel that is inappropriate and your report should reflect that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, we should be very strong on that basis to say that again the Senate was not respected, as well as its role, however you wish to word that. That is number one. Number two is that we have passed this bill because I think this committee agrees with the principle of the International Criminal Court and felt so strongly that it would move this way, because I would not want to give the signal to anyone in Canada that we can be manoeuvred into such a position on bills. We are weighing whether we hold up the International Criminal Court ratification because the government did not do its job adequately. I do not feel in the international environment that I can. That is why we must complete our study.
Had Senator Grafstein not come forward, I would have said I would be looking at the bill and studying it anyway, with the view perhaps of bringing amendments in the fall. Now we have a way that can be all party, all sides in the Senate, which must be reflected in the bill. Rather than saying the minister concurred we can indicate that the minister will work with us in this regard, or something to that effect.
That is what we must say. There is a tendency, and it continues, to shove bills through at the end. It is one thing to shove bills that have things like budget implications, et cetera, because the government often comes and says it has reasons for not being able to move. There was a clear signal on July 17, 1998 that Canada was involved and it should have ratified, and we should have moved this.
Senators on this side continue to say "pre-study." In essence, for the last three years, I have been pre-studying this bill. That is why I feel comfortable enough with the bill to pass it. Had I not been, I would be in Senator Di Nino's position of wondering how he can do his job adequately. We need to state that, because we will be finding ourselves at the end of the next session in the same position. It is not fair to groups who wanted to come and wanted us to hear them and react. We have short-circuited everything and that is an inappropriate way to conduct business.
Senator Corbin: May I suggest that we have the researcher and the clerk word these concerns to be attached to the report and that you clear the text with the members of the steering committee before presentation in the Senate. I do not think that is too tall an order.
Senator Andreychuk: It must be in, as I understand, this afternoon. I am available, and Senator Corbin is across the hall, so that makes it very simple for the chair to contact us.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am thinking of something that will be an orderly way of satisfying the views of the members of the committee, because, as you know, the problem is, as Senator Andreychuk knows, I do not like attachments. First of all, they are not parliamentary. If the bill is reported, it is reported.
Following on your advice, I agree, as we all know, we have done this in a rush and we did not particularly want to do that. We wanted to look at the bill. We heard from one witness, Mr. Narvey, who I believe all senators thought was very effective. However, we will come up with something between now and when I report the bill that hopefully will satisfy everyone, and I will consult with the clerk and the steering committee.
Senator Grafstein: Just to satisfy yourself, Mr. Chairman, this has been done on a number of occasions in other committees; most specifically, it was done both generally and specifically in the Banking Committee just last week.
I think that if there was not an old practice there is certainly a new practice developing to deal with this. There was a wide consensus that I sense from all the members of the committee, and also the minister did not object, in his capacity, that this would be an excellent way to solve the problem of satisfying everyone that we will have a chance to look at this and come back.
Mr. Narvey made an excellent series of submissions and I agree with some of his points.
Senator Corbin: It does not slow down the process. This is not an amendment, it is just a comment.
The Chairman: I understand, honourable senators. I am thinking of the most effective way of satisfying what I think is a consensus of the members of the committee.
Senator Di Nino: I think your suggestion is quite good.
The committee adjourned.