Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on
Anti-terrorism
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of March 14, 2012
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Special Senate Committee on Certain Government Bills met this day at 12:12 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Jodi Turner, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over election of the chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Joyal: I move that Senator Segal be chair.
Ms. Turner: Are there any other nominations?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Joyal that the Honourable Senator Segal do take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Turner: I declare the motion carried. I invite the Honourable Senator Segal to please take the chair.
Senator Hugh Segal (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: We now have the joy of electing our deputy chair. Are there any nominations?
Senator Andreychuk: I move that Senator Joyal be deputy chair.
The Chair: There is a nomination for Senator Joyal. I move that nominations be closed. All those in favour of Senator Joyal?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Our next motion deals with the creation of a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Can I have a motion to that effect? Senator Tkachuk, Senator Joyal.
Again, this is the creation of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which will be the chair and the deputy chair. The deputy chair and I will consult on the third member of the committee. We will begin to meet as soon as we are complete with the organizing, and we will put together a plan for an agenda, which we will share with colleagues at the earliest possible opportunity.
Motion 4 relates to the publishing of the committee's proceedings. Could I have a motion for that? Senator Dagenais so moves.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary-minded?
Motion 5 is the authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present. I do not expect this will happen often, but it is a normal procedure. Could I seek a motion on that?
Senator Tkachuk: I so move.
The Chair: Contrary-minded? Thank you.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Dallaire: This is an exceptional —
The Chair: No, this is the normal thing that all the committees do.
Senator Joyal: Provided there are numbers. Normally we do not take votes under that circumstance, but we can receive witnesses.
The Chair: You can receive but you cannot make any decisions of any kind.
Motion No. 6 relates to the normal request of the Library of Parliament to designate research staff. Could I have a motion? Thank you, Senator Andreychuk. Contrary-minded? Thank you.
Number 7 is the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Let me assure colleagues — welcome, Senator Day — that there will be a draft budget that is discussed with this committee before it goes forward. Could I have a motion with respect to the normal authority to commit funds and certify accounts? Thank you. All in favour? Contrary- minded? Thank you.
Number 8 is travel. I do not want to prejudge the notion of travel, although this committee has done its work over the years without any travel by bringing witnesses to us and using teleconference and other means. However, I think it is prudent to have it. Therefore, I would ask for a motion with respect to the Subcommittee on Agenda being able to plan and propose travel. All in favour? Contrary-minded?
Number 9 is the notion that we could have less than the whole committee travelling. Again, it is normative to have it; it is what all committees do. Could I have a motion in that respect? Thank you, Senator Andreychuk. All in favour? Contrary-minded? Thank you.
Number 10 has to do with the travelling and living expenses of witnesses. This is the normal motion with respect to covering those who appear before us, should they have any of those costs. Could I have a motion? Senator Dallaire. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contrary-minded? Passed.
The next item is a normal one as well, Motion No. 11 on communications. Could we have a mover for that? Senator Andreychuk. It is pointed out in here that Brigitte Lemay is the communications officer. Is she present with us in any way, shape or form? Welcome. Thank you very much.
The proposed time slot is under Item No. 12, and that is that we would meet on Mondays from 1 to 3 in Room 160- S of the Centre Block. I have been in negotiation with our deputy chair, as well as the whip's office on our side, and our side is quite comfortable with meeting on Tuesday mornings at about nine o'clock. This requires the approval of both whips. We are aware there are some conflicts, Senator Day, and we would like to find a way to accommodate that. Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: There is also the Rules Committee.
The Chair: Rules does not always meet every Tuesday, I was led to believe.
Senator Smith: No, there are just a few meetings; we can juggle.
Senator Tkachuk: We can meet earlier, such as at 8 a.m. or 8:30 a.m.
The Chair: We will not necessarily be meeting every week. That will depend on the schedule of witnesses and ministers. How does 9:30 a.m. on Tuesdays sound?
Senator Day: With your support.
Senator Smith: You do not want to do Mondays?
The Chair: We would like to see if we could do it on Tuesday mornings. That was the view very much shared with your deputy chair.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Frum appreciates that, also.
The Chair: Senator Frum, as well.
What are your thoughts, colleagues, about how we address this? If we pass Item No. 12 as it is written, then the Senate system will just assume that we are meeting on Mondays and the whole issue is gone — it is out of our hands. Therefore, I would prefer not passing Motion No. 12 and having the steering committee sort out the difficulty in a way that is reflective of the colleagues we want to have at our meetings and not be caught up in a conflict. Then we would make a proposal with that respect.
We do not really have any meetings to schedule now until such time as we talk to the minister's office and find out when they can come, under any circumstance. I do not know that we must pass Motion No. 12 today, unless the clerk tells me otherwise.
Senator Andreychuk: It is there, and usually the chair announces the slots because it has already been negotiated. In this case it has not, so you have a free hand to let us know what the results of the negotiations are.
The Chair: With your permission, we would proceed on that basis.
Senator Tkachuk: You said the start time was 8:30 a.m. or 9 a.m. What I am saying is that we have lots of flexibility. The chair can call the meeting whenever. You can call the meeting at nine o'clock, as long as the chair and deputy chair agree. You can call it at 9:30 or 10:00, if you want.
The Chair: Senator Smith, what is the duration of your meeting, normally?
Senator Smith: Normally 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m.
The Chair: I will ask Senator Day the same question.
Senator Day: 9:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
The Chair: At least on our side we have the complication of Senate caucus, which I think takes place as well on that day. That is a constraint we have to deal with.
Senator Dallaire: We have pre-caucus leader meetings starting at 11:15 a.m. on Tuesdays, so the upper limit of any decision you take has to be eleven o'clock to meet the requirements.
The Chair: I understand.
Senator Dallaire: We can have a working breakfast.
The Chair: At my age I am up at 5 a.m. anyway, so without getting carried away are colleagues open to the notion of an earlier start that would accommodate these scheduling issues?
Senator Smith: I could do an eight o'clock thing, or I can do the Monday afternoon, too. You can make a note that I can do either of those, but 9:30 a.m. is hard.
The Chair: We will consult.
Senator Smith: The odd day we could juggle it.
Senator Day: I would like to go on the record as preferring Monday afternoon, not only because my Finance Committee meets every Tuesday but also it fits in nicely from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. It is a good time, just before Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
The Chair: For some of our colleagues from far away it means that they have to travel on the Sunday, but that being said, why do we not agree? I think the feeling in the room is that we consult broadly, that we not come to a rash decision, that we get a view of what could be manageable, and that we come back to you with a proposal and canvass once we put that proposal together.
The Chair: If we could move that the chair and deputy chair will consult about the appropriate time, we will deal with both whips and keep colleagues aware prior to anything being focused in cement.
Senator Smith: Is this the name of the committee?
The Chair: That is a very good point, senator. It actually looks like something that came out of the politburo in the Kremlin: the special committee for the purpose of considering certain matters we are not prepared to discuss. I do not think we need that. I would like to propose that agree as a committee that this committee shall be known, both in the official records on the Senate website for the purposes of all communication, as the Special Senate Committee on Anti- terrorism, which is what it has been known as ever since various people around this table chaired it in its previous existence. Is that agreeable?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Andreychuk: If the name has been passed through the Senate as "Certain Government Bills,'' we can recommend to the Senate that a change be made. If that is what you are doing, okay.
The Chair: I spoke with the table and the clerk and others assured me that if we passed a motion as a committee about how we are to be known, named and identified, that would be sufficient for the change to take place. I will check with the table again, based our advice, but I will do that to make sure.
Senator Andreychuk: Since we are looking at legal bills, I thought we should start with a precedent because we have had this fight before.
Senator Joyal: You cannot have a colleague standing up in the Senate and saying if we report under the name of the committee, we in fact have no legal existence.
The Chair: I will deal with the table on that today and sort that through.
Senator Day: Do you need a motion? I so move.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Day: You do the necessary things to make sure that that name is the name.
The Chair: I shall.
We do not have a budget. We will consult on the budget before we have one and we will circulate it.
Is that the end of our agenda? I think when we go in camera we need a motion at that time to let senators' staff stay in the meeting.
Senator Dallaire: Other business, you mean?
The Chair: The only other business I thought we had was the issue of this motion. I could be wrong.
Senator Dallaire: I wonder if Bill S-7 could be considered other business, or do we go in camera for that?
The Chair: No, Bill S-7 is the first bill that will be referred to us, as far as I know. Has it been formally referred to us?
Ms. Turner: Yes.
The Chair: Our next approach would be, with Senator Joyal's indulgence, to arrange for the minister to come and discuss the bill, take the first round of questioning, and to find a date when that is constructive for all of us and for him.
Senator Dallaire: That would be the commencement of our work on the bill?
The Chair: Correct. Our reference is very tight. That is why they framed it I think the way they did.
Senator Dallaire: I have a list of potential witnesses that I would like to offer to the steering committee.
The Chair: By all means.
Senator Dallaire: It has 117 people on it, but only to indicate that I am not sure we want to have all the same witnesses we had before come back from previous iterations. The content of some of that might be of use, and I do not know what the procedure is in regard to bringing that forward for this bill. I ask only advice on that.
The Chair: Fair enough. I think we would first have a resolution that all of the papers and testimony of the previous meetings of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism be appropriated for the work of this committee. We would do that first. As a matter of fact, would someone make that motion now? Thank you, Senator Day. That is done.
Second, I think what we really need to do is — and the advice of all around the table would be of immense value — discuss the fact that there are some things in the bill that are exactly the same as they were before. There are things in the bill that reflect amendments that we have made at this committee and were adopted by the government, and there are some new provisions in the bill, which you spoke to in your speech in the chamber on second reading.
I think on that basis we will ask staff and others to give us advice on which of the old witnesses we should re-invite, because they have something that is germane to where the argument has gone. We will require other witnesses for some of the new provisions in the act, which have not yet been considered by any committee. I think that will produce a list on which we will consult broadly.
Your list, senator, is very helpful. If you could share it both with the deputy chair and with the committee clerk, I will make sure that every single name is given serious consideration.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you, sir. You mentioned the steering committee, then you mentioned previous subject matter of the committee.
The Chair: The same committee; I used a vernacular term. The de facto committee is the subcommittee on agenda and procedure in Motion No. 3, which we passed.
Senator Dallaire: Which is the steering committee.
The Chair: Which is essentially the deputy chair, myself and then another senator to be designated based on our discussions.
Senator Dallaire: Very good.
Senator Day: After the usual consultation.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Dallaire: My last point is that, as critic, there are two dates where we might be meeting pre-Easter and I will be in Africa. I would simply ask that that be noted so that I can speak to you in regard to the witness lists at that time.
The Chair: I am glad to be accommodating in that respect because if there are witnesses that you have specific questions for, I want to make sure that the both of you are present at that time. There is also the possibility of referring one other piece of legislation to this committee, dealing with the issue of nuclear terrorism. It is related to initiatives that have been agreed to by governments around the world, our G7 colleagues, our Japanese friends and others, about the need for countries to cooperate on the sharing of information. That legislation will come to us, and when it does come it may come with a soupçon of urgency because of international meetings taking place at the end of April in Seoul.
Should that transpire, I will work with our colleague, the deputy chair, and make a suggestion about how we might re-jig. I do not know that there is any expectation that we would pass that second bill in any precipitous way. However, having it actually pass second reading in the chamber so that this committee can begin discussing it will be helpful to the Government of Canada in terms of making progress on this issue with our colleague governments around the world.
Senator Andreychuk: I will conduct our side in regard to that bill. Its intent is to bring our Criminal Code in line with certain international treaties and agreements, as we have done previously. Our task would be to ensure that we understand why we have to make the amendments to the Criminal Code if we are to support an international venture. I hope to do that the week we come back from the break.
Senator Joyal: The last week of March?
Senator Andreychuk: Yes.
The Chair: Colleagues are aware of that eventuality.
Senator Dallaire: Is that bill starting in the Senate?
The Chair: It is starting in the Senate, senator. The assumption is that whatever changes or amendments or other issues are considered by committee and then in the chamber could make the passage of the matter more expeditious in the other place.
Senator Andreychuk: To give the Senate credit, we started at 2001. Senator Joyal and I were the first to be there. There is a real track record of the Senate. When you say "applying evidence,'' I think you are right for the last tranche. There is a lot of history and evidence on all of these bills, so it makes sense to do it that way. There is a massive turnover on the other side.
The Chair: Can you tell me, senator, whether the committee that considered the first tranche of the nuclear issue was this committee?
Senator Andreychuk: Not nuclear but anything to do with terrorism. Any time we had to amend existing national law, it went through that. There was a whole slew of them. The entire first bill was an amendment of a whole bunch of other acts, such as the Evidence Act, et cetera.
The Chair: That was right after 9/11; is that correct?
Senator Joyal: Yes, it included the Criminal Code.
Senator Tkachuk: All three of us were on that.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Joyal can correct me —
Senator Joyal: There was legislation on transport and immigration. I believe that more than seven statutes were amended.
Senator Andreychuk: This will touch two bills: The Evidence Act and the Criminal Code.
Senator Dallaire: Was it called the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism?
Senator Andreychuk: Yes, it was a special committee.
Senator Dallaire: We have access to all of it.
The Chair: Yes. That is the resolution we passed moments ago.
If there are no other questions or matters, I am prepared to undertake and welcome a motion on adjournment.
Senator Tkachuk: I so move.
Senator Day: On division.
The Chair: The committee is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)