Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Anti-terrorism Act
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of December 15, 2004
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 15, 2004
The Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism Act met this day at 11:47 a.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Dr. Heather Lank, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to oversee the election of the chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Senator Kinsella: I move that the Honourable Senator Fairbairn do take the chair of this committee.
Ms. Lank: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Kinsella that the Honourable Senator Fairbairn do take the chair of this committee.
Will all those in favour of the motion so indicate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Lank: Opposed? Abstentions?
I declare the motion carried and invite the Honourable Senator Fairbairn to please take the chair.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, honourable senators. I look forward to this a great deal. Some of us have been engaged on this issue in depth for some time, and I think we will be in a good position to do a first-class job.
On Item No. 2, election of the deputy chair, I would like to have the honour of moving the name of my friend, Senator Lynch-Staunton.
Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
Are there any nominations for members of the subcommittee?
Senator Austin: I move that Senator Fraser be the third member of the subcommittee.
The Chairman: Senator Fraser has been nominated to be a member of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. As she is not here in Ottawa today, we will proceed with that item under the usual consultations.
Item No. 4 is the motion that the committee print its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 5 is authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when quorum is not present.
Senator Kinsella: What is quorum?
The Chairman: A quorum will be four.
Senator Austin: With at least one member from each of the government and the opposition present.
The Chairman: Yes, the motion reads:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the Chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the Committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
Senator Austin: So moved.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 6 is:
That the Committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research staff to the Committee;
That the Chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the Committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the Committee; and
That the Chair, on behalf of the Committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries, and draft reports.
Senator Joyal: The motion says that we will authorize the chair to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills, and estimates as are referred to it.
That is not exactly what we will be doing.
Senator Austin: That is not what we are doing.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Joyal: If we authorize people only for that purpose, we might find it is not the proper authorization.
Senator Austin: We could say ``for the purpose of the reference made to this committee by the Senate.''
Senator Joyal: Exactly.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Joyal: I so move.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Just so that we are all clear, I would ask the clerk to read that back.
Ms. Lank:
That the Chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purposes of the reference received by the Committee.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 7 reads:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the Chair, the Deputy Chair, and the Clerk of the Committee; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the Committee be conferred individually on the Chair, the Deputy Chair, and the Clerk of the Committee.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 8, with regard to travelling and living expenses of witnesses, reads:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the Committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the Chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
Senator Jaffer: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 9 reads:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media at its discretion.
Senator Jaffer: I have a concern about that. I was on the committee that studied Bill C-7, and at the chair's discretion, there was no electronic media coverage. I would appreciate it if we could include ``after consultation with the committee.'' It should still be at the discretion of the chair, but there should be consultation.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Senator Jaffer. I would think that adding ``after consultation'' would be fine. However, our goal would be to have this committee televised in large measure.
Senator Jaffer: If I have your word, then I do not need the change, because your word is good enough for me. It is just that on the study of Bill C-7, the chair, who will now be on the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of this committee, decided not to have any electronic media, and did I not agree with that decision.
The Chairman: If it makes everyone comfortable to include ``after consultation,'' I am happy to do that.
Senator Andreychuk: Put it in.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Why do we not agree now that we are all in favour of having as much electronic coverage as possible, if the chair is in agreement?
The Chairman: Given the subject matter this committee is studying, it would certainly be my wish to have all the hearings televised.
Senator Jaffer: Then we do not need to change it. Your word is good enough for me.
Senator Austin: It is understood that, should the committee decide to sit in camera, there would be no coverage?
The Chairman: That is right.
Senator Austin: There would be no discussion about coverage of that?
Senator Joyal: We may hear witnesses who, for various reasons, might wish to testify in camera.
The Chairman: No decision on the matter would be made by me without consultation.
Item No. 10 is the time slot for regular meetings. Perhaps Ms. Lank could take us through that.
This is a serious committee. We do not have the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, as we did the last time. We have a year before we are asked to report, and could perhaps have an extension, if necessary. However, given the number of committees and their schedules, we will want to have full opportunity to hear all of the witnesses whom we wish to hear.
I understand that the only way that we will be able to accommodate everyone on this committee is to have a time slot on Monday that would not conflict with the Defence Committee.
Senator Andreychuk: As well as Human Rights and Official Languages.
The Chairman: This would be from ten o'clock to two o'clock.
Senator Austin: With lunch.
Senator Joyal: It is good for me. I have the privilege of living in Montreal.
Senator Austin: I have the privilege of being here Sunday nights.
The Chairman: I share your concern, Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Andreychuk: That means I will leave Regina at noon on Sundays.
The Chairman: I will leave Lethbridge at 8:15 on Sundays.
This is not my choice. We are becoming the activist chamber in this building. We work night and day on committees as it is, and this would be the only time that is free from other conflicts.
Senator Andreychuk: I do not think we should take a year to do this study. This is an extremely important issue. We have a defence review and a foreign policy review and much is tied into security issues. If we are going to meet every Monday, which is what I presume you are saying, we should move quickly, rather than with the mindset that because we have a year, we can discuss it for that length of time. If we can get it done earlier, we should.
The Chairman: I agree with you, Senator Andreychuk. I only mention it because it is in the reference.
Senator Andreychuk: You also mentioned an extension.
The Chairman: I know. Those are our borders. We will have to get into it and see how we do. I would definitely like to look upon this as an action committee that will try to hold hearings as pertinently and broadly as we can, but to do it in less than a year. We will see how things go. Heaven only knows what might happen in this period. I suppose that is why they gave us a longer time.
It would not be my choice to stretch it out. I take your words seriously.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: If I may, the Senate gave us a right to sit while the Senate was sitting — not that I would encourage that.
Ms. Lank: They took that out.
Senator Austin: You have to specifically ask for it.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you have a copy of it there?
Ms. Lank: I do. That power is not in the motion.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I misread it then, I am sorry about that.
The Chairman: I am glad you raise this, Senator Lynch-Staunton. If we do want to pursue our work as expeditiously and intensively as possible, there will be occasions, given the kinds of witnesses that we will be seeking, when we will have to have the flexibility to do that. I certainly would have every intention of asking for it.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It would be nice if we could have this all done by June. It is very hard to get everybody together, including witnesses, in the summers.
The Chairman: You are taking the words out of my mouth. That would be a goal.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It can be done.
The Chairman: I would hope that the powers that be in the Senate would be willing to grant us that opportunity.
Senator Christensen: Can we not sit on Fridays if we want to really push it — alternate Mondays and Fridays?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Thursday afternoon?
Senator Kinsella: What about Mondays from 11 to 2, to give people coming from Montreal more time to drive and those that fly in more hours to get here.
The Chairman: That means we will really have a bag lunch.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It will only be lunch.
Senator Andreychuk: Diet lunch or bag lunch. Those are usually muffins — calories.
The Chairman: Senator Andreychuk and I will be here because, out of necessity, we will have to leave the day before to get here. If that is an issue, I would be prepared to accommodate the committee.
Senator Austin: That cuts out one-quarter of our time, which is somewhat inconsistent with the end-of-June schedule. Can we sit until 3, from 11 to 3? Does that make life a little easier for the people who are travelling?
The Chairman: I do not think that conflicts with anything.
Senator Austin: Why do we not agree to 11 to 3 to get that extra hour, because otherwise, cumulatively, we will lose one-quarter of our entire sitting time.
Senator Kinsella: Or 10:30 to 2:30. The planes from the East are here at 9:30 or 10 o'clock.
Senator Austin: 10:30 to 2:30 is fine. I think we need four hours every week. I am happy with the end of June, if we can get there. Of course, it will restrict that travel schedule that was discussed in the chamber — Moscow, Dubai, New York.
The Chairman: That would be the summer part.
That is certainly satisfactory, colleagues. Again, if this committee is taken seriously by the Senate and we need to sit, because of the availability of certain witnesses, while the Senate is sitting, we will certainly seek the opportunity; and it will arise, I have no doubt about it.
Is there any other business?
Senator Jaffer: I have an item.
I see that specifically, there is just the Procedure and Agenda Subcommittee, which I read to mean that the committee will have a say on how we proceed — if we will travel, where we will travel, what other security issues will be looked at. Bill C-36 is not in a vacuum. There is security policy and other things that will have to be looked at — most importantly, the impact on the community. Will we have a meeting to discuss how we will proceed when we come back?
The Chairman: I was planning to just say a few words, if I may. We all want to get off to a good start. It would be my view that Ms. Lank should get together with the researchers, both sides, and the Library of Parliament, and first of all remind us where we came from, the issues that were dealt with in the last report and go from there.
We would have a meeting as soon as we return on the basis of a draft agenda. Also, if anybody has any suggestions in the interim, get in touch with Ms. Lank. I think we would start with the committee going over witness lists and how we wish to proceed in our first meeting back after the break.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to support Senator Jaffer's comment that we cannot take Bill C-36 in isolation. It was a series of security measures, so I think we will have to put it in the context of why the bill was introduced in the first place.
The Chairman: Right.
Senator Andreychuk: Did it meet its objectives? To do that, I think you have to look at the broad security issue to see whether the mechanisms that the government has employed for security and safety have worked. One is always dependent on the other. It seems that we must do it in context, rather than provision by provision in a bill, to see how it works.
This is very much a domino effect. If one part is not working in the security area, it will have repercussions on the rest. I appreciate that Bill C-36 is the focus, but it has to be in the broader context of security.
The Chairman: That makes sense to me.
Senator Kinsella: Madam Chair, on the matter of the research that will be undertaken between now and our next meeting, has authorization been given already by the committee to ask the Library of Parliament to assign research staff?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Kinsella: Do we have any ideas as to some of the resources that are available?
The Chairman: Could you speak to that, Ms. Lank?
Ms. Lank: We have two people here from the Library of Parliament this morning in case the committee did ask for resources. If the committee would like, they could introduce themselves?
Senator Kinsella: Do they have their CVs with them?
Mr. Benjamin Dolin, Analyst, Library of Parliament: We do, in fact.
Senator Kinsella: This is great. We recognize the very competent researchers there. I wanted to encourage having some specificity brought to the kind of research that I think you might want to get started on — perhaps some of the reports that are around, whether the Senate committee report or the evidence that appeared in the other place.
I am looking at Leah Spicer's November 26, 2001 report.
I really liked the way this one was set out. It had the witnesses and what their submissions were. It was really easy to go through. You can underline in the comments under ``submissions'' those witnesses that had specific civil liberty concerns. For example, I am looking at Julius Grey — everyone knows him — who thought the bill should be passed, but he believes that it went too far. He was raising a concern.
If we look at who were the others, we will see the civil liberty concerns at the same time. If we brought those together, they may constitute a community of interest and raise those kinds of questions to see whether the literature has developed, either in academia or from these organizations themselves. They may have done some work. That would be helpful.
The Chairman: I am sure that our researchers are taking note of that. I should introduce Benjamin R. Dolin, who was with us three years ago through thick and thin.
We have Jennifer Wispinski helping us as well. We are a good group with which to work.
Senator Joyal: On that same subject, Madam Chair, there are points that I would like to bring to your attention.
A seminar was organized by the University of Quebec at Montreal two weeks ago, I think — it was reported in the media — where a certain number of experts were invited to reflect upon Bill C-36 in the same vein that Senator Kinsella has mentioned. Moreover, I read in the Barreau du Québec newspaper, I think it was a month ago, that they had organized a seminar. The Chief Justice was one of the keynote speakers. That should be looked into, because this is a fresh kind of reflection. Moreover, I think we all know that there has been a statement from the Supreme Court in relation to the certificates that were issued by the two ministers. It would help us if we had a review of the court decision in relation to Bill C-36. Those decisions are well known and well publicized. That would help us to circumscribe the areas of the bill that were contentious, but on which the court has already pronounced. That would help us by way of comment or study of the provisions of the bill that were identified by this committee, our previous committee, as raising important legal implications in relation to the Charter. That should be part of the review that the research could start looking into.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
Senator Austin: Chair, we should decide whether we want to meet on January 31, which is the first Monday, or not. The second point would be whether to have in camera briefing sessions before we see witnesses. We could have at least one session where our advisers present an overview of what took place to pick up on the comments that have been made and issues that have been raised in the meantime, the concerns that Senator Joyal was voicing, and the hot points in their view of our study. We could have one preparatory discussion, essentially a briefing session for ourselves. I am not proposing we meet on January 31. Unfortunately, I am here and the Mondays following, but others may not want to be here until Tuesday.
We should also decide when in the program we want to hear from the minister about the bill — probably quite early on, but after we are sensitized to the key issues. We should then have the minister in.
The Chairman: That would be Minister McLellan.
Senator Austin: The two ministers, Minister McLellan first and then Minister Cotler.
I can see that in February we would get ourselves through the major introduction. Having done that, we should have a talk about how we want to mobilize witnesses, on what issues and when. There is this problem of a two-week break in March that will arrest our progress shortly after we get going, unless there is some interest in our meeting during those weeks of the break. Effectively, we probably will not begin to hear from the major witnesses that have been referred to until early April. Therefore, the committee will have to focus on a very aggressive April-May program to finish our work by the end of June.
Do we want to meet on Monday, January 31?
The Chairman: At the very least, we should have a steering committee meeting on that Monday.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: If not before by phone.
The Chairman: We could do this. What of the researchers?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: After our consultation.
The Chairman: Yes.
Anyhow, certainly we could connect as a steering committee before that and then we could have a briefing meeting on January 31.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes. I would hope we would have our witnesses before March. I understand what Senator Austin is getting at, but if we apply ourselves and agree that maybe we will sit twice a week on occasion, we can start hearing witnesses by mid-February, or the end of February at the latest, I would hope.
The Chairman: I would also ask the clerk to take a look at when we could have that meeting, if we do need, on occasion — as you say — to have more than one meeting a week.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: There are Thursday afternoons and Friday mornings. I do not want to encourage them, but this is a very important piece of work and it will have an impact. We should make ourselves as available as possible.
Senator Austin: Could we contemplate taking a day during the two-week break? For example, the first Monday of the first break week we could have the whole day. It would really propel our momentum forward. Not the whole week, but a day or two would give us the chance to really dig in and see where we are going. If we can hear a number of witnesses, rather than trying to meet on Fridays or Thursday afternoons and creating conflicts, we could keep our momentum by taking a day or two in early March.
The Chairman: We will put all of this on the agenda.
Senator Austin: This is for the steering committee to consider.
The Chairman: Yes, and also, it would be helpful if any of the senators with activities on other committees could indicate that, because if we were looking at a break week, it is not quite fixed yet, but there will be an occasion when, for instance, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has a reference to travel to Washington, and we want to do that. If we could find out if there are others in a similar situation, then we could work it out.
I have no difficulty, if there is a break-week opportunity and we can all get together; we could certainly do more.
Senator Austin: It is something to consider.
The Chairman: Yes. We will look at that. If there is anything that individual senators see on their agenda that is immovable, they could let us know and we will try to work it out. I am all for working out an activist schedule on this.
Senator Kinsella: Is there a list available of all the court actions that have ever been taken with reference to either this bill or those that are related?
The Chairman: That certainly can be prepared.
Senator Jaffer: I have a number of things I would like to bring up. First, I would like us to consider whether we will travel during the break weeks. My recollection, having been on the original committee, is the reason we wanted a sunset clause was to look at the tremendous impact that the community has suffered from this bill. Obviously, we will want to hear from the communities that have had to pay the price for this bill. We may want to look at travelling in our break weeks. That is my first suggestion.
My second point is I agree with Senator Joyal when he says let us look at some of the work that has been done by academics. There have been many conferences. My office will certainly provide the researchers with details of the other conferences that have taken place.
The third thing I would like to say is that there have been consultations by both ministers. Perhaps our researchers can get the findings of those consultations. That will help us to see what the community has been saying. There can be a summary for the members of the committee on what has been said by the community and what was said to the ministers about these bills in the consultations.
The last thing I would like us to consider when we come back is that we have had, I believe, two sets of hearings — Bill C-36 and then Bill C-7 — and we have had a lot of representations from people who said it was a good bill. We have heard that. Not that we want to silence anybody on that, but we have already done that part of it. People said it was good.
As Senator Kinsella said, we should have a summary of what people said. Then, may I suggest that we look at asking three or four questions that we can all formulate as to what more do we need to find out? That way, we do not hear the same things that we heard the first two times; we move on to what the real reason for the review is —to find out what the impact is and whether this bill has worked. I suggest that we look at some questions as a guide to witnesses who come before us of what we are looking for.
Senator Austin: I might just throw one more stone into the pond. We should be kept apprised of the work done in the other place on this subject, so that our researchers provide us with an overview of the witnesses or evidence they get there, and the questions asked by various people in the subcommittee of the House committee. I am sure we will pick it up in the media. It is not repeating things, but getting their view of key points, particularly as our researchers hear what particular concerns each of us has with respect to this study, and then trying to see if that concern is being expressed in the other place.
The Chairman: Do you see that, Senator Austin, as partly an opportunity to find out what was being said, or would you see it as a necessity? Certainly, our witness lists will cross over, but do you see it as a necessity that we have the same witnesses? We will want to have different ones as well.
Senator Austin: I do not think we want an identical study. I would think it would be complementary. We should pursue our own concerns, but just to be aware so that we have a complete picture of what is emerging on this topic.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: There will be times when we will want to hear the same witnesses. I have no problems with that, but I think we should go even further, Senator Austin, and get in touch with whatever committee is studying the issue over there. We should tell them what we will do and see how they will approach it, so that we do not trip over each other.
Senator Austin: Good idea. It is a big topic.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is a big, important topic, touching everybody. Let us set aside the petty rivalries between the two Houses and show that we can, on key issues, work together.
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I do not know who is doing it over there. Is there a special committee?
Senator Austin: It is a subcommittee of the Justice Committee. I do not know who the chair of the subcommittee is. Maybe one of our researchers knows?
The Chairman: Paul Zed, who is from New Brunswick, will be chairing that.
I think that is important. The last time around, we were first out of the chute, as you will recall. I do know that I had quite a lot of phone calls and conversations with people from the other side who could not get into the discussion themselves until we were finished with ours.
I know that the current Minister of Justice was one of those people who took a very active interest in what we were doing. I do not think that there is any question that the work that we did had an impact on the other place. I would not use the word ``collaborative,'' but keeping in touch would be very useful.
Is there anything else, colleagues?
Thank you very much. Thank you for your thoughtfulness. I look forward to working with all of you. We did some good collegial work on the last one and there is more ahead. Thank you.
The committee adjourned.