[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
.0940 
[English]
The Chair: The meeting is called to order.
Mr. Ramsay has a motion.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Chair, inasmuch as the contents of this motion may be addressed in the House in relation to private member's motion M-17, I'd be prepared to withdraw my motion pending further developments in the House regarding that subject. I am willing to withdraw the motion this morning.
The Chair: Now we're at Bill C-27.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): Don't you need unanimous consent?
The Chair: Do you want to debate that? Is anybody opposed to that motion being withdrawn?
All right. We'll now have clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-27 and after that we'll do Bill C-235.
On clause 1
The Chair: Are there any amendments?
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I'd like to move government amendment G-1. It was talked about by a lot of different groups, but the impact would be that ``for consideration'' would be removed from the bill. Perhaps the officials want to comment more.
The Chair: We would like to indicate that if amendment G-1 is agreed to, then BQ-1 cannot be moved.
.0945
Is there any comment from the witnesses?
Mr. Yvan Roy (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law, Department of Justice): Madam Chairperson, I don't know if you want me to outline for the benefit of the committee what this motion as a whole is doing. Is that your wish?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Roy: An amendment is being proposed to broaden the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to deal with matters taking place outside of Canada. There is already something in Bill C-27 to deal with what has been called ``sex tourism''. This broadens this provision of the bill in order to cover offences committed against children by Canadians while those Canadians are abroad. So the offences you have are listed in the proposed new subsection (4.2). These are typically offences committed against children and offences that have a sexual content to them.
What this does on top of that is it requires the foreign state where the offence has taken place to request of Canada that this case be prosecuted in this country. The mechanism chosen is for the requesting state to make a request to the Minister of Justice, since it is the usual channel we have for extradition cases, for instance. Once that has been done, the Minister of Justice will refer the matter to the province where the prosecution will have to take place, again because these offences are offences under the code and as such these offences are to be prosecuted by the provincial Attorney General. The provincial Attorney General giving his or her consent, the prosecution would be launched in Canada for a crime committed abroad. You have heard some witnesses asking that this be done and this is the mechanism that is proposed for you in order to achieve what has been asked for by, among others, Mrs. Prober.
The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): Mr. Roy, I am re-reading amendment G-1 that you have just explained, and I am happy to see that once again, our reasoning was sound. I would like you to explain the difference, if there is one, between the Bloc québécois amendment and amendment G-1. Are they not practically the same?
Mr. Roy: Mr. Bellehumeur, they are practically the same, except with respect to one offence that does not appear in the list given in your amendment BQ-1, and some others that were added to the government list. The government's proposal, amendment G-1, provides for a specific mechanism that is not covered in your party's proposal.
Mr. Bellehumeur: We saw that in our discussions with government members, who showed no interest whatsoever in this amendment, which is why we felt it would be best to keep it as simple as possible. But we do agree with the government amendment, since it is in line with our own demands.
Also, I see here - I am getting a little bit ahead now - that the same applies to amendment BQ-2 and your amendment. Once again, the mechanism may be more comprehensive, but it's probably because you decided to really put your shoulder to the wheel. We thought the government wouldn't listen to our arguments. Once again, we want to thank the government for acting on the arguments put forward by the Bloc québécois.
Mr. Roy: One should never jump to conclusions about the intentions of the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Indeed; I'll never do it again.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Madam Chair, I would like to ask our officials.... There seems to be a significant change in who initiates the complaint, because proposed new subsection (4.2) indicates that:
- (4.2) Proceedings with respect to an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an
offence against
- - then the sections are named -
- shall be instituted in Canada only if a request to that effect to the Minister of Justice of Canada is
made by
- - (a) and (b) -
(b) any minister of that state communicating with the Minister through the diplomatic representative of Canada accredited to that state.
.0950
Does that not narrow the focus of complaint possibilities in terms of these offences being complained about and looked into? Is this in fact a new addition to this clause? Does it narrow the complaint mechanism for these offences committed by Canadians in a foreign country?
Mr. Roy: It does and it does not. Right now it is not possible to prosecute Canadians for offences committed outside of this country, so it broadens the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in that sense.
However, in order to have a mechanism in place that is not going to be unruly, it is suggested through this amendment that the process be initiated by the foreign state.
You are right in saying that it is a prerequisite that the foreign state tells Canada's Minister of Justice that it would like us to prosecute an offence. On that basis, Canada would or would not see fit to take jurisdiction and prosecute this matter in this country instead of having the matter being dealt with as usual in the foreign jurisdiction.
To use an example that Madam Chairperson used when we appeared a while back, let's say that the offence is taking place in Detroit and the people who have allegedly committed the offence are living in Windsor, Ontario. It would be up to the authorities in the State of Michigan to request the Minister of Justice to take the case. The Minister of Justice would say to Ontario, ``Generally speaking, you're prosecuting these cases. Are you interested in taking this on?''
It gives flexibility to the system by having the prosecution done in this country instead of having an extradition request that may or may not come from the foreign state to send the person back to Detroit to be prosecuted in that country. So it broadens it, but not so much as to leave it wide open.
Mr. Ramsay: My concern is that it's going to be left to officials in Thailand or in any of these other foreign countries to initiate a complaint against a Canadian citizen for having had sex with a child in their country. Is that the limitation being placed by this amendment?
Mr. Roy: Canada would not be able to seize jurisdiction on its own in the sense of saying, ``We are going to prosecute that case if there is not a request from the foreign state.''
Mr. Ramsay: So there would have to be a complaint from -
Mr. Roy: There has to be. However, it can come in a number of ways. A complaint can be raised in Canada through channels, whether it is through External Affairs or through the Department of Justice.
Officials will then get in contact with the foreign jurisdiction and say, ``We hear that something happened. Enlighten us.'' The foreign jurisdiction will then say either that it has enough evidence to prosecute the case in their country - an extradition request could be sent to Canada - or that it is requesting us to prosecute that case in our country, at which stage Canada would be in a position to take jurisdiction over the matter.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Just to wrap up on this, then, I've had concerns about the ability or the inability of the government to enforce these new regulations or this new statute, these new laws, and now I see that this concern is going to be amplified by the fact that we're now limiting the complaint to coming through official channels from the other country. From my point of view, that is making it more difficult to address the sex tourism trade.
Do you agree that it makes it more difficult to enforce this law?
Mr. Roy: Without being argumentative, I thought, frankly, Mr. Ramsay, that your problem was with the difficulty of enforcing this abroad, given that it's going to be difficult for Canada to gather the evidence. This mechanism in place that we are proposing through this amendment gives Canada a broader range.... More offences can be prosecuted on the basis of this amendment.
.0955
Again, it's also giving Canada the mechanism to ensure that we are going to be able to control the process to some extent by having the Minister of Justice first receive the request from a foreign country.
Generally speaking, the way the system works right now, you would have an extradition request being made by Thailand or the United States or Argentina to Canada, and it would be for Canada to take the person in this country and send the person back. Instead of doing this for those offences, given that you have heard evidence that foreign countries may not be interested in initiating an extradition, Canada would take jurisdiction for those matters.
You have to take into account the sovereignty of those foreign states. We need to be able to go there and gather the evidence that is required for those prosecutions. If we don't have a request from a foreign state, we have no business going there and saying we have seized jurisdiction for something that has taken place in your country and now we want to be here and gather the evidence.
Mr. Ramsay: That was the original weakness of this legislation to begin with, and now we're saying that no proceedings with respect to a violation under these sections can be instituted in Canada unless a request to that effect comes to the minister in Canada.
The Chair: Just for a greater certainty, perhaps I can assist here. Proposed subsection 212(4) is excluded from that procedure.
Mr. Roy: Absolutely.
The Chair: Proposed subsection 212(4) is the section you're talking about, Mr. Ramsay, and it's excluded from that procedure if you look at the amendment. We can initiate the ``for consideration'' section, proposed subsection 212(4), on our own without any help from the foreign government; the others require the assistance of the foreign government.
Mr. Roy: The motion does not touch the mechanism with respect to proposed subsection 212(4), which is sex tourism. This can be started by Canada. There is that international consensus we have been talking about that is emerging. In international law there is a solid basis for prosecuting these cases on the basis of Canada taking jurisdiction.
The mechanism I'm talking about applies only to the offences that are listed in amendment G-1, which are sections 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, and so on and so forth. That mechanism applies only to these, and the mechanism is for the foreign state to request Canada to take jurisdiction. They would say, well, we are a sovereign state, but we're asking you to prosecute a case that has taken place in our country. The mechanism is what I described earlier.
With respect to sex tourism, it hasn't changed; we're simply broadening the jurisdiction without taking anything away from what's already in Bill C-27.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: In the chair's case of two sets of families who go to Detroit, where a person from one of the families has committed a crime against this child in Detroit, do they have to go then to the American authorities to request that we prosecute in Canada? If both families are Canadian, is there a way we can move without them asking us to do this?
Mr. Roy: Under amendment G-1, a prerequisite at law is that the foreign state make a request to Canada for the prosecution to take place here. So in the case you have in mind, irrespective of whether the victim and the alleged offender are both Canadian, the bottom line is that it is for the sovereign state to make a decision. The crime took place within our jurisdiction and we're going to ask Canada to prosecute that case, even though we would be able to extradite the person. On that basis, Canada would take jurisdiction and prosecute the case in this country instead of sending the person back.
Ms Torsney: It's certainly less onerous an issue for the other country to ask Canada to do this. What happens in the case where the Bahamas or somewhere else has a statute of limitations on these crimes? Does that make a difference?
Mr. Roy: You will see that amendment G-1 does not require double criminality. That means the offence that was committed abroad is an offence abroad as well as in Canada. In a case like the one you're talking about, I would think the argument would be raised in the Canadian court, but there is no requirement in the law the way it is to say a statute barred in the Bahamas therefore cannot be prosecuted in this country. There is no requirement for double criminality. Canada could seize jurisdiction on that basis.
.1000
Say a Canadian has committed a crime that would be a crime in Canada and Bahamas has asked us to take on the case. We'll do it, and we can prosecute in this country.
Ms Torsney: Does that also -
Mr. Roy: My point is to say that I know the argument will be made.
Ms Torsney: That's fine. That also means it doesn't matter if the age of consent in another country is lower than ours; if it's a crime in Canada it's a crime in Canada, and the person could petition the other government to let it be prosecuted in Canada.
Mr. Roy: Agreed.
Ms Torsney: The last thing I want to raise is that our government amendment - actually now it's my amendment - lists four more infractions than the BQ amendment does. Can you comment on why the additional four? It's very much broader.
Mr. Roy: Perhaps I should ask either Madame Angers or Madame Morency to answer that question.
Ms Carole Morency (Counsel, Family and Youth Policy, Department of Justice): We were merely trying to be consistent with how we treat criminal sexual offences against children in other areas. For example, if you look at section 273.3 of the Criminal Code, we have the same offences dealing with sexual offences against children.
Ms Torsney: Thank you.
The Chair: Does amendment G-1 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: No. We will have to discuss it again.
[English]
The Chair: I'm sorry, did you want to speak? Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes. I want to give Christiane a chance to speak, but before I do, I just want to remind you of the following fact: a young man was sexually abused while in the Bahamas by a friend or a neighbour; upon his return to Canada, his parents wanted to press charges. Am I to understand that amendment G-1 would force the parents to lobby a diplomat, consular officer or other agent accredited to Canada by the state where the offence has been committed? The state would then refer the complaint to Canadian authorities so that they could take action against the Canadian that committed this act in the Bahamas. Is that how I am to understand the process?
Mr. Roy: Well, there would be several ways of proceeding. What the amendment says - and I will come back to the specific case you raise in a moment - is that first of all, there would be no need for double criminality, meaning that the act must be considered to be an offence in both Canada and the other country. The amendment also sets out a pre-condition for Canada to have jurisdiction over offences referred to in sections 151 and 152. This does not concern section 212.
However, with respect to the new offences set out here, it is absolutely necessary that the country where the offence was committed and which, under international law, has primary jurisdiction over such offences, officially request that Canada seize jurisdiction. That is a pre-requisite.
What that would mean, in the case you have referred to, for instance, is that a person who had been abused in a foreign country could ask the authorities of that same country to have the individual extradited or to have jurisdiction transferred to Canada. Another possibility would be for the individual to ask Canadian authorities to seize jurisdiction by making such a formal request to the Bahamian authorities, under the new provision of the Criminal Code which now makes that possible. So, there would be at least those two options.
However, Mr. Bellehumeur, I want to emphasize that the foreign country must make a formal request; such a request is a pre- condition. That requirement essentially flows from the principle of sovereignty. There are also a number of issues related to constraints that currently exist in Canada with respect to extradition rights.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yet we're talking about a Canadian here. That Canadian comes back home with the young person he took with him on a trip, because he was a friend of the family or for some other reason. There was sexual contact, or at least the young person was encouraged to have such contact, as stated in section 151 or 152 that are referred to in the amendment. So, we're talking about a Canadian who is in the country, against whom the parents would lodge a complaint. That would not be adequate. Officials in the country where they vacationed or a consular officer or diplomatic agent would have to request that the federal government lay charges in relation to the events that occurred in the other country.
.1005
I think that's asking quite a lot of parents whose child has been sexually abused. I guess my enthusiasm was a little premature. I should have waited to hear your explanation. I don't think this really helps. This is not the kind of amendment that will prompt our witnesses to say: "Mission accomplished". I am thinking in particular of the young man who was abused abroad; I don't think he's likely to believe that much purpose was served in appearing before this Committee. I don't think these amendments meet his demands.
A young person who has been through that at the age of only 14 or 15, or perhaps even 12, feels completely at a loss afterward. It is already very difficult for him to have to convince his parents, because often these events take place within families. In future, parents will practically have to engage in an all-out offensive to convince consular officers or diplomatic agents to refer a complaint to the government. That just doesn't make sense.
Mr. Roy: I don't really think we're talking about an all-out offensive against consular or diplomatic agents and that that is necessarily what will occur. I would think it would be the opposite.
I think that what amendment G-1 provides is in fact the flexibility we need to handle such cases, first of all based on the principles of public international law, and secondly, in such a way as to give Canadian authorities and Canadian courts the jurisdiction to deal with them here in Canada.
The basic principle in public international law - and that is also the case here in Canada - is that someone can be prosecuted for offences committed here. The fact that the victim was a Canadian is not generally recognized, in public international law, as a sound legal argument. On the contrary, it is considered to be quite a weak argument.
In this specific case, let's be clear about one thing: the victim does not need to be Canadian. The victim could be a child or anybody else. To justify Canada's seizing jurisdiction in such cases, one relies on the fact that the person accused of the offence is a Canadian citizen. So, we are going beyond what public international law normally allows by seizing jurisdiction over a crime committed elsewhere.
You believe that because the victim is Canadian and the offence was committed by a Canadian, that the process should be easier. In my humble opinion, that changes nothing as far as the principles of public international law are concerned, namely the fact that the crime was committed elsewhere. The country where the crime was committed has two choices: either to request that the individual be extradited, which is what most countries do and which is the process recognized in public international law, particularly in common law countries, or to ask Canada, which has given itself this flexibility, to handle the case here, given that - in the specific example you cited - both the victim and the accused are Canadians and that there are no witnesses. The process is no more involved than that. So, claiming that one will have to engage in an all-out offensive...
Mr. Bellehumeur: If we are talking about a man who does business in Cuba or a banana republic and can grease the palms of senior officials there, then that would be it. The parents of the young person would have no possible recourse and the guilty party would simply wash his hands of the whole affair, as would Canada. That's basically what this amounts to.
Mr. Roy: Well, this kind of scenario can occur with any kind of offence. It could be murder or massive fraud. As far as I know, no one has ever asked Canada to keep law and order in every country of the world where there happen to be Canadian nationals.
There are jurisdictions where that is the ways it works. Germany, for instance, has a constitutional exception whereby it refuses to have its nationals extradited. That is not the case here, and it makes all the difference in the world. Germany prosecutes its nationals domestically for the acts they commit externally. That is not the case in Canada, nor is it the case in the vast majority of countries throughout the world.
This proposed amendment really opens the door to change because, as I take pleasure in repeating, it applies to all children, and not just to Canadian children. It also opens the door to change because Canada would be able to seize jurisdiction over a crime committed elsewhere, which is not the usual way of proceeding.
.1010
Mr. Bellehumeur: I have another comment to make, but go ahead.
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Do you not think that by passing the proposed amendment, Canada could be transferring its responsibility in this area to the other country involved, which would mean that no one would really consider themselves responsible?
Also, organizations that assist people who have been sexually abused, such as ECPAT and NGOs, would in many cases be unable to make a complaint on behalf of the child, who is often completely distraught. So, this would be restrictive. Would the legislation not violate international law with respect to children's human rights, because it is restrictive?
Mr. Roy: Mrs. Gagnon, the primary responsibility for such matters rests with the state where the offence was committed.
Secondly, in just about every such case, there must be an investigation. Investigations will, to a considerable extent, have to be carried out in the country where the offence was committed. I have never seen a case where there was no need to visit the crime site and gather testimony from people who may have been involved in one way or another, in other to corroborate the child's statement, for instance.
In the cases we are referring to here, the events took place in a foreign country, and since I myself have been involved in this kind of case, I can tell you that the foreign country must give you permission to come.
But in the scenario you refer to, and if the measure proposed here were not in place, charges could be laid here, but the foreign country your colleague, Mr. Bellehumeur, referred to, where there might be widespread corruption, could simply tell Canada that it is not welcome there to conduct its investigation. Canada would then not be able to go and investigate the case in that country.
In terms of responsibility, we clearly have to recognize that the primary responsibility rests with the foreign country, and that secondly, that country has to give us permission to go and conduct an investigation on site, bring back evidence and handle the case here.
The proposed mechanism recognizes that there is a matter of sovereignty involved, which requires that the foreign government ask Canada to assume jurisdiction, even though generally speaking, the usual procedure would be an extradition request by Canada via the existing process. This would be just as true if the case involved a Canadian child and the guilty party were Canadian. The foreign state would have to be informed that an offence had been committed there and request that the individual be extradited based on the evidence produced.
It is not only the amendment that makes that possible. It provides even greater flexibility, in the sense of being able to say to the foreign state: Rather than bringing the guilty party back to his country of origin, you can ask Canada to assume jurisdiction in this case, in recognition of the principle of state sovereignty and of the fact that there will always be a need to carry out an on-site investigation once permission to do so has been granted by the foreign state.
Clearly, a foreign state that asks us to seize jurisdiction will also, on the basis of a treaty of mutual cooperation with Canada, allow us to go and conduct the investigation. There is no doubt about that.
All of these elements hang together. First of all, there is the possibility of extradition; in addition, it will be possible in future to initiate proceedings for these crimes here in Canada. There is also a legal requirement that we conduct an investigation on site. The fact that we might ultimately be asked to assume jurisdiction is not something I see as such a major problem that it would prevent Canada from doing what must be done in such cases - quite the contrary.
I know for a fact, having discussed this on a regular basis with the provinces, that in cases that require it, a person can go to local police and explain what happened so that they can get in touch with us and we can begin discussions with the foreign country.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, but there is a difference between what you are saying and what is written here.
Mr. Roy: I am not sure I follow you.
.1015
Mr. Bellehumeur: Well, if you interpret the clause from a linear perspective, it is clear the request must be forcefully made to the Minister of Justice of Canada.
Mr. Roy: Yes.
Mr. Bellehumeur: If that request does not come from the foreign country, the Minister of Justice will not initiate the investigation you have referred to. If you look closely at the wording of the clause, you will see that it does not correspond to what you have described.
If it is the opposite - in other words, if following the lodging of a complaint by a Canadian with the Minister of Justice, the latter were to initiate talks with consular officers, diplomatic agents or other people, to secure the various authorizations you have mentioned, that would be quite different from what is described here.
The wording of this clause does not give us any assurance that the federal government will invest money or take any steps whatsoever to initiative an investigation or secure the required authorizations. Based on the wording of this clause, Mr. Roy, the initiative must come from a consular officer or diplomatic agent accredited to Canada. There is a difference. There is a clear difference between what you're saying and what this clause says.
Mr. Roy: I don't think there is a difference between what I'm saying and what would be provided for under this clause. This clause states that a prerequisite for proceedings being initiated is a request by the foreign state. That is all the clause says.
The request made by the foreign state could follow any negotiations that had taken place.
Mr. Bellehumeur: And that is precisely where the danger lies. I'm telling you, Mr. Roy, that there is a danger in that.
The amendment should state that the federal government has an obligation to meet the pre-condition that will allow it to prosecute. That would be a guarantee. Otherwise, it will depend on diplomatic and consular offensives, as I said earlier. That's the problem.
Mr. Roy: With all due respect, Mr. Bellehumeur, I hardly see how Canada could force a foreign state to make such a request in a piece of legislation.
Mr. Bellehumeur: No. I'm saying that Canada should be forced to conduct an investigation and meet the pre-condition.
Mr. Roy: That's exactly what I'm saying. Canada cannot investigate an offence committed elsewhere without securing the prior authorization of the foreign country.
Mr. Bellehumeur: As far as you are concerned, it is perfectly clear that the government will try to meet that pre-condition. It goes without saying. Your whole argument rests on the federal government's good faith. Once the complaint has been made, the government will take steps to secure permission to... etc. etc., without there being any obligation on its part. Right now, we have an extremely vigilant Minister, so this is not a concern for me; if there are substantiated complaints, he will do whatever has to be done. But tomorrow morning, he could very well be replaced with someone else who would be a lot less conscientious.
You don't put laws in place for two years. I think we should specify an obligation to meet that pre-condition. I recognize the sovereignty of the foreign country and the validity of everything you have said, Mr. Roy. I, too, have legal training, so I understand all that. At the same time, I want you to know that it's a good thing you explained this to me, because that was not at all my understanding of this clause. There is a major difference between the way you explained it and the actual wording of this provision. Consequently, I cannot vote in favour of a clause on the sole basis of the explanation you have provided.
Mr. Roy: Listen, I am a supporter - and I will continue to be - of what was, back then, section 2202 of the Civil Code, which relates to the need for a presumption of good faith.
You cannot set out in an enactment, and never have I seen - either in the Criminal Code or other federal statutes for which I am responsible - an obligation on the part of the Government of Canada or one of its ministers to ensure that a request is made by a foreign state. In my view, that is an impossible condition to meet. What you can set out in legislation is the requirement to forward a request to a foreign state before Canada seizes jurisdiction.
Whatever has to be done to secure that request is part of a government's obligations, for which it is accountable to the elected representatives.
If a case warranted that a request be made to a foreign country and the government in power did not take the necessary steps to do that, I am sure that at 2:15, the following Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at 11:15 the following Friday morning, questions would be put in that regard. I believe that is the way legislation should be developed, with due consideration for contrary views.
Mr. Bellehumeur: With all due respect, I would like to cite a concrete example of the questions raised on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays at 2:15 and on Fridays at 11:15. My example is the Access to Information Act.
.1020
The Krever Commission wanted to obtain documents from a prior period. What happened? Well, the regulations were applied to the letter so that the government could say no, the documents will not be handed over because that is what the President of the Privy Council has decided. And the law supported him in that decision.
Today we're dealing with exactly the same situation. Even if we question the Minister, he may claim that there was no request from the foreign country. And if we respond by saying that he didn't lift a finger to meet the pre-condition, the Minister can just get around it by referring to the legislation, and we won't be able to do anything about it, even if we question him every day from now until kingdom come. That just doesn't make sense.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Canadians are going to other countries and having sex with children of those countries. This bill is designed to prevent or discourage that from happening.
If these offences do not come to the attention of the diplomat named in proposed paragraph (a) or to the minister of that state as outlined in proposed paragraph (b), then there is no initiation of action in this bill. In other words, there is no complaint on the offence. If either one of the two, the diplomat as mentioned in (a) or the minister as mentioned in (b), chooses not to take action, nothing will be done.
If that is the limitation of the bill, then that's fine, as long as we understand that. We can't do more than what we can do. But we should understand the limitations of the bill.
Do I understand that correctly? Is my understanding correct that if a Canadian goes over and commits an offence with a child in another country, the complaint must come through the diplomat described in proposed paragraph (a) or the minister of that state as described in proposed paragraph (b)?
Mr. Roy: Your understanding is correct. I would simply add this. The language you have in proposed paragraphs (4.2)(a) and (b) is the regular language used in legislation to indicate how a request is coming from a foreign state. It is ``through diplomatic channels'', as we say in the vernacular. That's all that means. It has to be someone from a foreign state who is making a request, and that comes through diplomatic channels, either here in Canada or abroad.
This is why we have proposed paragraphs (a) and (b). It can come from someone at their embassy in this country. Someone will come to the Department of Justice, the minister, and say ``Here's a request''. The other possibility is for them to go to our ambassador in their own capital and say ``Here's a request; take jurisdiction''.
But you're right, this is a limitation.
Mr. Ramsay: Then I have to ask this question. Because all the witnesses have passed before this committee, dealing with the bill, why was this not included in the bill originally? We don't have a chance for any of the witnesses to examine this significant change in the bill.
Mr. Roy: In my view, Mr. Ramsay, this is a significant broadening of Canada's jurisdiction in those matters. Canada's tradition has been simply this. We prosecute whomever commits a crime in this country. They can be German, Canadian, American, British, French; we don't care. If you commit a crime in this country we're going to prosecute you, and if you go abroad we are going to chase you and get you, and an extradition request will be made for you to come back to this country.
Our law is also to the effect that when a crime is committed outside the four corners of this country we do not prosecute. Over the years we have created very small exceptions to that principle, based generally on what is known at international law as the.... I'm looking for the word. There are a number of principles in international law that this applies to - a crime of piracy, for instance. It has been recognized that every country in the world can take jurisdiction for the crime of piracy when it is committed.
.1025
I'm sorry, I just drew a blank. But there is that principle to the effect that you can prosecute these crimes wherever they are committed. War crimes and crimes against humanity are the best examples I can give you. Canada has broadened its jurisdiction in order to seize jurisdiction....
Universal jurisdiction - that's what I was looking for. There is this principle in international law for some crimes. When a crime is recognized by the community of nations, every country should be able to take jurisdiction wherever that crime has been committed. Here, we have in proposed subsection 212(4), at international law, the emergence of a consensus to the effect that every country should be taking jurisdiction for crimes committed abroad when they deal with child sex tourism. The amendment that is being proposed goes beyond that.
There is no international law consensus around these, but given the pressure of the testimonies that you have heard for a number of days, the minister is saying that perhaps it is time for Canada to broaden its jurisdiction to cover these kinds of situations. We are saying that we need to protect children - whether they be Canadian children or others - and when Canadians are going abroad and are committing these kinds of crimes, Canada should have the flexibility to take jurisdiction. But that goes beyond what have been recognized as the bases for taking jurisdiction for crimes committed abroad. That's the reason it was not included in the first place, and it is now included with the prerequisite that there be a request from a foreign state.
The Chair: Ms Torsney, briefly, and then the question.
Ms Torsney: Just briefly, it came up because of the testimony and the pressure applied from some individuals - exactly.
In the Prober case, the Bahamian government would have been happy to ask us to prosecute this case. Their response to the Prober family was that the family had to deal with it; they were both Canadians, so it was not a Bahamian problem. What they had to do instead was have charges laid, hire lawyers - they had to do a whole bunch of stuff. The government in the Bahamas would have been happy to make this request, whether it was through their diplomat here in Canada or through the Minister of Justice there.
To suggest that they need to get the attention of either of these individuals.... Well, cases don't proceed if you don't have the attention of a crown attorney. In Ontario, it doesn't move forward either, so it's not so bizarre. It will be easier to get these cases done, and they will be happy to get us to solve what they see as our own problems. In the second case, it will help the Bahamian children. In this particular case, when the Canadian officials did the investigation, they would probably find out that a number of Bahamian children were also abused, and they would do this.
The government has pushed forward on this because even though it's a great departure from our stand internationally in that we're moving extraterritorially on these issues, and even though there is no international consensus, Canada is taking a stand here and is saying that kids are important and this is not appropriate. We're saying that we will go and do this for kids, and we will make this change to be able to prosecute any Canadian who abuses a kid internationally.
The other thing is that this will help in cases where we don't have an extradition treaty with certain countries. I can't think of one, but if you give me one it would be helpful. Rather than the country that doesn't have.... Brazil? We don't have an extradition...?
Mr. Roy: Japan.
Ms Torsney: Japan. Okay, so if an act occurs in Japan, right now there wouldn't be an opportunity for the Japanese government to ask us to extradite a Canadian. Now they don't need that. All they have to do is have their diplomat here say to the minister that they have a case with this Canadian. If we couldn't apply political pressure or any other pressure through the crown attorney, on the very last point that I think the Bloc raised, that's just crazy.
I think there's a willingness. I think the people are saying - and this is a great departure for the Canadian government to be able to say this - that it's a crime against a child and that we're going to move on it. I think it's an important departure, and I think it's through the pressure of many of the witnesses and through the backbenchers, who have said enough is enough. We should think of this as a huge coup and that kids will have a chance now.
.1030
The Chair: Okay. Shall clause G-1 -
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: I have a question.
The Chair: All right.
Mrs. Gagnon: Why do you make a distinction for sexual abuse cases, when it is well known that with other offences, the government does go ahead with extradition? You seem to make a distinction for child sexual abuse cases, and I think that is probably somewhat contrary to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. You make a distinction between the notion of "for consideration" and sexual abuse. I have the feeling you don't want to include all kinds of sexual abuse.
Mr. Roy: You are right: this proposal deals with sexual offences against children. It basically goes back to what Mrs. Torsney was saying. Canada is going farther than other countries in that respect. We are trying to protect children who are abused by Canadians. We are not broadening it enough to cover any offence that might be committed against a child abroad, whether we're talking about common assault or other types of similar offences. However, Canada is trying to open this up and thus go further than other countries have, by stating that, when such offences are committed, it is appropriate for us to take action.
[English]
The Chair: We're ready to call the question now. We've been at this for 45 minutes.
Shall G-1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bellehumeur: No.
The Chair: On division.
Mr. Ramsay: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. It's whether or not the debate or the questions and concerns that members have with regard to each amendment are going to be shut down. Traditionally - at least while I've been a member of this committee - the last question the chair has asked is ``Is there any further debate?'' I ask whether or not there's going to be time limitation placed upon the discussion of these amendments.
The Chair: Do you have any further comments, Mr. Ramsay?
Mr. Ramsay: I do, and Mr. Bellehumeur does.
The Chair: One more time each, Mr. Bellehumeur, Mr. Ramsay, and then we're calling the question. We have a witness coming at 11 a.m.
Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I don't want to contradict you, Madam Chair, but I do feel we have a right to get answers to our questions. So far, it seems to me that the questions have been quite legitimate. We do have a right to express our views in committee.
Mr. Roy, government amendment G-1 seems to be in two parts. The first part says: "(a) replacing line 12 on page 3 with the following:".
Could we decide to pass the first part, but not the second? Are the two interrelated?
Mr. Roy: Interrelated... Well, this is the amendment being proposed by the government.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, I understand.
Mr. Roy: Otherwise, you will be disregarding the considerations I raised earlier with respect to sovereignty and the need to go through diplomatic channels.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Let's take the example of murder. Two Canadians go to Florida; one Canadian kills the other Canadian. The killer comes back to Canada, a complaint comes forward, and so on.
Is it not implicit that Canada will request the cooperation of the United States or any other country where the crime was committed? Is it not implicit that in order to conduct an investigation and take pictures of the crime site, we would have to request the assistance of the officials who found the body, and so forth?
Mr. Roy: You're talking about a murder committed in a foreign country?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes.
Mr. Roy: Where one Canadian kills another Canadian?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes.
Mr. Roy: Canada has no jurisdiction and could thus not take action in such a case.
Mr. Bellehumeur: No jurisdiction.
Mr. Roy: A case did arise where the Minister of Justice had to make a decision - I refer to the Hurley case that involved two Canadians in Mexico. The Minister was asked whether that individual should be extradited to Mexico to stand trial for the murder he had committed. The victim was Canadian and the murderer is also Canadian and has returned to Canada. The Minister chose extradition. Canada has no jurisdiction in such cases and thus is not in a position to intervene.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I see.
.1035
Supposing the murder had occurred in a banana republic where there was no willingness to initiate proceedings or take any steps whatsoever, and we knew who the murderer was and that he was now living in Canada. You are saying that Canada could do absolutely nothing. Are there other offences where that would also be the case?
Mr. Roy: All of them.
Mr. Bellehumeur: All offences.
Mr. Roy: Yes, all offences, except those that are subject to an exception, including those set out in amendment G-1, as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity. There would be a specific regime for sub-section 212(4). That is basically it.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I have no further questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for your indulgence.
I guess a concern I have is.... This bill is better than what we had before. There's no question about that. The question is the effectiveness of it. Is it going to be anything more than just words in a bill?
I think it's unfortunate that this amendment that was produced by the government wasn't in the bill at the time some of our witnesses appeared before the committee and had a chance to look at it. We're going to support this bill. My caucus is going to support this bill. But what I see in this amendment is that the opportunity for the complaints to come from the grassroots, from the child in a foreign country, from their friends, from their families to the police department, to the authorities, is narrowed down to where it has to emerge to our justice minister through these two narrow sources. I think that is going to further limit the possibility of this bill to address the issue of child sex tourism.
I don't think we have to worry too much about extradition of the offender, because they are going there for holidays and they're coming back. They're coming back here after they've committed an offence. The problem is initiating the complaint of the crime that occurred in that country. What this amendment has done is told us very clearly how that complaint information has to get back to the authorities here, which is to the justice minister of Canada.
I just make the comment that I had concerns about the enforceability of the bill. It seems it is more narrow than I had originally thought it would be, because of this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Shall amendment G-1 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I would ask that this be a recorded vote.
[English]
Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: BQ-1 then is redundant.
Now, who will speak to BQ-2?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon.
Mrs. Gagnon: Amendment BQ-2 deals with court martial immunity. We would like members of the Canadian Armed Forces to be treated exactly the same as other citizens. I believe the witnesses agreed on that point and felt that cases of child sexual abuse come under the jurisdiction, not of a court martial, but rather of a court that deals with the cases of ordinary citizens. That is something that witnesses emphasized again and again.
.1040
I believe there is justification for including members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are on mission with the United Nations.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any comments? Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: Initially, I would have been supportive of this amendment until I learned that Canadian diplomats abroad and Canadian armed forces personnel abroad are the only two types of Canadians who are never outside the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code of Canada. So this would be redundant because it's already there. It may not be well advertised, and that's something I think we need to do in terms of the communication plan, but they are currently subject to the Criminal Code of Canada when they are abroad, unless someone wishes to contradict me.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Perhaps we could ask Mr. Roy to comment.
[English]
The Chair: Maybe you could wait until you're recognized. One at a time.
Are you finished, Ms Torsney?
Ms Torsney: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: She said she was finished.
[English]
Ms Torsney: But he was going to comment.
The Chair: Mr. Roy was going to comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: I just wanted to confirm that this is also my understanding. The amendments that we are talking about here deal with Canadian citizens. The particular organization to which they belong, whether they are diplomats, members of the Armed Forces or simply travelling tourists, is of no importance whatsoever. They are all covered by this provision. I'm always concerned about this kind of redundancy, because we would seem to be saying, if we included this clarification, that they would not be covered elsewhere, which is not the case. This kind of amendment gives me cause for great concern.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I would like to know whether members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are or have been on mission with the United Nations and committed acts that are subject to penalty under this legislation are subject to prosecution by common law or civil courts.
Mr. Roy: That is another matter. I am not sure I can answer that before I have done some more checking.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mrs. Torsney seemed to be saying that they were already covered. What section of the Criminal Code covers such cases?
[English]
The Chair: Could I perhaps be of some assistance here? This amendment that's proposed would not take members of the armed forces outside of their own military tribunal. When they commit a Criminal Code offence they're dealt with under court martial proceedings, not under the civil courts when they're on duty. So this amendment would not accomplish, in my view, what I think you're trying to accomplish.
Mr. Roy, do you have a comment?
Mr. Roy: It seems to me that we are talking about two different situations. The amendment, the way it is drafted, gives Canadian courts jurisdiction to do things they would not be able to do otherwise. The fact that someone is a soldier, is a military person acting on behalf of Canada or on behalf of the United Nations, doesn't change the fact that that person is a Canadian citizen, and since this is the threshold, these amendments would apply to these people.
The other issue is whether these people in any case would be prosecutable in this country for having committed those offences, which is what Ms Torsney was talking about, given that they never lose their link with Canada when they're on a mission and they are then prosecuted by the court martial before their own organization.
The third question is, would they be prosecuted on the basis of the extended jurisdiction before a Canadian court or would they be court martialled? I don't know the answer to this. I'm not familiar enough with court martial proceedings to be able to give you a response that's going to satisfy you. I would have to check. That's all I can say.
The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: This is how I understand your testimony, Mr. Roy. Let's take the example of a member of the Canadian Forces who is on a mission with the United Nations and commits an offence under section 151 by having sexual contact with a young person under the age of 14. In Canada, if the country gave its authorization and so forth - because that will also apply in cases such as this - he would come not before a court, whether he is a Quebecker or from another province, before the criminal division of an ordinary court; instead he would be court-martialled.
.1045
Mr. Roy: Mr. Bellehumeur, I was saying earlier that there are two options. Our Code in no way excludes military personnel, and yet military personnel are governed by an independent regime known as the court martial. At the same time, it is entirely possible - and I can't give you any further information in that regard because I don't know enough about it - that a member of the Armed Forces who committed this kind of offence would be charged before a court martial. That is certainly what I believe to be the case, but I can't give you any further information in that regard. However, they certainly are not exempted in any way from this legislation, and consequently, your BQ-2 amendment is completely redundant.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Maybe not, because if you do not have all the information, it may not be redundant.
Mr. Roy: It is redundant in the sense that they are not exempted from these amendments currently before us. Just because the person happens to be a soldier does not mean the Code does not apply to him. What we are talking about is more the regime that will apply, depending on whether the court is civil or criminal. The amendment adds nothing.
Mr. Bellehumeur: But it seems to me you can't give me any assurances that a soldier who has sexual contact with a child under the age of 14 will be treated the same way any other ordinary Canadian citizen is. I can tell you the public is sick and tired of court martials and cases being dealt with behind closed doors. It seems to me you should have come today with complete answers regarding our amendment. I want to be sure we are really talking about the amendment here. You are not giving us any clear answer. You say: "It is possible that..." or "My instinct tells me that...", but what is the clear answer to our question?
[English]
The Chair: I think Mr. McLellan does know the answer, so let's hear from him.
Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Madam Chair, the soldier or armed forces personnel who commits this crime would be treated the same way but by a different court. It would be done by a military court. The question is whether the military court would take the same view as a civilian court. You never know in one instance as opposed to another, because they are military as opposed to being civilians.
The other feature is that it's always done by a military court. We had a case recently in Cape Breton where a young corporal was shot in the head while taking grenade practice in Alberta. The major, as others will, came before a military tribunal.
What I'm concerned with is what Mr. Roy has mentioned by saying ``for greater certainty''. Whereas the armed forces personnel come under the law right now, when issuing for greater certainty...that may weaken somewhere along the line another portion of the law that applies to armed forces personnel, by exempting them here and not exempting them in other legislation. I think it would have the effect of weakening our enforcement of laws against armed forces personnel.
The Chair: Madam Gagnon.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: The chances of prosecuting a soldier in a country like Rwanda are absolutely nil. I am going through the testimony to try and find the name of the lady that asked that this clarification be included in the legislation. That lady was unable to give us specific cases, but she did say - and we all know this to be a fact - that there had been cases of sexual abuse where no proceedings had been initiated, because soldiers do have a certain immunity, particularly if they are U.N. soldiers.
In my view, even though you think they're covered by your legislation, it is preferable that this sort of thing be spelled out, so that a U.N. solider could be prosecuted outside of the country where the crime was committed if that country does not want to initiate proceedings. That would certainly be an incentive to litigate in some cases.
[English]
Ms Torsney: I have a point of order. We have to be very clear here. None of the witnesses said that accusations had been made against Canadians. It has happened against other countries. We should be very careful about suggesting that there are allegations against Canadians right now.
.1050
The situation, without Bill C-27 even passing, is that a Canadian soldier who did abuse a child, whether it was for consideration or not, would already come under our Criminal Code and can be prosecuted in Canada now.
The other problem with your amendment is, what about the diplomat? That's also an issue in the international community. Diplomats and Canadian forces personnel are already prosecutable under all the provisions of the Criminal Code, not just those that affect children and not just this bill after it has passed. It's already there.
The Chair: If the goal of this amendment is to take soldiers outside of the military tribunal and put them into a regular civilian court in Canada, that's not what these words do. Am I correct, Mr. Roy?
Mr. Roy: That's also my understanding. All this is saying here is that the amendments that were made broadened the jurisdiction of Canada applied to the armed forces. That is the case. There is no need to say that, because the threshold issue is whether the individual is a Canadian or not, irrespective of whether he or she wears a uniform or not. So this is not needed. If the motion is to do something else, this is not the language that should have been used.
The Chair: We can call the question in a minute, but I would suggest that we're obviously not going to finish clause-by-clause today. We will have to go to it tomorrow. If I'm correct and the amendment you seek is an amendment to try to take soldiers outside of the purview of the military court, then you've got 24 hours to get your amendment in order. You still have time. We're going to have to meet tomorrow on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: In that case, I would like to explain myself. For I don't know how many weeks now, we have been discussing Bill C-27, because we want special legislation that will allow us to better protect children. We want to include provisions on sexual tourism and do all sorts of other things, and we're full of good intentions. But there is also the matter of the messages we want to send, with respect to not only consent but excision and other such issues. I think we have to send an overall message with this legislation.
If we put soldiers on an equal footing with ordinary citizens with respect to certain special offences, that will be a very good beginning. No one has been particularly reassured by the Somalia inquiry.
Mrs. Torsney: [Inaudible]
Mr. Bellehumeur: When you had the floor, Mrs. Torsney, I listened to what you had to say. I like you very much and I want to remain polite with you; so please don't interrupt me. Thank you.
I'm wondering, Mr. Roy, whether we shouldn't begin by making an exception for this kind of offence. You can always say that it's impossible, that soldiers have special status, that it's impossible because it's unconstitutional, illegal, or I don't know what. I am sure you will be able to provide us with a very credible explanation. I would like to believe you, but the explanation you have provided does not satisfy me. None of those reasons are good reasons. We have seen for ourselves what happens in courts martial.
A court martial is a court martial. It is a process whereby peers judge one another for offences that are extremely serious, like the ones specifically mentioned in sections 151, 152 and following.
This clause may not be worded very well, but if we agree on the principle, I am sure that we can come up with something acceptable. We are very close to agreeing on the need to put soldiers on an equal footing with every other citizen and have their cases handled by common law courts. I am talking here about criminal offences and enforcement of the Criminal Code.
In Quebec, it's the Criminal Division of the Superior Court that deals with these offences. If a soldier commits a crime abroad while on a peacekeeping mission, then already that's not something to be too proud of. We have heard some pretty sickening things about these peacekeeping missions. I am absolutely certain that if someone made a complaint under section 151 with respect to sexual contact, it would be possible to have the soldier answer for his crime before the Criminal Division of the Court of Quebec, just as any other ordinary citizen would.
What I want to know is whether this kind of provision is conceivable and achievable from a legal standpoint. I couldn't care less whether it doesn't conform to current custom. Would this be possible from a legal standpoint, Mr. Roy?
.1055
If you can't give me an answer today, because this is starting to look like a court martial, perhaps we could skip that question for now. In any case, we won't have time to pass the bill today. You could do some additional checking and come back with an answer next time.
I think we have an obligation, as M.P.s and members of the Standing Committee on Justice who have followed with great interest the debate, the questions raised and the testimony given. I was not able to attend every meeting, but I did follow what was going on through the unofficial proceedings - the blues, as they're known in M.P.s' jargon. We could consider this matter further and try to arrive at a clearer response. As things now stand, you have not convinced me with respect to military personnel, nor were you able to convince me on the other amendment, which is why we voted against it.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Bellehumeur, all I can do is explain those aspects of law that I believe would apply.
You have presented motion BQ-2, and all I can tell you is that your motion does not accomplish what you have stated to be your goal. This motion, as presented, is redundant. You want to introduce a change with respect to the forum wherein Canadian military personnel would be prosecuted for any offences they had committed. That is not an issue that comes within my purview and I am not certain that it even comes within the purview of Bill C-27. You want cases that warrant prosecution to be prosecuted in front of ordinary courts, rather than a court martial. I believe that is your position.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I want a soldier...
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, could you just wait to be recognized and let Mr. Roy finish what he's saying?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, but he is asking me questions.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, please wait to be recognized by the chair.
Mr. Roy, would you finish what you were saying?
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: If that is the case and this motion is deemed to be in order under Bill C-27, I believe that it will be up to your side to make such a motion. I cannot go any further than to tell you that this raises questions with respect to courts martial to which I am not authorized to respond and with respect to which I have been given no mandate by the Minister of Justice. In fact, I doubt that the Minister of Justice has anything whatsoever to do with this matter. It is primarily a responsibility of the Minister of National Defence. That is all I can tell you.
[English]
The Chair: That is correct.
Mr. Bellehumeur.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Roy, you did not give me a complete answer to my question. You sort of answered the question I asked earlier, namely that the arguments you were making did not reflect what was actually said in the clause that was before me. You seem to be saying the same thing again - in other words, that the clause we have proposed in amendment BQ-2 does not meet the objective we mentioned with respect to a change of forum, and so on. However, you did not clearly state whether it would be possible to make such an exception, so that soldiers would be on an equal footing with ordinary citizens who had committed certain offences.
Is the answer to that yes or no, in your view? You are a senior official with the Department of Justice, Mr. Roy. We have often had occasion to talk. I know that you are capable of extremely sophisticated legal analysis, based on your deep understanding of the law. I know that you have experience with the Department of Justice and I know that you have the answer. I am not surprised that the Minister has not given you this mandate, but I am surprised that you are not able to give me a clear answer to my question, because the fact is you have not.
Would it be possible to include a clause in Bill C-27 to ensure that Canadian soldiers on peacekeeping missions abroad will be treated the same as any other Canadian citizen who has committed specific offences, as we said earlier with respect to the previous clause?
Mr. Roy: I am going to try to give you as precise an answer as possible, Mr. Bellehumeur, because your second question has two parts to it. First of all, you're asking me if we can do this within the framework of Bill C-27. I am not in a position to say whether your proposal is in order or not. It is up to the Chair of this Committee to make such a ruling.
As to whether this would be possible from a broader legal standpoint, all I can tell you is that I am a lawyer and that I come before you to fulfil the mandate given me by my client. My client is the Minister of Justice. I do not have a mandate to go any further than that this morning. That is the best I can do. I'm sorry.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Madam Chair...
[English]
The Chair: No. We're going to rise now for a couple of minutes. We can go on to discuss this again tomorrow at 3:15 p.m. or 3:30 p.m., when we reconvene.
We'll just rise for a few minutes so the minister can join us.