Justice Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Donald Rennie]

I've heard it here for the first time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

We'll go to Ms. Barnes.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I will pass to Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the months leading to the last expiry of the aboriginal justice strategy money, the workers, unfortunately, were running around lobbying hard because their funding was about to expire, was about to be cut off. They were doing all sorts of things trying to get their money back when they should have been doing the good work, the excellent work, they are doing. I know the minister thinks they're doing excellent work. We, as Liberals, had to push and push in committee and in the House of Commons, and I know the minister was supporting it, and they finally got that funding reinstated, which is the good news.

The bad news is that these organizations, now that they're up and running and they've proved their success—I know the minister thinks it's a success, and I compliment him for that—are asking for permanent, ongoing funding. I wonder if the minister would make a commitment to the longer-term funding that these people are asking for, for this excellent program. It's an integral part of the justice system now, just as prosecutors and judges are.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much for that. You touched on one of the problems that, to the extent we can avoid, we like to avoid. You're quite correct, having yearly funding for any particular program sets in place a number of concerns each year about whether the program is going to be renewed.

The program, the one you've specifically mentioned with respect to the aboriginal justice strategy...we renewed it for two years, which I'm guessing you would agree is a step in the right direction. I'm not in a position to commit or to bind the Government of Canada with respect to funding proposals, but I will thank you for your representation. I listened to you very carefully.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Minister, I'm going to ask you about consultation on your bills. Prior to introduction into the House, what's the breadth of the consultation you do on each of your criminal justice bills? I ask that because the Prime Minister has said he's regarding crime bills as confidence bills. I might add that as a direct question to you: do you consider each and every single one of your crime bills a confidence bill in this House?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The question of confidence is something that is reserved to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated with respect to the Tackling Violent Crime Act that this was a confidence measure. It's integral to what the government is trying to do. It's integral to what we promised Canadians in the last election. So we made it very clear, and I think it was reasonable to do that.

If you heard my comments on that at the report stage, I indicated as well, so that there wouldn't be any misunderstanding on anyone's part, that if the amendments as they were proposed went through, we would consider that a confidence measure. We were prepared, and we're still prepared....

We still haven't gotten this thing through at third reading, and I'll repeat what the Prime Minister has indicated, that, yes, this is a confidence measure, and if it is defeated at the third reading stage, we are prepared to go to the people of Canada.

In terms of consultation, it depends, I suppose, on the bill. Those of us, for instance, who run for Parliament, consult with our constituents. We get feedback from our constituents; we get suggestions from our constituents as to what should go in a bill. I know the Department of Justice looks at these issues very carefully. I get feedback, for instance, from provincial attorneys general. Mr. Savage talked about the two justice ministers in Nova Scotia. Certainly they were very vocal in terms of getting input into that Youth Criminal Justice Act.

In that particular bill...I'll give you another example; there's the Nunn report. There were a number of recommendations, and certainly one of them was with respect to pre-trial detention. That too is part of that input, in my opinion.

Those of us who are members of Parliament hear widely across this country, but we do listen to our constituents as well, and we want that feedback from them to see if we're on the right track and that we're moving forward.

Again, we try to get it right. I can tell you that I'm very pleased and satisfied in terms of the bills we have introduced that we have gotten it right, and these are widely supported by Canadians.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Minister, I'd like to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister. Ms. Barnes, your time is up.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I will be brief. Since we are going beyond the estimates and talking about the government's philosophy as shown in a number of bills, I would like to ask you three quick questions.

Do you think most people in this country agree that when a Canadian or a Quebecker commits a crime outside the country, even a serious crime, that they may be subject to the death penalty and that the Canadian government, which claims to be passing bills that uphold the rule of law and a democratic ideal will refuse to repatriate the individuals to serve their sentence here and thereby avoid the death penalty? How does that square with your ideal of the rule of law and the values that a government should be promoting? It is quite difficult to understand the new approach your government is taking in this regard, and it is actually most disturbing. Of course, we are not trying to minimize the seriousness of the offences that were committed, but the death penalty is barbaric. Your responsibility is in no way removed because it is practised abroad rather than in Canada.

Furthermore, there was something that bothered me a little in the remarks you've been making here today. You seem to think that you have the support of a majority of Canadians. I think we should remind you, minister, that less than 40% of Canadians supported you, and that at least 60% of Quebeckers do not support either your election platform nor the vision behind it. Of course, that does not make you a less legitimate minister, but when I and my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois speak in the House of Commons, we do have an alternative vision. I never receive the mandate from my constituents to defend the vision of the criminal justice system that underlies Bill C-25, which is based on increased use of preventive detention and the deterrent principle. Quite the opposite is true.

You will recall that the National Assembly took a stand against this particular vision. We will see how things turn out, but I think we must bring you back to reality: your government is a minority government, and 60% of Canadians and Quebeckers do not subscribe to your vision. A number of people are pleased that you are not a majority government, and I think, with all due respect, that you should include me in that group.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Ménard.

You say that we're refusing to repatriate. We'll have to make a decision in those cases when this comes up, as to whether it involves the death penalty, or indeed when we get applications from other Canadians who are abroad and are detained or in jail. Decisions, of course, have to be made as to whether those individuals will be transferred back to serve in Canada. There is actually legislation in place that permits that. But obviously the decisions have to be made in each case.

I am keenly aware of the fact that we have a minority government. I believe that if we had a majority, some of these pieces of legislation would have been passed. I think they would have been passed a long time ago.

Again, I appreciate your comments, but we also have the right, as we did with the Tackling Violent Crime Act, to make it very clear that we are prepared to treat that as a confidence measure. And that too is a function of a minority parliament, and it has a long tradition within our parliamentary system.

I think it was quite appropriate for us to indicate, and to indicate clearly, that the Tackling Violent Crime Act is a confidence measure. That doesn't take away your right to either vote against it or to defeat it, but I think it was incumbent upon us to make sure everybody was in favour of that.

Now, I can tell you that--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

But it is not democratic.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

--we did have widespread support.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That is not democratic. I ask you to acknowledge that is not democratic, minister. The Prime Minister said that if we did not support his vision of justice, he will not respect our right to disagree. That does not show much respect for Parliament. You should never forget the fact that your government is not a majority government. We are entitled to disagree with your vision, and that does not mean that we are less concerned about victims and about the issue of justice. We have seen some authoritarian statements from the Prime Minister, and I do not think you would have accepted that when Mr. Hanger and his colleagues were on this side of the table. They would not have agreed that people who do not support your vision of justice would not be able to have a say. We should never forget that in democracy, we are entitled to put forward this view. As regard to young offenders, we will be putting forward that point of view.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I actually believe that the confidence convention is an integral part of our democratic institutions, and I believe that if something is vital to the future of a government or is a vital part of what the government stands for, it is quite appropriate to designate something as a confidence measure. We are all familiar, for instance, with budgets. They are integral to the ability of the government to actually continue. The tradition goes back several hundred years--it was not invented by my government, it's been around a long time--that if you lose control in the lower house, the House of Commons, in most cases you are obliged to go back to the people. All we wanted to do--again, I want to thank you for your support for that bill, and the support of everyone at the report stage--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I expect a Christmas card.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, I'll send you a Christmas card thanking you for that.

Again, as I say, I hope it goes through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister and Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Dykstra, you have time for one question.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Okay. I'll just ask one then.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was looking through the estimates on the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and one thing I noticed that runs throughout this document--and I have to compliment you and the ministry officials on it--on page 14, page 7, and page 5, is that it specifically deals with developing a legislative approach to the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, including a proposed interpretive principle that would preserve the collective rights and interests of aboriginal peoples while extending the full protection of the act that is currently denied to them. This is a pretty significant issue that runs throughout the estimates, and I wondered if you could just spend a couple of minutes commenting on that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's something I feel very strongly about, Mr. Dykstra--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Minister, if you could make it quick, we have a time constraint on some other business.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I find it incomprehensible that not every political party in this country is in support of this. This is to extend the Human Rights Act to all aboriginal Canadians, and the idea that they haven't waited long enough to have these basic human rights I think is wrong. Yes, I support our minister and what he is doing. I can tell you, if you want to talk about the responsibility of all members of Parliament, yes, they should stand up for aboriginal rights, and of course these people should be covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra, for the question.

We will suspend for 60 seconds.

I would like to thank the minister, Mr. Sims, the deputy minister, and Mr. Rennie for the expert advice. Thank you for attending.

[Proceedings continue in camera]