Justice Committee on March 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Order, please.

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number eight of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on Monday, March 9, 2009. I just want to note that this meeting is televised.

You have before you the agenda for today. We are reviewing the supplementary estimates C, which have been referred to this committee.

The second half of this meeting will be in camera. We'll continue our work on providing drafting instructions to our analysts on the impaired driving study. Also at that time, we'll deal with a motion that's still on the floor, Mr. Ménard's motion regarding the organized crime study, and some travel related to that.

Today we welcome back three individuals who have been before us earlier: Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, as well as Mr. John Sims and Mr. Brian Saunders.

Gentlemen, welcome back. As is customary, you have an opportunity to make a ten-minute presentation. After that time, we'll open up the floor to questions.

Minister, I open the floor to you.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of your fellow members.

I am pleased to be here to discuss the supplementary estimates C before you. As you indicated, I am appearing here with the Deputy Minister of Justice, John Sims, and I am pleased to have with me as well Brian Saunders, director of public prosecutions.

Of course, any time I appear it is in my dual capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, roles that have been united ever since Sir John A. Macdonald came up with the idea that both of these positions should be together. We have continued that tradition, and I am pleased to fill that role at the present time.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, our government in unwavering in its commitment to fighting crime and to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. I'd like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions made every day on the front lines of our fight against crime by police officers, prosecutors, community workers and volunteers who day in and day out devote themselves to the communities they serve.

Our government has made great strides in protecting Canadians and cracking down on crime. You will remember the comprehensive Tackling Violent Crime Act, which increases penalties for those convicted of a whole series of crimes. In addition we increased penalties for those convicted of street racing, and we established the national anti-drug strategy to curb illicit drug use in Canada.

I am proud to do my part in working with you and members of the House of Commons and Senate in continuing this important work.

Most recently I have introduced legislation in the House of Commons to amend the Criminal Code in the areas of gang violence and organized crime. Specifically, this legislation would make murders that are connected to organized crime activity automatically first degree murders. That would mean an individual would be looking at 25 years in a federal penitentiary before being eligible for parole. So this legislation would put murders connected to organized crime into that category. I think most people who look at this agree this is a reasonable step forward. It also creates a broad-based offence to target drive-by and other intentional shootings. As well, we are increasing the penalties for those who intimidate police officers, prosecutors, and judges.

I will also reintroduce legislation from the previous session regarding mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, specifically those involving violence or weapons, or which involve trafficking drugs to young people, or importing or exporting of drugs.

In the coming days I look forward to continuing this work by introducing other legislation consistent with our promise to protect Canadians.

Mr. Chairman, the protections we seek to provide Canadians extend to their financial security as well. Canadians are not immune to the effects of the growing economic instability around the globe. Government departments and agencies are doing their part to ensure that the funds allocated to them are spent wisely. Over and above that obligation, the justice portfolio has a more specific role in fighting capital market fraud and white collar crime. The RCMP, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and the Department of Justice, as well as the Departments of Finance and Public Safety, are all partners in the integrated market enforcement teams program. The IMET program's goal is to effectively enforce the law against serious criminal capital market fraud offences in Canada. The IMET units based in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal investigate serious Criminal Code offences that are of regional or national significance, and that threaten investor confidence or economic stability.

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you can understand the importance of that in the present economic context.

As is the case for many of our government's programs, the collaboration of IMET units with our provincial and territorial partners accounts for much of the success in responding to the needs of Canadians. For example, to investigate these offences, members of the RCMP and Public Prosecution Service legal advisers often work closely with investigators from provincial or municipal police forces, as well as experts seconded from provincial securities regulators. In addition to its prosecution role, the PPSC provides legal advice to the IMET units.

The Department of Justice provides support to these units with respect to mutual legal assistance requests to foreign governments, as well as handling any related extradition requests. The justice department also manages and administers the IMET reserve fund to reimburse our provincial partners for extraordinary expenses related to IMET prosecutions, working with the Public Prosecution Service officials to review and approve requests from provinces for access to this contribution fund.

In the coming year, we will continue to work on making IMETs more effective. These efforts include our officials, other levels of governments, and other departments and agencies.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the Department of Justice are playing key roles in the government's work to respond to the needs of Canadians. We will continue to do our utmost to ensure that funds are spent wisely in the service of Canadians.

Thank you.

I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll move now to questions.

First off, we have Mr. Dosanjh. You have seven minutes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

My questions are going to be brief. I would ask that the minister be brief in response, because I have three questions that I'm going to ask.

The first question is with respect to Bill C-14. Attorney General Wally Oppal and Solicitor General van Dongen from British Columbia came and met with you, Minister, and met with the opposition, including us. They indicated that they wanted the lawful access law changed so that the law enforcement people are allowed to lawfully intercept a wider range of communications between gangsters and gang members. As well, they want to make sure that we cut back on the two-for-one remand sentencing deals, which of course disproportionately reduce prison sentences for some violent offenders.

These two issues aren't new. These two issues have been on the table at attorneys general conferences for some time. I want to ask you, the minister, why did you not move on these as part of Bill C-14? Obviously, from Minister Oppal's remarks, it appears that he didn't think you were very enthusiastic about doing it very soon.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There are a couple of things, Mr. Dosanjh. A number of the issues that we have placed before Parliament have been on the desks of the attorneys general across this country, not just Bill C-14, which you opened up your remarks with and which is one of them, but Bill C-15, the drug bill, as well.

I had a very good conversation with both the attorney general and the public safety minister from British Columbia. I explained to them the contents of the two bills that we have before Parliament. I'm confident that I will have their support and I'll have the support of attorneys general right across this country. I have indicated to them, and I will indicate to you, as I have to Parliament, that we are taking these bills one step at a time.

You will remember when we introduced five bills in the first session of the last Parliament. You will remember as well that, when we adjourned in the summer of 2007, not one of those bills was actually passed into law. If I sound a bit frustrated thinking about that, I was very frustrated to have to deal with that.

I think it's best to introduce these bills one step at a time. I'm trying to garner public opinion on these. As you can tell from people like you and others who have followed this government's agenda for fighting crime, we're moving ahead. We'll continue to move ahead, but I'm taking them one step at a time.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I don't want to be partisan, but we've actually offered to expedite these two bills rather quickly. You could actually introduce the measures sought by British Columbia very soon and we would expedite those as well. They aren't very complicated. They can be done very quickly.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Good. I'm glad to hear you say that. That's a beautiful thought, Mr. Dosanjh. I hope you've spoken with your other colleagues here from the Bloc and the NDP, because nothing would make me happier than to get these things through.

You know very well the frustration and the difficulties that my colleagues and I had in getting anything passed. Even the bill to protect 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds from adult sexual predators took much longer than I would have liked.

I'm happy that you are prepared to push these things, because I have news for you, Mr. Dosanjh: we have other pieces of legislation that we'll be bringing forward. I hope this enthusiasm keeps up, because it's exactly what Canadians need.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

It seems to me you're more interested in politicking than giving me the answer.

Let me move on to the next question, on the drug courts. Bill C-15 dealing with drug offences and sentences therein indicates there will be more expansive use of the drug courts. The drug courts funding will continue for a year from today. The decision to renew that funding isn't going to be made this month. It takes one year for any addict to go through a program in a drug court. Why are we jeopardizing treatment of those people who are attending drug courts by not making a decision more quickly, particularly if Bill C-15 anticipates that these courts are here to stay?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I can tell you, Mr. Dosanjh, that the drug courts you're referring to got started a number of years ago. They were done on a pilot-project basis. We have ensured that funding is in place and will continue for the next year. You're quite correct that we make reference to that in Bill C-15 that we have before Parliament.

Very soon after becoming Minister of Justice in January 2007 I was particularly interested in this and what we were doing to help individuals who weren't violent but found themselves addicted or caught up in the court system. I think up to this point the program is working quite well. The funding is in place for the next year, and I thank you for any representations you'd like to make for the future of that program.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I would ask you to expedite funding approval for future years more quickly. But let me go on to my last question, about a couple of articles in the paper today that indicate the justice brass is to receive anti-racism training--about 600 managers, I believe. This is not a partisan comment.

Our previous governments didn't have stellar records in integrating visible minorities into the public service. Whether it's provincial or federal, the number of visible minorities is disproportionately lower in the federal civil service and the provincial civil service, at least in British Columbia, where I come from--and we made efforts.

It's not really a question; it's a comment. First of all, I want to thank the department for trying to do what they're doing. But I want to express some shame and embarrassment as a Canadian. We don't think of aboriginal Canadians as visible minorities, but they've been here for hundreds of years. Chinese Canadians and blacks have been here for a long time. Chinese Canadians actually came to this country 165 years ago. Indo-Canadians have been around for over 100 years. The argument that there aren't qualified people in those communities doesn't wash any more. While I thank the department for trying to make the effort to deal with this issue upfront, I am embarrassed as a Canadian that we are so far behind, particularly in the civil service, both federal and provincial.

Minister, I want to encourage you to do more and to do it more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Give a very short answer, Minister.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

As a government we've only been involved for the last three years. I can't speak for what took place before that. It's everyone's responsibility to see that all Canadians from whatever walk of life, race, or ethnic group are completely integrated into Canadian society.

You mentioned the Department of Justice. I think it would be appropriate if the deputy minister commented as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Sims.

[John Sims, Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

Mr. Dosanjh, we take the situation very seriously. We've done quite a few things. We are indeed, as the newspaper article said this morning, making sure that all senior managers have sensitivity training, but we're doing far more than that.

We have more visible minority employees in the department than the labour availability numbers would suggest, but we don't have enough visible minorities at the senior level. We are making efforts to see what we can do to accelerate the advancement of qualified visible minorities in the department. We have a national diversity program for training possible managers. There's a pilot called the leadership development program that is going to equip people to compete and accede to the higher levels. We have performance measures for management to monitor the progress of people in the department.

I think I'm proudest of the relationship we have in the department today with the advisory committee on visible minorities and the advisory committee on aboriginal people, with whom we're working very closely and cooperatively to try to make progress in this regard. We aren't there yet. We're not happy with where we are, but we think we've made a great deal of progress since the moment in history that was described in that article this morning, which was about a year ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Sims.

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to talk about the Criminal Conviction Review Group. I have heard that since the Conservative government took office, the group has been a little dysfunctional. Concerns have been expressed. People who are quite concerned about how this group is run have made some representations to me.

I have been informed that of the five lawyers who work for the Criminal Conviction Review Group in accordance with section 696 of the Criminal Code, two have gone on sick leave because their professional independence was not respected, primarily by your director, Mr. Scullion. The professional independence of these employees is not being respected. How many lawyers work for the CCRG? Can you get that information to me?

Can you confirm for me that since the Conservatives came to power, the professional independence of lawyers, who in accordance with a process established in 2002, must follow a four-stage process, has always been respected? Have you knowledge of any operational problems or ill-advised interventions by your director, Mr. Scullion?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm not going to comment specifically on some of the internal matters within the Department of Justice. Perhaps the deputy minister might want to do that.

But I can tell you, Monsieur Ménard, that the whole question of wrongful convictions is something that is quite apart from any political or ideological considerations for anybody. I'm quite certain that over the years this has been the case, not just in the government of which I am a member, but I believe in previous governments as well. We have an obligation under our Constitution and our system of government that when information is brought to us that an individual may have been wrongfully convicted we will move forward on it.

You're quite correct. A number of changes have taken place since the Milgaard report, quite frankly. I have an independent individual, Judge Grenier, who advises me. He is completely at arm's length and independent. He advises me with respect to applications. I know that within the Department of Justice they take this very seriously as well, and they work very hard on that, Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Let's get back to Judge Grenier. Let me ask you the question again. As minister, were you informed that of the five lawyers working for the Criminal Conviction Review Group, two apparently requested to be put on sick leave after the director called into question their professional independence? As minister, it is your responsibility to know if this group is dysfunctional.

Representations were made to me in my capacity of member of Parliament and I did my duty as an enlightened opposition member and put the question to you. As minister, was this matter brought to your attention? We'll get back to how the process works. I'm familiar with that. What I want to know right now is whether or not you stepped in and whether you continue to have confidence in Mr. Scullion and in the professional independence of his team of lawyers.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I am completely confident that this has worked very well over the couple of years that I have been Minister of Justice. I believe that people have acted in a professional manner and have moved forward on the applications and the files.

I don't know if you have anything you want to add, Deputy Minister Sims.

[John Sims]

I have complete faith in Mr. Scullion's professionalism. I am not aware of any inappropriate interference on his part in the work of the lawyers.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Are they on sick leave, yes or no? Are you aware that two of the five lawyers requested to be put on sick leave?

Please keep your answer brief, because I have other questions.

[John Sims]

I know that one lawyer is on leave for health reasons. I don't have any information about the other individuals.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I see.

Pursuant to the legislation reviewed by the Liberals in 2002, this service provides all evidenciary elements to the lawyer assigned to persons who have been the victims of a judicial error. I was informed that this process has been interrupted. In at least two instances, lawyers for victims like this were denied information. I'm not looking for an answer, but I am sounding the alarm and I do hope that some clear directives will be issued.

I have a question about the Coffin affair which was the subject of a vote in the House. Can the minister, or the deputy minister, give us a progress report on this inquiry that was given the go-ahead over a year ago? Where do matters stand? Which of your lawyers has been assigned to this inquiry?

[John Sims]

I didn't catch the name of the inquiry, sir.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm talking about the highly publicized Coffin affair. A film was produced about the Duplessis years and so forth. This House held a vote calling for an inquiry to determine if a judicial error had been made. This was agreed to at the preliminary stage and we are now at the inquiry stage. Who is the attorney of record on this matter?