Justice Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[John Giokas]

An intentional killing under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Yes. Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

We'll go to Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The judge will have to justify his decision. Under section 745.51, will the Crown be able to appeal that decision; that is to say if the judge decides not to make the ineligibility periods consecutive?

[John Giokas]

Yes, that decision is subject to appeal by both parties: either by the Crown or by the defence.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would obviously be surprised if the defence appealed the decision. Perhaps the Crown might do so. That would be under what clause?

[John Giokas]

Under clause 3 of the bill, the Crown may appeal, and under clause—

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

All right.

[John Giokas]

It's clauses 2 and 3.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Does the court have to render its judgment in writing or does an oral judgment enough?

[John Giokas]

It's either one.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I notice that Mr. Comartin has now joined us.

Mr. Comartin, did you want to have one five-minute question?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

No, I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You're fine. All right.

We'll thank our witnesses for appearing. Your testimony will be helpful as we continue consideration of this bill.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes. I'd like members to stay at the table while we do that because there's some committee business I want your direction on.

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I'll reconvene the meeting. We're moving now to supplementary estimates (B) for 2010-11. You should have the estimates before you.

We welcome back our Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson. Accompanying him is an official from the Department of Justice, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada Myles Kirvan.

You know the drill. You have opening remarks, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Mr. Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here on supplementary estimates (B) for the Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, our government was elected on a promise to tackle crime. We've acted decisively on this promise in order to ensure the safety and security of our neighbourhoods and communities.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I am determined to ensure that our justice system is in fact just.

We know that law-abiding Canadians want us to act. Our government believes, as we stated in the Speech from the Throne, that the law must protect everyone and that those who commit crimes must be held to account. Canadians want a system that delivers justice.

To achieve that goal, we have pursued a wide range of reforms to strengthen our criminal law. Our record speaks for itself.

We've passed legislation to establish mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes and toughen sentencing for dangerous criminals, and we've raised the age of protection from 14 to 16 years to better protect young people from adult sexual predators.

We've succeeded in eliminating the two-for-one credit for time spent in jail awaiting trial, a practice that disproportionately reduced prison sentences for some violent offenders. Police associations and victims groups, and indeed, all provinces and territories, have expressed their support for that legislation.

Our government has passed legislation to increase penalties for murders and reckless shootings connected to gangs and organized crime. Any murder connected to organized crime activity now will automatically be considered murder in the first degree and will be subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

In addition, there are many pieces of proposed legislation that are currently before both Houses of Parliament, legislation that will strengthen the justice system to the benefit of law-abiding Canadians, with a particular emphasis on protecting children and showing respect and compassion for the victims of crime.

I would mention that none of this would have been possible without the invaluable assistance, advice, and commitment we have received from the employees of the Department of Justice. I take this opportunity to thank them for all their dedication and hard work.

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, our commitment to protect Canadians remains stronger than ever.

For example, most recently I was proud to announce our legislation to protect Canadians from property crime and auto theft, which just recently received royal assent, as you know. The Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act will help crack down on property crime, including auto theft and trafficking in property that is obtained by crime. Auto theft has a huge impact on Canadians and threatens the safety of our communities.

This legislation will help disrupt criminal enterprises and send a clear message to gangs and organized crime that if you engage in auto theft, there will be serious consequences. Once this new law comes into force, law enforcement and courts will have better tools to tackle auto theft and the entire range of activities involved in the trafficking of all types of stolen or fraudulently obtained property.

Another part of our fight against organized crime, Mr. Chairman, can be found in the new set of regulations we enacted to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to fight these sophisticated criminal activities. These new regulations identify as serious offences such organized crime activities as illegal gambling and specific prostitution- and drug-related crimes.

The fact that an offence is committed by a criminal organization makes it a serious crime. These regulations will help ensure that police and prosecutors can make full use of the tools in the Criminal Code that are specifically targeted at tackling organized crime, and that are better able to respond to organized crime and ensure that penalties are proportionate to the increased threat to public safety that organized crime activities present.

Mr. Chairman, we also welcomed this year the coming into force of the legislation to fight identity theft, which is a fast-growing crime in North America, as you know. Our new law provides police and justice officials with important new tools, including three new Criminal Code offences targeting the early stages of identity theft or identity-related crime: obtaining and possessing identity information, trafficking in identity information, and unlawfully possessing or trafficking in government-issued identity documents. All of these offences are subject to a five-year maximum prison sentence.

Our government believes Canadians are entitled to have their identities and other valuable information protected to the highest degree possible. Now they have greater protection against identity theft, and police are better equipped to stop these crimes before they are committed.

We're also standing up for the victims of white-collar crimes, which can have a devastating effect on individuals and communities. Our government has listened to the concerns of victims of fraud, and we are helping them to seek restitution and ensure their voices are heard in sentencing those who have harmed them so profoundly.

To that end, as you know, we have introduced legislation that cracks down on white-collar crime and fraud and increases justice for victims. Our legislation would make jail time mandatory: at least two years for fraud over $1 million. It would toughen sentences further by adding aggravating factors that the courts can consider.

Mr. Chairman, in the Speech from the Throne, we paid particular attention to the need to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, our children. Sexual exploitation of children causes irreparable harm, and our government is committed to helping prevent sexual offences against children by ensuring that adult sexual predators receive sentences that reflect the extreme seriousness of their crime.

We have proposed legislation that would establish mandatory prison sentences for seven existing Criminal Code offences, such as luring, sexual assault, and aggravated assault. As a result, conditional sentences, including house arrest, would no longer be available for any of these offences. The proposed legislation would also increase mandatory prison sentences for seven sexual offences involving child victims, such as possessing and accessing child pornography, and sexual exploitation.

Mr. Chairman, the creation and distribution of child pornography are appalling crimes in which children are brutally victimized over and over again. Our government has recently proposed a mandatory reporting regime across Canada that will require suppliers of Internet services to report information about Internet child pornography. This will strengthen our ability to protect our children from sexual predators and help police rescue these young victims and prosecute the criminals responsible.

Our government has also shown its concern for the victims of multiple murderers and their families. We firmly believe that families of murder victims should not be made to feel that the life of their loved one doesn't count.

This is why I tabled a bill in October that will permit judges to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murderers, thus putting to an end sentencing discounts for these horrible crimes. While there can only be one life sentence for an offender who commits more than one murder, the parole ineligibility period—25 years in the case of a first-degree murder—could be imposed consecutively for each subsequent murder.

In addition, we will continue to seek the elimination of the faint hope clause from the Criminal Code. By saying no to early parole for murders, our government hopes to spare families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to relive these unspeakable losses over and over again.

I was saddened earlier this month when there were several unnecessary amendments to this important piece of legislation, including the replacement of the short title of the bill. As a result of these unnecessary amendments, Bill S-6 will be delayed, and I'm disappointed to report to victims that this is not already the law of this country. But, again, we remain committed.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the honourable members for the work they do. I plead with them not to make unnecessary amendments to bills that only slow down bills for which there is widespread support and consensus among the people of this country.

We remain committed to helping victims of crime. Through the federal victims strategy, we committed $52 million over four years, starting on April 1, 2007, for a package of program services and funding to help the federal government and the provinces and territories respond to the needs of victims. This, of course, includes the creation of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

I was very pleased recently to announce that the Government of Canada would provide over $5 million over the next five years to support the development of child advocacy centres across Canada. I visited the one in St. Catharines, Ontario, which is, of course, next door to my constituency, and I couldn't help but be impressed by the work being done there. It's being done in a number of municipalities across Canada, and this is something that we all must encourage.

Our government remains committed to supporting victims of crime through existing programs, and we'll continue to work with stakeholders to create new initiatives, such as the child advocacy centres I just mentioned. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, victims of crime have indicated that their primary unmet need is access to information about the justice system and the services available to them.

To help meet this need, the Government of Canada is reaching out to victims of crime through the recent Victims Matter campaign to raise awareness and let victims know what resources are available to them. The funding for this campaign comes from a separate Treasury Board allotment for government advertising for the fiscal year 2010-11. This investment is above and beyond the funds already allocated to the victims fund.

The campaign's goal is to increase awareness and uptake of the services and programs available to victims of crime and therefore, by extension, increase the use of the victims fund. The results of the campaign so far are showing that we are reaching Canadians and raising awareness. As of November 27, the Victims Matter website had received more than 1.1 million hits, with close to 40,000 visitors averaging a length of visit of more than five minutes, which suggests that visitors are finding plenty of content worth reading.

Mr. Chairman, safety and security are priorities for our government, and we will not apologize for our commitment to victims and law-abiding citizens.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and committee members for the important work you are doing.

The Department of Justice is instrumental in the government's work to respond to the needs of Canadians. The funding that we have received has brought results, and I will do my utmost to ensure these funds continue to be spent wisely and in the service of Canadians.

We will continue to deliver on our promise to tackle crime and stand up for victims. We will continue to listen to the views of Canadians on how we can improve our criminal justice system and make all our communities safe.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Minister.

We're back to seven-minute rounds.

Mr. Murphy, I believe you're going first, so you have seven minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister and officials.

I want to draw my question from pages 170 through 181 of the supplementary estimates. I have some specific questions.

In passing, though, I can't help but give a bit of a remark back to you, Minister, that the government has been in power close to five years. To blame everything on the Liberal-dominated Senate...oh, wait a minute, that's not the case anymore. Or there's the changing of short titles that go way beyond the actual reach and even the effect of legislation that is a little mysterious and a little hyperbolic.

But let's not get caught up in political debate. Let's get down to the figures. You've been in office five years. You are now starting to appropriate money for some of your grand visions.

If you look at page 180, I appreciate, as a preface to the specific questions on expenses, that you had a separate allocation from the Treasury Board with respect to a campaign regarding victims of crime. I appreciate that it is separate, but within these figures can you tell me specifically with regard to the third item, “Funding to support victim services...to increase national support for missing persons investigations” and for the item two lines down, “Funding for increased support for victims of crime...for the creation and enhancement of the Child Advocacy Centres” that you refer to--those two sums are $2.5 million and $1.3 million--whether any of those sums allocated or appropriated are for advertising, for publicity, for promotion? That would be one question.

The second question, because I want to give you a lot of time to answer, Minister and Deputy Minister, is that I've been at Canadian Bar Association meetings at which you've made it very clear that transfers to provinces regarding legal aid are just that--transfers to provinces. Almost across the country, your fallback position is that you can do nothing with what provinces do with their allocation generally with respect to ensuring there's adequate legal aid in the provinces.

I think that's a constitutionally sound argument, Mr. Minister, but in this item under transfers, if I understand it correctly, you have transferred or taken a transfer of $2 million “to provide immigration and refugee legal aid funding for provinces and territories”. It seems to be exactly what you say that you do not do as a government, which is to transfer money directly to provinces for specific legal aid services.

I wonder if that's a breakthrough. I wonder if it's a good thing. I wonder if it's something that you're mandated to do as government under Citizenship and Immigration. I just wonder what it is, why it's such a large sum and, finally, why it's being transferred from Citizenship and Immigration. Did they do it before and cover it in their budget? Did they not do it before? Is this something new?

Those are three general expenditure questions, Minister.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Chairman, that's a lot to answer.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I left you lots of time.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

My problem with you changing the titles of the bill is that it delays the bill. Everybody wants, I think, for the most part--I mean, I got it unanimously passed--to get rid of the faint hope clause. The bill--

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's not what you called it--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

--has already been passed by the Senate. If you make minor amendments to it, if you're uptight about the name of the bill, it means the matter will then have to go back to the Senate. That's the system of government we have.

So when I'm trying to explain to victims that there is a general consensus that we want to get rid of the faint hope clause, I have to tell them we have a couple of amendments now at the House of Commons that will delay the bill. That's the point I've made.

With respect to the increases, the money for advertising comes from separate funds. You mentioned, among other things, the child advocacy centres. That money is available for groups across Canada to make applications to put together a child advocacy centre, or to assist with one that may already be up and running. That's what the money goes for. In addition, the money to support victim services against violence in aboriginal communities, again is new money that has been announced to assist in the pursuit of those who have victimized aboriginal women.

That being said, it's important to get that message out. That's not what this money is being used for, but I mentioned the education and the advertisements we're doing because we want victims and individuals to take up these programs and to become aware of what they are referring to.

Now, with respect to legal aid, yes, there are transfers to legal aid with respect to criminal...and, as you pointed out, with respect to the refugee system. Yes, we do that. Most of the questions that have been directed towards me with respect to the constitutional separation or the arrangements that have been made with the provinces and territories relate to civil legal aid.

As I indicated to them, prior to 1995 when I was an MP here in the early 1990s and I was the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, I of course watched and looked each year to ensure that money was being transferred from the federal government for the purposes of civil legal aid. This would help people, for instance, on matrimonial disputes.

Now, in 1995—I was not a part of that, as I'm sure you're aware—it was rolled over into the Canada social transfer. So what I've indicated when I have been at the Canadian Bar Association and other forums, is that I've said yes, I watch the budget every year and am pleased that each year the Canada social transfer has been increased, because I know, then, that the opportunity therefore exists for provinces to assist in the area of civil legal aid and indeed other worthwhile projects.

But it is sometimes put to me why I don't go back to having a line item, and as you could probably guess, a number of provincial jurisdictions aren't welcoming that and encouraging us in that direction.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I wasn't clear on your answer, actually. I am on the civil legal aid thing, and it's a point that you and I may agree on: that we should have dedicated civil legal aid funds. I think you set a good example by doing that with this type of transfer.

In any event, where I don't agree with you.... And just to be clear, I don't agree with you on very, very much, Mr. Minister. It's hard for me to understand from your answer what amount, of the two previous questions I asked.... I don't want to take too much time, but on the aboriginal community support for missing persons investigations and the child advocacy centres, it's very unclear to me in your answer whether any of those line items, $2.5 million and $1.3 million, are to be spent on advertising and promotion.

How much of $1.3 million is actually going to bricks and mortar and staffing of child advocacy centres? How much of the $2.5 million is actually going into aboriginal communities to hire investigators looking for missing people?