Justice Committee on Nov. 27th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That is correct, sir.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I'll do that.

Does the 2014 Peter MacKay agree with the 2004 Peter MacKay?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Casey, let me respond this way. It's somewhat ironic that you, representing the Liberal Party, would be wrapping around the words of Peter MacKay in 2004 when they were soundly rejected by the justice minister, Mr. Cotler at the time, so much so that they had to be put in a dissenting report that clearly indicated that your party—albeit you weren't there—made the very overt decision to not follow that advice.

There have been various processes used over time. As I said to Madam Boivin, upon forming the government in 2006, we initiated the most open, inclusive process that's ever been seen in the Canadian judicial system, which included this parliamentary process of a committee, of recommendations, of working from a list. Suffice it to say that I personally believe that processes can always be improved and should be revisited from time to time.

One must also keep in mind the circumstances and the tenor of the times. We needed to move quickly, for example, with respect to the appointment of Mr. Justice Cromwell, as I recall, because of a pending election and the need to have a full complement. Similarly, and more recently, with the appointment of Mr. Justice Gascon and Madam Côté, I would suggest that because of the importance of having a full complement from the province of Quebec those circumstances dictated that we move and use the alternative process.

On the consultative part of this exercise, is it aided or hindered by the parliamentary participation of having the committee go out and do these consultations and then report back to me or through me to the Prime Minister? That remains to be seen. When there are leaks and when the process itself is impugned, and individuals who might otherwise want their names considered are dissuaded from doing so because of the threat that their names could be publicly disclosed, one has to weigh that, which is what we did in this instance and therefore chose to take an alternative route and consult directly with the most important individuals. In this case we consulted the Supreme Court of Canada, the supreme court of Quebec, prominent members of the legal community, of course the Minister of Justice from Quebec, and other practitioners, and in some cases, retired judges, who weighed in on this important decision and gave us advice.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

You don't mean to say that there was inadequate time or inadequate notice of the retirement of Justice LeBel to put in place a process along the lines of the one that you've spoken so highly of?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

That's not what I said at all, no.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I just want to be clear on that. You don't mean to imply that there was some urgency around this appointment and the need to move to the process that you've chosen? You call it direct consultation. We might differ on how that's described.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Direct and broad consultations means in some cases I picked up the phone and called people or met with them. I say this about the necessity of preserving the integrity of the system: when I read in The Globe and Mail that the list we were working from, which you and other members were a part of forming, was leaked, that was very much a consideration.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Minister, I've corrected you on this privately before. Now, unfortunately, I'm going to have to do it on front of the committee. I was not part of the process. The representative from the Liberal Party was Dominic LeBlanc. You are aware of that, sir.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have another minute.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I want to change topics here for a second.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned in your opening remarks the aboriginal justice strategy and made specific reference to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Yesterday, a private member's bill from Mr. Leef was withdrawn even though it had broad support and certainly the support of the Liberal Party.

Can you explain the government's rationale in killing the bill?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

That's not at all what happened. I have to correct you and admonish you for using that word.

It wasn't killed. It was a decision taken by the member to have this matter proceed to this committee for further study, which we hope will result in inclusion. I know that Mr. Leef, having championed this issue, intends to see this effort to address very specifically how we improve dealing with this very deleterious condition known as fetal alcohol syndrome. How we do so through programming, through involvement of Health Canada, certainly the provincial and territorial partnerships that will emerge and are currently very much part of the solution, will be given greater study. I would suggest it will give new life to the issue, not kill the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thanks for those questions and answers. It's lovely to discuss the estimates.

Mr. Goguen, the floor is yours.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you to the minister and all the officials for coming. I certainly want to commend you on bringing forth the Canadian victims bill of rights.

You know the committee seized of this, and there have been resounding testimonials in support. Certainly bringing the victims' voices squarely into the justice system is long overdue. It's been accepted wholly by all participants, and this is going to bring dignity to the process.

Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, I'd like to ask a question on the supplementary estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Yes. That would be nice. Thank you.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Good enough.

Obviously one of the tenets of the Canadian victims bill of rights is giving the victims advice, notice, so they know where they're going. Nothing could be worse than going through a system that is foreign to you. The fear of the unknown is spectacular at making someone anxious and fearful. I see there's a multipronged process to give information to victims.

Earlier this month we announced $200,000 in funding for a victim justice network to establish online networks for victims of crime, criminal justice professionals, and others who directly serve victims. You spoke about Ryan Leef's riding, a faraway riding where perhaps information isn't quite as available. Can you speak to the objective of this victim justice network, and how it will work to the benefit of those involved?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Yes. I very much embrace the use of technology when it comes to access to justice more generally. In this particular instance, we're attempting to create interconnectivity through online systems through this justice network, much like the model of the child advocacy centres. As I mentioned, we have already established these child advocacy centres that have the ability to access that information to assist victims across the country.

We're a country where people are highly mobile. Sometimes crimes sadly occur in one jurisdiction, people move, or they were on vacation. In many instances you have people in one part of the country who are required to return for court proceedings. In my view using closed-circuit cameras; being able to share that information; having police forces, victims' services, and court administration interconnected through technology helps us overcome some of the vast distances. The north in particular has these challenges daily. We have very remote communities that quite frankly you can only access at certain times of the year. Mr. Leef can speak to this with authority. It requires specialized equipment just to get there, given the remoteness of the community.

This victim justice network has been spearheaded by one woman in particular who has great personal experience in the justice system, Priscilla de Villiers. She and many others who are dedicated, volunteers for the most part, have been the initiators of this process. As you mentioned, we've put $200,000 toward this initiative. In my view it will bring about a much more efficient, much more interconnected system that will not only benefit victims, but also benefit the participants who work every day to try to improve the way our justice system functions in Canada.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I think you'd agree, Minister, that the justice system is not only daunting for victims, it's also daunting to litigants, many of whom are unrepresented. You mentioned the issue of access to justice, and there are more and more unrepresented litigants in the process. You've mentioned mediation as perhaps a method of streamlining family law litigation.

Can you tell us where you see the benefits of this unfolding and the direct objectives you want to reach?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

The access to justice initiative is something that has been around for a number of years. The Chief Justice, Madam Justice McLachlin, has championed this, as has Thomas Cromwell. It has been written about in various reports regarding how we can do a better job of, as you say, serving everyone who works within that process. It's very important that victims be included in all these calculations.

Unrepresented accused represent a severe challenge, particularly to a judge's ability to preside over a courtroom. When the individual, for a variety of reasons, is unrepresented—very often there are financial considerations—the judge literally has to slow down the process, which creates another byproduct, delay. This is a direct challenge to our system. The old adage “justice delayed is justice denied” is a very live issue.

I know there are dedicated efforts by the Canadian Bar Association and by provincial bar associations. We met very recently in New Brunswick with representatives in your community who serve on the Canadian Bar Association. They are very smart, dedicated people who are attempting to deal with this issue very directly.

With regard to translation services, access to justice in your own language is also an issue. New Brunswick leads the way and leads the country, in terms of bilingual services. In other parts of our country where first nations are involved, this again is an important issue in terms of how we deliver a system that is fair, that is inclusive, and that promotes public confidence. To use the vernacular, it's a work in progress.

Technology provides many of the answers. Very dedicated people who are promoting this justice network will help serve victims better. I'm confident that through resources, through dedicated effort, and through ingenuity we're making a real dent in this issue of access to justice.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Of course delay always causes prejudice. In the case of family law, lives are torn apart through delays, and the backlogs seem to continue. Do you see access to justice through mediation somehow being enhanced? What are your thoughts on this?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Absolutely. Many judges in our Family Court system are rightly demanding that mediation occur before people even appear in the courtroom. I was a practitioner of family law only long enough to realize that it wasn't an area of law I wanted to pursue, in large part because of the confrontational nature and the fact that when children are involved the heightened emotion very often skews the outcome.

In your example about unrepresented accused, mediation would give us the ability to sit down and try...to the greatest extent possible before going before a judge and making hard, harsh decisions that may have unintended consequences, particularly in terms of parental orders, access to children, access to family, or a move that could dislocate a family. These are life-altering decisions to say the least, and the mediation methodology has exponentially impacted the way Family Court operates and the way we are moving away from the strict confrontational approach that has quite frankly not worked well within our family justice system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Minister.

Our next questioner from the New Democratic Party is Madame Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just have a quick question for the minister, after which I will be sharing my time with my colleague.

Since 2006, there has been a modest increase of a few million dollars in legal aid. The amount went up from $128 million to $132 million in 2011. In 2014-15, a decrease in government contributions has brought legal aid down to $120 million. This means that it has dropped below the threshold of the 2006 contributions, when the Conservatives were elected.

I find that rather strange because we are now being told that, from 2014 to 2017, contributions to legal aid will once again be reduced to $108 million, which is $20 million less than the contributions made in 2006-2007. In that respect, the provinces are unanimous. In addition, a report by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Hon. Beverley McLachlin, said that legal aid is an essential part of access to justice.

We talked about the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. We talked about how important the aid for victims and access to justice are.

Basically, I would just like to ask you this question. Why is the contribution to legal aid being reduced to $108 million over the next few years when we know that the situation has reached a critical stage in terms of access to justice?

Thank you very much.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for the question.

I will answer in English to provide you with accurate numbers.

You're referring, I believe, to the supplementary information on the legal aid program, which is located in your materials.

The $108.3 million that you're referring to is for criminal legal aid. That isn't the full picture. When you add up program operations, other components, and these supplementary estimates (B) that we are seeking your approval on today, the figure actually comes to $126.46 million, so there's an increase that will be deduced as a result of these supplementary estimates (B).

I would also note that there is an additional $4.1 million for the territories that comes across through these estimates, so there are transfers as well that will bolster this number well beyond the $108-million figure that you're referring to.

Is that clear?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

How much time do you have? Six minutes; I've given everyone eight minutes.