Evidence of meeting #7 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

William F. Pentney  Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
Donald Piragoff  Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Justice
Marie-Josée Thivierge  Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Office of Assistant Deputy Minister, Management Sector and CFO, Department of Justice

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us this morning.

We are here at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number seven.

The orders today are pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), supplementary estimates (B) 2013-14. Votes 1b, 5b, 35b, and 50b, which are listed in the supplementary estimates (B) under Justice, were referred to this committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013.

We are fortunate to have the Minister of Justice with us this morning, the Honourable Peter MacKay, to open up the discussion.

The floor is yours, Minister.

8:45 a.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I'm pleased to be with you this morning to answer questions regarding the items in supplementary estimates (B).

Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I'm tasked with helping to ensure that our justice system continues to meet the needs of Canadians and that it can remain relevant, fair, and accessible.

Our government has been moving forward on several priority areas in criminal justice, in particular, so that Canadians can continue to be proud of our justice system and have confidence in its operation. We have toughened penalties against offenders, such as drug dealers, criminals who use firearms, and sexual predators who prey on children, the most vulnerable of our society.

We have also implemented measures to keep dangerous and violent offenders behind bars rather than under house arrest, and eliminated the practice of double time reduction in the sentencing of criminals for time served before trials, so-called sentence discounts.

Mr. Chair, this summer I also embarked on a series of consultations across the country, during which time I listened to Canadians from every province and territory speak about how the justice system could better serve victims of crime and what they would like to see in a federal victims bill of rights, which will be introduced in the coming days.

As we have discovered, unfortunately, victims in the justice system very often feel that they are being re-victimized by the system itself. They feel that the system is failing them and doesn't meet their needs, and we need to reverse that trend. Since 2006, our government has allocated more than $120 million specifically to victims, to give them a more effective voice in both our justice and correctional systems, through program initiatives delivered by the Department of Justice. This includes funding for new or enhanced child advocacy centres. I encourage all colleagues, if you have an opportunity, to visit a child advocacy centre in your region. They're doing amazing, compassionate work to help ease the trauma of a child caught up in the justice system. The centres help coordinate investigation, prosecution, and the treatment of child abuse, while helping abused children in a very important way.

We also need to continue to address victims' needs in other areas. I believe we have learned a great deal and we could help inform the legislation that our government intends to introduce, as I mentioned, to entrench the rights of victims into federal law.

Mr. Chair, another issue we have to tackle is cyberbullying, and we've taken steps in that direction as recently as yesterday. We have, unfortunately, seen that cyberbullying in its worst form can be life-threatening. We need a range of education, awareness, prevention, and enforcement activities to combat this scourge, including a stronger justice system response, and we intend to provide one. Governments at all levels have expedited a review of federal, provincial, and territorial law surrounding this issue, and I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that Bill C-13 is an effective criminal justice response that we can all support and move forward in an expedited way.

Chairman, colleagues, Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe, first and foremost. Our government understands this expectation and is committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who pose a high risk to public safety. To that end, our government is introducing legislation to help protect Canadians from an accused who suffers from a mental disorder.

Our government has already introduced legislation to help protect Canadians from mentally disordered accused persons who have been found to be not criminally responsible and who pose a high risk to public safety. Our legislation will ensure that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process.

There have been a number of misconceptions surrounding the intent of our legislation. I can assuredly tell members of this committee that we have no intention of increasing the negative stigma attached to those who suffer from a mental illness.

In fact, Mr. Chair, if I could pause here for a moment, the intention is in fact to designate those who are deemed high risk and to separate them from the rest who would have been given the designation of not criminally responsible. I believe if this is done properly, it will in fact reduce the stigma.

So, Mr. Chair, the Bill C-14, the not criminally responsible reform act, will only touch upon a small percentage of accused deemed high risk. In fact, those deemed within the entire criminal justice system not criminally responsible amount to less than 1%.

This effort will limit access for those high-risk accused in terms of escorted passes from mental health institutions. Again, for emphasis, this is what we're talking about: secure mental health facilities, not our classic jail system. This will be done in a way that will provide flexibility to provincial and territorial review boards tasked with reviewing these cases by giving them the option to extend reviews from the current two years up to a maximum of three years.

Our government also wants to ensure that our children are better protected against sexual exploitation.

Mr. Chair, we'll be introducing legislation soon that deals with the range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while ensuring that offenders receive tougher sentences when convicted of such offences.

Our government has always been committed to ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system. We reiterated that commitment with the Speech from the Throne.

The items that the justice system has submitted to be tabled under supplementary estimates (B) for consideration today will further our work towards protecting Canadians and ensuring safer streets and communities, a goal we all share.

Chair, you will note that the Department of Justice's net increase is $10.94 million, including $996,000 in vote 1, and $9.8 million in vote 5.

One major area of expenditure is the renewal of the funding for the aboriginal justice strategy for fiscal year 2013-14. The aboriginal justice strategy is federally led and is an initiative that is cost-shared with the provinces and territories and supports community-based justice programs that help address the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our criminal justice system. It provides funding to approximately 275 communities. It's a community-based program that reaches more than 800 aboriginal communities in all jurisdictions.

Chair, this is also an adjustment of $320,000 from the Department of Foreign Affairs after our Department of Justice eliminated a position in the Canadian embassy in Paris under the deficit reduction action plan.

In supplementary estimates (B) you should also note this is to indicate a reduction in vote 1 of approximately $374,000, which represents a reduction in travel costs by the department.

The estimates also include an overall reduction of $7,000, as a result of the creation of Shared Services Canada, which is in part related to eliminating the Justice position I mentioned in Paris.

To conclude, I want to thank all committee members for your diligence in examination of these figures and the estimates. I thank you for the important work that you do. I look forward to working with you on a number of very important initiatives that are making their way through this committee during the fall and into the new year.

The funding that the justice portfolio has received has brought results for Canadians. I assure you I'll do my utmost to ensure that these funds will continue to be spent wisely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you, Minister, for that opening statement.

I would just remind the committee we have the minister with us for the first hour, until 9:45.

Our first questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Mr. Kellway.

November 28th, 2013 / 8:55 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the minister, thank you, Minister, for joining us this morning and for your introductory remarks.

I want to focus my questions on the aboriginal justice strategy.

I was looking at the last evaluation report done on the study by the department, dated November 2011. It's very interesting in that, against all the criteria in the report, it judges the strategy to be effective. It's both relevant and effective in terms of the long-term goals of safer communities that reduce crime, incarceration, and recidivism. It also says it's an efficient program in that it's cheaper, if I could put it in those crude terms, for someone to go through that system rather than the normal justice system.

I have a couple of questions with respect to that. The department website suggests that there are 275 programs covering 600 communities. I wasn't entirely clear on that. Does that mean there are 325 communities without the program available to them, or does that mean 600 communities are covered? What isn't covered? What percentage of the aboriginal community doesn't have access to this program?

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Kellway.

Just a slight correction, 800 communities are touched by these programs, and my understanding, and I'll seek clarification on this, is that some programs can cover more than one community.

8:55 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Okay.

What's left over in terms of non-coverage of this program across the country?

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I know for certain, Mr. Kellway, there are more than 800 aboriginal communities. To say what percentage of those 800 are not covered wouldn't give you the answer that you seek. I would have to get that information from Aboriginal Affairs.

8:55 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

I would appreciate that very much, because in light of the evaluation report on the effectiveness and the efficiency of the program, it seems to me that funding becomes a very important issue and it's written throughout the evaluation document that this program is starved of funds.

One of the issues, of course, is how long the program is set for in the budget. I note that the 2014-15 projections don't seem to have any funding applied to them, and I'm wondering why that is. The reason I ask that question is that in the report, under “Efficiency and Economy” it says “...it was unanimously noted that the implementation of multi-year funding agreements had also improved the efficiency of the AJS”. Why the absence of multi-year funding for the program?

9 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

You're correct to point out that it has been a very positive program. It's had positive impacts on recidivism rates. By our calculations, it has reduced court costs and overall incarceration. It's a program that has a sunset. That is the way the program was set up over the last number of years, and it was extended to March of next year. I can tell you, Mr. Kellway, it's currently under consideration for extension.

As you know, all the programs in the upcoming budget are under consideration.

9 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Well, sure, but I think these programs also depend on a more expedient consideration so there is a timeline. This is coming right up against the next year's budget. You describe the program as successful. My read of the evaluation report is that it's a program with tremendous potential that is constrained in that potential right now by the lack of funding, by the inability of the program to spread to other communities through lack of capacity-building funding, and by the lack of a time horizon that allows the program to take seed properly.

It's also constrained because there is incredible burnout. It notes in the evaluation report that there is not enough funding—

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

One more question—

9 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Thank you.

There's not enough funding in the program to pay cost of living to the people who work under it.

Is there a reason you can provide to us for not extending the funding earlier to a longer timeframe?

9 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Well, Mr. Kellway, I agree with the premise of your question that there is a lot of empirical data. I think if you talk to anyone who was either in the program or helping to administer the program, they would speak to the positive results it renders. That is why the program has existed since 1991. In fact, our government increased the funding in this program by over $200,000.

As I said, with many of the programs—

9 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Sorry, $200,000?

9 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Yes. Last year, just last year; it's grown on our watch.

I would suggest to you that, like many of the programs that do sunset, this one is under consideration. We're certainly hopeful, as with other programs in our budget, that they'll be renewed in the coming budget.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you for those questions.

Our next questioner is Mr. Dechert from the Conservative Party.

9 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for appearing this morning.

Last week you tabled legislation in the House of Commons that would make it illegal to distribute intimate images without consent and would empower the courts to remove those images from the Internet and also provide for reimbursement to victims and impose a maximum penalty of five years, among other measures.

You mentioned in your opening remarks the government's attempts to redress what has been perceived by many—by many in my constituency, I know—as an imbalance between the rights of victims and the rights of offenders.

How does that legislation, Bill C-13, fit into the government's legislative agenda with respect to standing up for victims? Perhaps you could tell us if you've consulted with victims and what they've told you about the bill.

9 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

Thanks very much, Mr. Dechert. You've shown a great deal of initiative in this regard yourself.

As you know, this legislation is in response to what I would call a relatively recent phenomenon. That's not to suggest, however, that this has happened just within the last year or more. We've seen an explosion of activity on the Internet, some of which is positive, but some of which is also very negative. Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, Todd Loik, and other young people have fallen victim to severe forms of bullying, harassment, and intimidation.

There was a gap in the Criminal Code, quite frankly, that was enabling this type of nefarious activity to happen. We know that in many cases the harassment consisted of using intimate images to embarrass and really cause horrible, horrible psychological damage to some young people.

We have introduced one amendment to the Criminal Code, as part of this legislation, that would prohibit the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. In order to do that effectively, you also have to empower the police to have the tools to be able to collect evidence and, as you've alluded, ultimately enable the judges to issue orders that will take that damaging and embarrassing material off the web and in many cases force the offender, those responsible, to pay for it. That is what this legislation attempts to do.

Key to all of this, and what should be of great comfort to many, is that there is a requirement for judicial authorization for the police to pursue their investigation, to go online, to examine the material, to gain access to the evidence. They require that judicial oversight, much like a police officer does in investigations that don't involve the Internet.

We have an obligation, I would suggest, to end this type of harmful activity, to do all that we can. Having said that, it will require much more than just a Criminal Code amendment and empowering police. It's going to have to involve a wider education effort. It's going to clearly involve public education, speaking to young people in a frank and mature way so that they understand the consequences of hitting “send” and putting that material out there in the cyberworld, which has no boundaries, where it can be used and extrapolated for all kinds of other purposes.

This is legislation that will receive vigorous examination, including by this committee, I know. It's interesting to note that the Privacy Commissioner has also come out with very positive words about it, as early as today.

This legislation, I believe, will provide a major step forward in our effort to protect young people but protect Canadians generally.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON

Minister, did you have a chance, when this bill was being drafted and prepared at the Department of Justice, to meet with any of the families of victims? What did they tell you they wanted to see in this kind of legislation? Have you had an opportunity to follow up with any of them since the legislation was tabled?

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

In fact, I did, sir. I met with the parents of Rehtaeh Parsons just last week, just days after the legislation was tabled. Amanda Todd's mother was here with us in Ottawa when the legislation was presented, and others, relatives, friends of family members.

As you know, and as I think all members here would certainly understand, it is a highly emotional and traumatic experience to lose a child, to lose a loved one as a result of any form of bullying. This form of bullying is insidious in that it comes right into your home, right into the child's bedroom, right into the classroom. As I said, the cyberworld is something that really doesn't have the traditional boundaries that you would find in other parts of society. This legislation, I believe, will assist all efforts to curb the type of very mean-spirited behaviour that goes into the area of criminality and causes young people to feel hopeless and depressed to the point where some have taken their own lives.

This investigative power, I believe, will give police the necessary tools to find those responsible, to hold them accountable, while at the same time striking the balance. I'm quoting now from the Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddard, who said:

I think it stands to reason that in order to literally police the Internet, you do need those powers. And if you want to be effective against cyberbullying, I would understand you do need extraordinary powers, so it doesn't seem to me inappropriate.

This was in The Globe and Mail today.

Again, we'll have an opportunity to hear from many witnesses, to look at this legislation in detail, and ensure that we get that balance right.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you, Minister, for those answers.

Mr. Casey from the Liberal Party, you're next.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Minister.

I'd just like to follow on the topic raised by Mr. Dechert and also the exchange that we had in the House yesterday, Minister, on the immunity that has been afforded to those who possess electronic records.

Is this something that the telephone companies and Internet service providers were asking for? Further to the conversation we had yesterday, what is the position of the telephone companies and the Internet service providers that have now been given this immunity from criminal charges or civil charges under this bill?

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

I would disagree with your characterization as giving Internet service providers immunity. What it is asking is that we respect the existing law, that we work closely with them, as they are in fact, to use the analogy, the highway, the infrastructure in which the information travels, so by necessity we have to work with them.

On the subject that you raised yesterday and are alluding to here again, Mr. Casey, the ability to provide voluntary access to that information still requires respecting the law. It still requires adherence to what is called PIPEDA, another federal statute. What this legislation will do is freeze in time the material which is sought out and require individuals to hold that information until such time as a warrant can be obtained. It is a preservation provision of this statute that allows police to then go about securing the necessary judicial authorization, in essence, the warrant.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

It also protects them from civil action and criminal sanction by producing this information voluntarily.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS

It's only if they comply with the law. They're not immune from prosecution or civil action if they go outside the boundaries of the law, that is, if they do not comply with warrants, if they do not comply with the preservation orders within the prescribed periods.