Justice Committee on April 24th, 2007

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

If you could pass that to the committee...thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I want to say right off the bat that your comments in the beginning certainly rang a lot of bells with me. The age of consent bill, which is close to becoming a reality, is something the chairman and I—we've been here for 14 years—have both put in as a private member's bill. Since 1995, I believe, we started this. It's good to see this coming to a conclusion. I thank you for your emphasis on the importance of that.

Also, I'm with you in highly hoping that Bill C-10 will get some restoration of some sort. I know that during the election campaign in January I felt that this was the right way to go. I based that on a lot of the debates I had with my Liberal and NDP friends during the campaign, that it seemed that was exactly where everybody wanted to go. I didn't have any Bloc opposition in my riding, but the Green Party was there and they were quite excited about the direction that Bill C-10 was taking, that type of legislation. So I'm with you on that.

I want to congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Sullivan, as the ombudsman. I've known Mr. Sullivan a long time. I realize that he's not bilingual, but I know that he has the heart and the soul for the job. I think that's really key. It'll overcome any barriers that may create a bit of a problem in terms of language. But knowing the man as well as I do, I'm very confident that it was an excellent choice, and I'm looking forward to continuing to work with him.

I'm going to go back to one scenario, and maybe you can give me some idea of how an ombudsman would be effective in the case. This is going back to when I was first elected. The very first group of victims I worked with was a family whose five-year-old daughter was kidnapped out of the backyard and later found in a dumpster murdered. And she had been raped. The perpetrator was found, arrested, and charged. During that period of time he received legal aid. He also had access to psychologists and later on had a 30-day stay in an institution under the care of a psychiatrist. There were all kinds of services for the offender in this crime. In the meantime, when I visited the family—the siblings and the parents—I never saw a more devastated group of people. They had no access to psychologists, no professional medical help whatsoever, no access to any psychiatrist, and I believe that one of the parents could have probably used it. It had a devastating effect on them, and yet there seemed to be no assistance.

I immediately began my conversations with the then Justice Minister Allan Rock, indicating that we needed something in place for victims that they could turn to. I feel that today, with the announcement of Steve Sullivan, that has now been really strengthened to the degree that I think it should be.

I would like for you to expand a little on the powers and the authority of the ombudsman, what we can expect, to a little greater extent, if you don't mind. Also, you could comment on one section that I think has always had a major impact on victims, and that is the faint hope clause. When one of these perpetrators gets out in 15 years, after being sentenced to 25 years to life, it has a devastating impact on victims. Is there any hope of eliminating section 745? That is another private member's bill I've got in place, if I ever get my name drawn.

I think what you have done has indicated a very strong care and concern for victims, and I appreciate that, and I know you've made the right choice with Steve Sullivan and that he will overcome the barriers that Mr. Ménard and Mr. Comartin have indicated.

I'll just let you comment on what I've said.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. You've certainly covered a fairly wide range of interests and concerns in the justice system.

You started off by talking about the age of consent, and I'm pleased that you did. I know of your support and the general support in Parliament for that particular legislation. In my opinion, it addresses a problem that has long been overdue for a solution. The idea that in this country a 40-year-old adult can have sex with a 14-year-old youth and claim there was consent is plain wrong. For those individuals who like to prey on young children, we need to update the law. It's part of the challenge that we as legislators have as we continuously look at these laws and make sure they are updated.

You talked as well about Bill C-10, the bill that would provide mandatory minimum sentences for individuals who commit serious gun crimes. Of course, we in the government are very supportive of it, and the bill was quite extensively amended at the committee. I would certainly like to see it restored, because, in my opinion, what we are suggesting is very reasonable. An individual who commits a serious crime with a gun should be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

I think it is reasonable. I can tell you that in my discussions with Canadians, and I'm sure you heard the same thing in the last election, Canadians think this is reasonable. It quite frankly sends out the right message to everyone involved that society takes a very dim view of this type of crime.

I thank you for your support of that particular piece of legislation.

You talked as well in your comments about the federal ombudsman for victims. I congratulate you and your like-minded colleagues who have made the rights and the concerns of victims a priority in your political career.

There has been progress on victim impact statements, even in my lifetime or in my career as a lawyer. I believed then and I believe today that these were steps in the right direction. There was work going on at the provincial level, of course. There's a huge responsibility with respect to the administration of justice, and they are working with victims. But I believe a lot more needs to be done.

For instance, on the victims fund that I talked about in my comments with Mr. Comartin, I was told that financial assistance would be available for Canadians who became victims of crime in a foreign country, if they couldn't afford to get home or they were having trouble getting home. All I was told was that they were entitled to a 30-day loan. Well, it's not acceptable in terms of where we're going. One of the areas that I am pleased has now been expanded on, as part of our effort to assist and support victims, is to make that available.

Those are the kinds of things we have done.

With respect to the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, as I again indicated in my comments to Mr. Comartin, I want that individual to focus exclusively on the issues that concern victims. He or she is not to expand the role or the office to get into other even important areas. I want that person to be completely focused on that.

Some of the things that individual can do is raise with the government issues that he or she believes are not being addressed in the present system. It would be within the mandate. For instance, if there wasn't compliance with the existing law, he or she would look into those kinds of complaints.

I gave an example, not at this committee but elsewhere, of an individual who was the victim of a crime being in a grocery store and seeing the individual who had victimized them. The victim hadn't even been notified that the individual was coming up for parole. That's the kind of complaint I would want the federal ombudsman for victims of crime to look into. Why wasn't the law being complied with? How is it possible that this individual was released and the victim wasn't notified of that, or wasn't given the opportunity?

In that regard, we've also expanded the availability of the victims fund for individuals to get the support they may need. You may have an invalid, for instance, with a disability that makes it very difficult for them to attend a parole hearing. It would be perfectly reasonable, and is now possible, for a support person to go with the individual, who could make a request of the fund.

As you quite correctly point out, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime is an important component of what we are doing, but there are other measures, and the victims fund is one.

Again, in answer to your question, the legislation that I will be bringing forward at the present time will be related to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We will be announcing as well the national anti-drug strategy. But that's on my legislative agenda for now.

Quite frankly, Mr. Thompson, this is my priority right now—the bills that are before Parliament right now. I indicated in my opening comments the ambitious legislative agenda of my predecessor, Mr. Toews, which was completely consistent with what we told the Canadian public. I understandably would like to see progress on those.

That being said, I can see that we're making progress in a number of areas. I was at the Senate last Thursday. Again, I asked them, please, let's move forward on Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing bill; I would like to see it in law.

So I'm doing my best in terms of encouraging, and working with this committee, working with parliamentarians, working with senators to try to move that legislative agenda. That certainly is my priority. It was the priority of my predecessor, and it is one of the priorities of this government. Our crime agenda is very important in terms of what we promised Canadians and where we want to take this country. The Prime Minister and others continuously emphasize how vital we believe that is to the best interest of this country.

Again, thank you for your comments, and thank you to you and all of your colleagues who have been pushing some of these ideas, quite frankly, for many years.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

And did you want to comment on section 745?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I indicated, too, my legislative priority right now: the bills that are before Parliament. My commitment is to improvements in the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the national anti-drug strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister.

A couple of questions from the chair.

First, I note that the drug treatment court funding program has diminished from 2006-07 to 2007-08. We had the opportunity to examine the drug treatment court program in this committee for several days. At that time, it was being expanded from, I believe, two courts to approximately three additional ones.

I'm just wondering what the analysis would be on that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, we are not decreasing funding for those courts.

I'm glad you've raised the issue. I think this is an excellent effort and a worthwhile initiative. You touched on that in your comments. The idea that we can get people diverted, get them off drugs, and at the same time protect the public is very worthwhile in pursuing. You would know, and I'm sure our colleagues here would know, that when individuals get addicted to drugs it is a very difficult process to get them off. To get them in and out of the criminal justice system is not what we want to see happen. We don't want to see them coming back again and again.

As Minister of Justice, as one of your colleagues, I had an opportunity to have a look at what is being done, and I can tell you I was quite impressed with it. I was impressed with it because it seems to me to be a positive initiative. We're actually doing something that will make an improvement so that we don't get these individuals back in court.

That helps everybody. For the individual who is not back wasting his life, getting caught up in the criminal justice system, of course it's a huge improvement. But it also helps the Canadian public, because they don't see these individuals go back again and again.

In terms of the actual details of the funding, my colleague Mr. Sims can provide you with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, thank you.

The issue of the anti-drug strategy—

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

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, Mr. Lee.

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

Mr. Chair, you know very well that our rules provide for the recognition of members of the committee to ask questions. The rules are very explicit. Occasionally, the chair will intervene to obtain a clarification of some nature. So it's unclear to me why you have inserted yourself into the round of questioning at this time.

If you'd like to explain, that's fine; otherwise, in light of our rules, I'm going to object. You're at liberty to take whatever position you wish, but this looks like it's turning into a five-minute or ten-minute round for the chair. Could you please explain yourself to the members?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee, for your intervention. It was a point of clarification on that particular point, since our committee did in fact examine both issues that I brought forward here, and I felt it necessary to get some clarification on it.

In light of your intervention, Mr. Lee, you can take the next line of questioning.

[A voice]

Oh, oh! It worked.

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

It's quite possible my colleague Mr. Bagnell was next. If that's the case, I'd be happy to see Mr. Bagnell go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

He is.

Mr. Bagnell, would you like to continue?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

Recent Liberal crime prevention platforms have called for more police officers, so we applaud your effort to add 2,500 municipal police officers, but I'm having a hard time finding this item in the budget. Could you just tell me where that is in the budget?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That would be in Mr. Day's budget. It wouldn't be part of the justice department's budget.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay.

I know you didn't write your remarks, but I'll just give you a chance to correct the record. You talked about how the change to the judicial selection process would allow a broadening of the scope of people who could provide input on judges, but as you know, that's not true. Under the old system, I believe the minister could already choose up to three lay members who could be of any segment of society. They could be all police officers. So there is really not a broadening in the scope of the people who could sit on those committees, because anyone could already sit on those committees. I assume you'll agree with that clarification of your opening remarks.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm not sure I will agree with that attempt at clarification, Mr. Bagnell. Certainly, I stand behind all the comments I make before the committee.

The addition of someone from the police is an additional voice on there. It represents an increase in the number of individuals who will sit on those judicial advisory committees. I think it is a good addition to them.

You're quite correct, the Minister of Justice can appoint other individuals from other backgrounds, including police. You could have two individuals, but having it formalized now so that someone from the police community—the law enforcement community—will be a member of those provides an additional voice, provides more people to them. I think, quite frankly, it's a system that will work and is working right now.

I say to individuals who don't want police officers to participate on this, give them a chance, and I think you'll be impressed by the results. I have found in my experience, in my lifetime as a lawyer, that those involved with policing in this country are just as dedicated, just as determined to have a judicial system that works in this country, and works well, as is anybody else, and that includes even lawyers and others. I have never doubted their commitment. So when this announcement was made, I saw the value in that.

I think the judicial appointments process is working and is working well. We are getting qualified, outstanding Canadians serving on Superior Court benches across this country.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

We agree with you. That's why we brought in—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's not what you expected. I may have said what you expected, but it's perhaps not what you wanted to hear.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

No, we agree with you. There are excellent judges, and that's why we didn't think the system needed to be changed or, as you said, an extra member added to the minister's vote. Anyway—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You know, Mr. Bagnell, on that point, those judicial advisory committees have changed over the years. I think there have been five changes. And again, I remember then Minister of Justice Ray Hnatyshyn discussing it with the members of this committee, of which I was a member, and trying to explain that we should get some additional perspectives. That's what Mr. Hnatyshyn said at the time: get some input outside the Minister of Justice's office. At the time, the idea commended itself to the members of the committee, but that didn't mean it was written in stone.

I don't remember him saying that that was it,that we would put five members on there and that would be it, it would never be changed, or it was some sort of constitutional change. It wasn't intended to be that, and changes were made, even by my own government a few years later. In the government of which you were a member, I think they made several changes as well. I don't think it; I know they made several changes. So I think it's been an evolving process.

Sorry, go ahead.