Justice Committee on April 24th, 2007

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Petit.

We certainly listen to individuals like you, in answer to your final question as to how we arrive at this. You heard Mr. Thompson earlier today talk about his long-standing concern for victims in this country. It evolved from the concerns of members like you and Mr. Thompson and others who believe that there should be one central office, one individual at the federal level responsible for victims in this country.

There are offices and individuals and special interest groups and lobbyists for every cause on earth, and to have in Ottawa someone whose total responsibility is with respect to the issues that involve victims is an idea whose time has come. You quite correctly pointed out that this is National Victims Awareness Week. We in the government, of course, support that. We want to highlight those issues that concern people who find themselves as innocent victims caught up in the criminal justice system.

One of the interesting things about this that you and others have pointed out is that those individuals are victims. It's not a one-time thing; it's not like a crime. Somebody talked to me yesterday about an incident in which a woman was kidnapped and held for a period of approximately two to three days. When she was finally released, the papers pointed out that she was released unhurt. Well, she was hurt. The fact that you don't see scars or broken bones or the obvious signs of pain inflicted on an individual doesn't mean they don't suffer.

Having a National Victims Awareness Week, appointing a victims ombudsman, putting more money into a victims fund, and working with all other agencies and individuals who have a concern for this is all moving in the right direction to assist people who, through no fault of their own, are victims. I think that is what should be remembered: that their pain and suffering continues; that they are hurt when they are victims of crime.

As you quite properly pointed out, this has been a passion of yours. In your 34 years as a lawyer you would have come in contact with many victims, if you practised in the criminal justice area. So you know the need is there, and I'm impressed by the fact that you let your name stand and that you have taken your principles to help make initiatives like this possible.

I can tell you, I join with every one of your colleagues and members of the government in saying that we appreciate your support on this initiative. As you know, this was one of the things we talked about in the last election. We said we wanted to have something like this.

I was in a discussion earlier with Mr. Comartin as to whether the budget is enough. I certainly think it's enough for that individual, in this case Mr. Sullivan, to set up his office, but of course I will watch it very carefully to make sure the resources are there, because we want this to work. That's the most important thing.

But again, in terms of the funding, as I pointed out to this committee, I am pleased about money that goes into the victims fund as well to assist in some of the areas I pointed out.

Again, Mr. Petit, I thank you for raising that issue. I know you will watch very carefully as Mr. Sullivan sets up his office and gets going in addressing some of the issues that are of concern to the victims across Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Mr. Lee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have three questions.

Mr. Minister, from the report on plans and priorities, it appears—it doesn't just appear, it is a fact—that the funding for the drug treatment courts is being reduced by about 25%. I'd like you to clarify that.

In the context of the anti-drug strategy, we've had anti-drug strategies around here for 20 years. What's different about yours? It's nice that we have one, but you've spoken of it as though it's a refreshing change, when, as I look at it, looking back 20 years, it's a continuation.

Secondly, you referred to this fund for victims of crime abroad, and the way you spoke of it, I got the impression that if a Canadian were the victim of a crime abroad—for example, an assault, or he or she loses his or her backpack, suitcase, or briefcase in Gorky Park or in London's Hyde Park—he or she could apply and obtain a grant to come home. I'd like you to clarify just what exactly is this victims fund that you've referred to and how it's going to operate.

Thirdly, there is a steering committee on efficiency and access within the justice department. It's referred to in the plans and priorities. I know you didn't wake up this morning thinking about that, but I know—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I was thinking about you when I woke up this morning, and your questions, Mr. Lee.

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

—that your deputy will have. The plans and priorities report shows that the government is now reviewing recommendations of that committee on efficiencies and access. I'd like to know how you're doing and what some of the recommendations are.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, in answer, I can understand why there would be that misconception that the Government of Canada is spending less money on drug treatment courts. I indicated to Mr. Hanger that this is not the case, though I appreciate your analysis and your view of these.

The reason is that the money is being shared as well by the Department of Health. There's obviously a very real health component to getting individuals off drugs, and a combination of the two, between what is spent by the Department of Health and the Department of Justice, means that not only is it not decreasing, but in fact there is an increase in spending on drug treatment courts. I appreciate that by looking at the Department of Justice estimates you might draw that conclusion, but again, as I indicated, I'm very much a supporter of those programs.

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

I understand. You're saying the Department of Health federally is funding the drug treatment courts to fill up this shortfall and maybe even add a bit of money.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No, their programs are complementary. This is not just a court, as you would be aware. This is a court that combines treatment. The other components of this are more properly within the Department of Health, and that's why they're there.

You also asked for some clarification with respect to victims who find themselves abroad. This is in addition to the victims fund. There already is a fund, Mr. Lee, in place. It has been in place for years. For instance, I gave an example where an individual needs assistance getting to a parole hearing. We recognize that not everybody can afford to get to parole hearings, so this victims fund assists them on that.

The addition and the changes that we made to include Canadians who find themselves victims overseas is this. An individual may be the victim of a crime and there's no problem with them either going about their business or getting back to Canada, but there are instances where there are true financial problems getting an individual out of a country. Up to this point, that assistance was not available to them, other than the assistance of a 30-day loan that they might get from the consulate or the high commission or the embassy. It seems to me that for an individual who is in a difficult situation and cannot afford to get home, the ultimate solution is not a 30-day loan, but they would be able to get funding directly from that fund. So that fund is an expansion of the victims fund that is already in place.

You talked about efficiencies. I'm going to ask Mr. Sims to comment on that, but I can tell you, for instance, that one of the bills you have before you is directed at increasing efficiencies within the criminal justice system. That bill is Bill C-23. So there will be improvements and savings contained right within the bill that we have before us in Parliament.

With respect to any other details, Mr. Sims, perhaps you'd like to comment.

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

Just before Mr. Sims provides all this additional information, could you clarify who's going to run this fund for the victims of crime abroad? Is it the Department of Justice or the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade? It appears to be your budget, Mr. Minister.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I believe it's within the Department of Justice, but we of course need the assistance of our high commissions and our consulates abroad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Sims, quickly please.

[John Sims]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There's been a steering committee on justice efficiencies and access that has been working at an FPT level, Mr. Lee. They've examined three big subjects so far--one on mega trials, one on management of cases going to trial, and another report on early case consideration. Those have been adopted by the FPT ministers and deputies. Work is now ongoing to decide how to implement those reports. That's ongoing now actively. New work has been directed to this committee, which by the way comprises judges, representatives from all jurisdictions, and experts in the area. There are two new topics that are being addressed by the steering committee on justice efficiencies: jury reform and use of technology. We see this as very practical work that actually drives to things that can be implemented to make changes in the system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Sims.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. In terms of a number of programs—victims of crime, the youth justice fund, the human rights commission, and justice partnership and innovation—some folks think that the way to identify the delivery of these programs is merely based upon the amount of money or the funds that you put towards them and how much money is actually spent. Others focus on quality of delivery, the delivery of the service itself, and obviously the results of the program to be able to determine whether or not you've actually accomplished what you set out to do and hit those deliverables. I was wondering, Minister, if you could comment on which aspect you believe in.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Perhaps it's a combination of them, Mr. Dykstra.

With respect to the programs you've identified, our bottom line is we want them to work and we want them to be effective. We have an ongoing policy, of course, of having a look at what we are doing as a department, and we want to do whatever we do in a cost-effective way. We want to do it in an efficient way and we want to do it in an effective way. We want these programs to work. I guess that's the bottom line, if I can use that terminology, on these, that they have to do what they're supposed to do. You've identified a number of different areas, and again, going back to one of the questions I had, it's not strictly law enforcement. That's not our total mandate. Getting involved with youth, the aboriginal justice strategy, the things that help prevent crimes or help the individuals who have committed crimes are a priority for this government. It's a priority with which I agree. People who don't get caught up in the justice system will lead a much more productive life, a satisfying life, and there will quite frankly be savings with that. People who aren't in and out of the justice system aren't costing the system or the taxpayers money. It seems to me that it's a win-win situation for everyone involved when we reach out and try to help individuals.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

One of the other questions I had related to the support for anti-terrorism with respect to legal aid. We make mention of it in the estimates in terms of the assistance for legal aid and the direction it would take in that regard. On a broader question, one of the things that happened earlier in the year was a vote in the House of Commons where the portions of the Anti-terrorism Act have actually been removed from it. I wondered if you could comment on the impact of that based on the fact that we have it here in front of us under estimates, but it comes in a much different form than it originally did.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

As you probably know, I expressed my disappointment and the disappointment of the government that two provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act were not extended. There was a sunset clause on two of those sections, and a vote in Parliament was unfavourable to extending them.

I supported them because they provide an additional tool for police officers. One of the things that we have to adapt within the justice system is to try to stay ahead of the individuals and the organizations that want to do harm to us. I remember, as a member of this committee, experiencing the challenges that the Internet brought about. The law wasn't written for the Internet, and it was incumbent upon us to try to stay ahead of technology and stay ahead of the individuals who would exploit or abuse or commit crimes or steal in all the different ways.

That, to me, was the challenge, so I draw a parallel with that on the Anti-terrorism Act. Some say, “You didn't use that section, so therefore get rid of it.” That is actually not the approach that I think we should have. We should recognize that terrorism is a fact, that it's not going to disappear overnight, and that we have to be prepared. So we try to take advice from all sectors of society, but certainly in working with police across this country, when they say these are some of the tools we need, I can understand that because I remember being told that we had to have big changes to the laws with respect to wiretap, in view of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and in view of changes in technology, that we had to keep up with it.

It's not enough to say that we don't need these tools today so therefore we shouldn't have them. I really don't believe that is the approach. So our challenge within the Criminal Code is to try to stay one step ahead of the bad guys, if that's possible, and if that's not possible, to make the changes so that we will have the tools in place to catch those individuals who would like to destroy society.

I thank you for your comments. I know you supported the extension of those anti-terrorism provisions, and quite frankly, I thank you for your commitment on the justice issues.

I mentioned yesterday in response to a question from you that I know the question of victims and their rights has been important to you, so I thank you as well for your support on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Mr. Murphy, you haven't much time, but you can have one or two short questions.

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

I'm sure that's your way of saying you're sorry for taking your time in clarifying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It isn't.

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

I know it wasn't.

I have two brief and frightening questions perhaps on the private sector aspect, the hiring of private sector counsel.

Your Prime Minister made a very reckless promise during the campaign to have a full and open inquiry for the victims of Air India. He said that the inquiry would be open to all information, knowing—or he ought to have known—that much of the information would have national security implications, Mr. Minister.

It seems to me that outside counsel, which is a pretty expensive venture, has been fighting with the Department of Justice officials to get proper disclosure because Justice Major was given a very clear mandate that there would be full and open access. How much did that cost taxpayers, that to and from, the renvoi, the back and forth between commission counsel and the Department of Justice? How much did that reckless promise of the Prime Minister cost?

Second, on drug prosecutions, very briefly, you want to clamp down on crime. When you retain outside, private sector counsel to enforce the drug laws, will you put them through the same rigorous examination of their belief in law and order that you are now putting judges through?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I thought you said, Mr. Murphy, these were two trifling questions.

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

I didn't mean that. I'm sorry for misleading the committee.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

With respect to the Air India inquiry, actually the responsibility for that Air India inquiry is my colleague's, the Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day. But that being said, you should be aware that this government is committed to having as much information as possible to disclose to the public.

I disagree with your characterization of the comments of the Prime Minister in the previous campaign with respect to the Air India inquiry. This is an inquiry that is long overdue.

I agreed completely with the Prime Minister when he said that we want to get some answers to some of these issues. You've challenged me, I take it, with respect to the Prime Minister. The previous prime minister should have done this, or the two previous prime ministers should have done this. They should have moved forward on this at that time.

So I don't accept your comments with respect to that. I welcomed the Air India inquiry, and I don't think it's just me. I think if you peruse the comments that have been made by individuals who were victims, again it goes back to what we were talking about this week: victims. That horrific crime produced thousands of victims.

So I agreed with what the Prime Minister had to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The time actually is up. I know you won't have time to get to this last point.

Unfortunately, Mr. Murphy was the last on the line here and time has gone.

I would like to advise the committee that the minister will not be available to appear on Bill C-23 this Thursday. The meeting will continue, of course, and we will give instructions to the analyst in reference to the report on judicial appointments. The minister won't be here Thursday. It will be rescheduled.

The meeting is adjourned.