Justice Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I do believe in the committee system. One of the interesting points that Mr. Comartin made back in the spring when I was here on the main estimates was that it's very challenging to understand the estimates when you have main estimates and supplementary estimates and you have some programs that overlap, for instance. One of the things he pointed out the last time was that with some of these programs, you're into two different fiscal years. So I understand the challenges--

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about the estimates. I was talking about bills, the review of bills.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Oh, I thought you meant.... I'm here on the estimates. I'll finish that up. I believe this is a good process, to have the estimates come forward. I'm very pleased, if you're speaking with respect to Bill C-2, the legislative committee. I can tell you, I was a member of this committee myself for almost nine years--

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

No, I just asked you about the process for reviewing bills.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

--and I very much appreciated the work I did as a committee member, and I appreciate the work you're doing as committee members. So I'm a big believer in the committee system of the House of Commons.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

If you believe it's appropriate in the committee system for reviewing bills, then why would your House leader suggest that the committee was stonewalling on a bill last week when there had only been one day of debate before the committee?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Before the committee? I'd have to check into what bill you're talking about.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It was youth justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The Youth Criminal Justice Act. Obviously, if it's a straightforward bill, we want these bills to move forward as expeditiously as possible, Mr. Bagnell. I'm sure you can appreciate how patient I was in the spring with some of the components of the tackling violent crime bill. I think they were at committee for about a year. I want them to move forward as expeditiously as possible, and I hope these have your support.

As I said, I was somewhat concerned about comments you made with respect to the Tackling Violent Crime Act, but we all have our opinions on those, and you're entitled to yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Minister. I'm very happy to see you, because it has been some time since we have seen each other at a committee meeting. I would first of all personally like to congratulate you for having tabled Bill C-2, which is finally ready.

On the other hand, when I look at the estimates, I always look to see if there is a balance between "repression" and rehabilitation.

I'm very honoured to be part of this government. I practised law for 34 years, particularly in the area of criminal law. Never, ever in the past has the federal government presented us with what you have done: an ombudsman for victims. We never had that in the past. We neglected victims.

On another point, your budget introduced a very particular idea: support for youth—or at least people who are taking drugs—who could be rehabilitated rather than being put in jail. These people could become "normal" again, if they compare themselves with what they were before. This once again is an issue of help for victims, for people who are really in a sorry situation.

I also noticed that your budget provides for additional funds for the Commission of Inquiry dealing with the investigation following the bomb attack on Air India flight 182. We must not forget that this dates back to 1985. It is the biggest air disaster that Canada has experienced, and there were 395 victims. I am proud that our government is investing in it.

However, I would particularly like to hear you on one specific point, because we are before the television cameras today. Some people have a tendency to say that we are repressive, whereas our government is the only one, up until now, to have created the position of ombudsman for victims and to have provided for rehabilitation when people have a drug problem. I would like you to explain this problem to us in more detail, because I feel that we are taking care of victims, and the proof is there that your budget provides funds for victims' rehabilitation. There never has been an ombudsman in the past. We are the first government to have created that position.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Petit.

You covered a wide range of areas. I was pleased to hear your comments with respect to the ongoing funding for the Air India inquiry. Yes, I believe it's important, and we have to support that. As you point out, this is the largest mass murder in Canadian history, and therefore it's important to get some of the answers that up to this point in time have not been forthcoming.

You talked a little bit about the drug courts, and I received an earlier question on that. Yes, these are good ideas. We have to be innovative. We have to support programs, plans, and, in this case, a modification to the court system that will help get these people off drugs. This is what we want. We don't want people to be wasting their lives and destroying themselves, and indeed destroying the lives of others. So, yes, I'm very supportive of that program in place.

You talked about the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. This is something that I feel strongly about, and I know you do. You have made representations to me on this, so I know you're sincere in standing up for innocent victims of crime, and I know you're quite pleased with our whole agenda, because we're consistent throughout. We do take the concerns of victims of crime very seriously, so it was certainly one of the highlights of the last year in my role as Minister of Justice to make that announcement that, yes, there would be an office and there would be an individual who would be responsible.

I don't want a situation where a person who is a victim of crime runs into the individual who made them a victim of crime, in a grocery store, for example. I don't want them running into that individual and then saying, “Why wasn't I told about the parole hearing? Why didn't I get informed?” I want them to have an office they can go to and raise legitimate concerns, legitimate issues, as they affect victims. And I want to have a little more flexibility within the victims' fund, because I understand it can be very difficult, very expensive, for some individuals who are victims of crimes to get to those parole hearings so they can have their voices heard. So I want those resources in the fund to be there to assist them.

It's a combination of things that we are doing, but they all add up to the same thing: we are listening to what victims are telling us. These are the innocent individuals who have unfortunately been targeted by criminals. We want them to know that we are listening to them and are providing assistance for them and giving them a place to go to, Mr. Chairman. They now will know who to turn to if they have legitimate concerns.

I'm very pleased to have been a part of that. Again, I have to thank you for your support, because you have been very consistent and very supportive of this program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, I want you to try to help me. I'm a parliamentarian, and like most of my colleagues, I try to do the best I can on significant issues to my constituents. Youth criminal justice is a big issue. You mentioned the ministers of justice in Nova Scotia who have supported some of the initiatives--Cecil Clarke and Murray Scott, two pretty decent guys, two of the better guys in a generally uninspired lot in the last days of the MacDonald government.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Oh, I don't agree with that, Mr. Savage. No.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Two pretty decent guys.

In my own constituency I've had town hall meetings where people have come and talked about youth criminal justice, and they want to see some changes, but they also know that we have to do the prevention and the rehabilitation as well, that dealing with young people after they've committed a crime is only one piece of that.

So we come to this place. Last Thursday I spoke on Bill C-25 and outlined the same sorts of things I had mentioned earlier. In principle, there's a lot in the bill that I can support. I have some concerns about picking and choosing from the Nunn report. I have some issues, but this is an important piece of legislation. It took your government almost two years to bring something forward in youth criminal justice and after one day your House leader says we're delaying. That is after one day in debate, after waiting for two years. And you talked today about expeditiously moving these forward.

What do you consider to be expeditious, and what do you consider the role of Parliament to be?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

First of all, why are we introducing it now? Believe me, when I was here back in April before this committee, if you had told me that we still wouldn't have had passed the raising of the age of protection from 14 to 16, I wouldn't have believed you. I would have said, “What's the problem here?”

I appreciate that a lot of time was spent at committees on mandatory sentences for people who commit serious firearms offences. But as to why the Youth Criminal Justice Act comes now, well, guess what, I'm still trying to get those protections for those young people in Bill C-2. It's been a much longer process than I would have liked or have even predicted. Again, if you'd asked me last April whether we would have gotten.... I would have said I'm sure we'll get these things through.

With respect to our timing for the introduction of these, as I say to my colleagues, we're just getting started; get these things passed and we'll get to more criminal justice legislation in this country.

I think those constituents of yours would be very pleased to hear that, because we have a lot to do. We've done a lot in the criminal justice area, but I certainly want to do more.

In terms of—

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Well, Minister, you've answered my question—

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like to point out to this minister that the House of Commons did pass the age of protection in the last Parliament, and it was the justice minister who brought it back again. It was already out of here; we passed it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I appreciate that.

Actually, that's a very good point, because here's what happened last spring, Mr. Chairman. We got these things into the Senate, three of these bills. It was made very clear that we were on our own with those. I used to ask the leader of the opposition: “Could you give a phone call down there? Could we get some of these things passed down there?”

As the member quite correctly points out, it's not just the House of Commons. I don't want to leave the impression, Mr. Chairman, that we're out of the woods, that if we get the Tackling Violent Crime Act through the House of Commons, therefore Canadians will get the kind of legislation.... By all means, that is not the case; I appreciate it. We have to get it through the Senate.

Again, I faced that challenge last spring, and you know the results. We didn't get very much help on it. Nonetheless, I always remain optimistic, Mr. Chairman. I'm still optimistic that tackling violent crime is exactly what this country needs.

[An hon. member]

Minister—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm hoping that we vote expeditiously.

[An hon. member]

Minister, thank you.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Let's move it through the committee and the Senate expeditiously.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Can I just close my comments? Optimism is a trait of Liberals, Minister.

I'm not a lawyer. I've been accused of being a lawyer on many occasions, but I'm not in fact a lawyer. I am a parliamentarian who takes this job seriously and wants to consider laws.

When you're in government and after almost two years bring forward a piece of legislation that's debated for one day, and then you say it's a filibuster, I think that is an affront to Parliament. I take that personally, and I hope you would as well.