Justice Committee on Feb. 9th, 2009

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm telling you, Mr. McGuinty, that the spokesperson for the Government of Canada is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. You and some of your colleagues have asked questions a number of times on that, and whatever advice I give to my colleague or to the Government of Canada in my formal capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney General will remain that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Minister, I have another question for you. It connects both to the Omar Khadr question and to the question of the Government of Canada's recent reversal of a long-standing policy of seeking commutation of death penalty convictions outside this nation state.

Minister, do you believe in different categories of Canadian citizenship?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I believe in Canadian citizenship. This is the greatest citizenship to have in this world, and everyone who is a Canadian citizen should be very proud of that. Of course many rights and responsibilities come with being a Canadian citizen, and we can all celebrate that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You would probably agree, Minister, then, as a result, that citizenship is citizenship is citizenship, and we wouldn't—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I used to say a Liberal is a Liberal, but I'm not sure what point you are making, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

This country wouldn't apply different categories of citizenship to its Minister of Justice, would it?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I beg your pardon?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

This country wouldn't apply or bring to bear different categories of citizenship; we would treat all citizens equally, wouldn't we?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think I've made my comments with respect to citizenship pretty clear.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Minister.

Thank you.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have a point of order.

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

I've been listening to Mr. David McGuinty for several minutes now. Omar Khadr's case in one thing, but Mr. McGuinty is playing politics with a very touchy subject. The minister is here today to discuss the directives that will be issued to us during the year. Mr. McGuinty is playing politics, and that's an extremely serious matter. Everyone seated here at the table knows in fact that the Minister of Justice cannot disclose his sources or reveal what kind of advice he may have received.

Therefore, I'd like to ask Mr. McGuinty to stick to the issue on today's agenda. It's not that he is wasting our time. Far from it. In fact, I admire his nerve. However, this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I would not want to see Mr. Petit set a dangerous precedent. When a representative of the Crown testifies before a parliamentary committee, all members of Parliament have the right to ask questions. Contrary to what Mr. Storseth was saying, it's possible to discuss something other than the estimates. Admittedly, the minister is not responsible for this file, but all parliamentarians have the right to question ministers of the Crown about the government's activities.

You should inform Mr. Petit this his is not a true point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy.

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

On the point of order, Mr. Chair, the whole question, it seemed to me, was whether Mr. Petit and others thought it was relevant. Clearly you felt it was relevant; you didn't interrupt Mr. McGuinty. Clearly if the chief legal officer in Canada doesn't know what a Canadian citizen is, we feel it's relevant.

In future if you want to decide what's relevant and what isn't, that might shortcut all these points of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy, you know I did allow the question. I'm prepared to allow a certain amount of flexibility in asking a question.

As it turns out, Mr. McGuinty's time is up, and we'll move on to Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for your attendance here this afternoon.

I will ask a question that I believe is relevant and falls under your purview as the Minister of Justice. It's picking up on some questions that Mr. Lemay had with respect to early release. I'd like to ask this from the other aspect of this, and that is with respect to credit given for pre-trial custody.

A number of chiefs of police and several solicitor generals from the provinces have great concerns that judges are routinely giving two-for-one, and sometimes three-for-one time credit for individuals while they're awaiting ultimate disposition in remand centres. In fact, it's been suggested that some individuals in remand are deliberately delaying the process through pre-trial applications, adjournment applications, firing counsel, and delaying their ultimate trial. They deliberately drag out the system so they can get two-for-one and three-for-one credit for the time they spent in pre-trial custody.

My question is, has the Department of Justice had any studies on whether or not in fact this does occur and if it is a problem? If so, is it the priority of the government to perhaps deal with the discretion that the judges seem to be exercising with respect to two-for-one and three-for-one credits for pre-trial custody?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I know there's quite a bit of work that goes on, Mr. Rathgeber, with respect to all aspects of the criminal justice system. This is an issue that has been raised with me by my provincial counterparts and it has been discussed. I've indicated on a number of occasions that we look at all aspects of the criminal justice system, and we're taking our changes to the criminal justice system one step at a time. I've indicated, for instance, that I think the mandatory jail sentences that were provided in our drug laws are steps in the right direction. We don't close the door off to any reform of the criminal justice system in this country.

That being said, in response to other questions, we have a number of issues that I would like to see addressed, including identity theft, car theft--auto theft is a huge problem in this country--organized crime, gangs, drugs. I hope we can move through all these issues in an expeditious manner. Perhaps we can get those pieces of legislation passed when they are introduced. As I said to you or to your colleagues, we're just getting started with changes to the criminal justice system in this country, and we would continue to make that available.

It's our understanding that judges take this into consideration, quite frankly, when they are making that sentence. They know how long the individual has been detained. One of the things we're doing is that we'd like to see the process speeded up in the sense that people get access to justice, have their case heard, and move forward on the system.

You'll remember, or perhaps you may not remember, in the previous Parliament we had Bill C-13, which addressed a number of efficiencies in the system, because we want the system to move forward so you're not having an individual who finds himself or herself spending a long time in incarceration before their matter is being heard. These are our ongoing concerns, and we've made progress.

This was interesting to me. On that Bill C-13, which addressed a number of concerns, I was told, for instance, that this was the fourth attempt in 10 years to get something like that passed. So we're always looking for efficiencies and ways of expediting the process, at the same time as concerning ourselves with the rights of the individuals, as well as the rights of the victims and law-abiding Canadians. We want the system to work and we're prepared to look at all suggestions in this area.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

With respect to young offenders, I know during the election there was some concern that the government wanted to put 14-year-olds in adult detention centres. I understand the Supreme Court of Canada recently also weighed in on this issue, so I was wondering if you could comment on the current position of the government with respect to transfers of 14-year-olds into the adult penitentiary system.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, there's been quite a bit on this. We've indicated that the youth criminal justice system must effectively hold young offenders accountable for serious crimes and there must be meaningful consequences.

There were comments about putting young people in with adults. That's absolutely untrue. It was never said by me or by anyone associated with our government, because we believe that's not where young people should be. They should be with other young people, getting the treatment and help they need. We've been very, very clear on that.

In May 2008 the Supreme Court decided that a young offender could no longer automatically get an adult sentence for most serious sentences as prescribed, with the onus being on the defence; however, the court did not rule out adult or longer sentences where the crown could successfully argue that the most appropriate sentence would be a longer sentence for youth offenders.

Ours is a balanced approach. Again, I heard quite a bit about this and about concerns that people have in this area. There are many, many people encouraging this government to act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Moore, did you want to take another question?

Mr. Storseth, do you have a question?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Sure. Maybe I'll split my time with the parliamentary secretary. I do have a couple of questions I'd like to ask the minister, though, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you very much for coming. It's indeed unusual for a minister to give us an hour and a half right off the bat, so it's nice to have so much of your time.

I noticed a couple of points within your opening comments. First, you talked about the family law strategy. I may not have the full name correct here, but it seems to have been a fairly successful program. You said it was a five-year program that has currently been extended for a sixth year. Is that correct?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's the sixth year, with continuous funding for the next four years.