Justice Committee on May 6th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting 20 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, May 6, 2009, and this meeting is called to address the main estimates.

You have before you the agenda for today. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we are reviewing the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010. They've been referred to this committee.

Appearing before us is our Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson. As well, we have John Sims, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and Brian J. Saunders, our Director of Public Prosecutions.

I have just one additional note, members. During the second half of this meeting we're going to hear witnesses on Bill C-25, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. The bill has been referred to us, and appearing before us again will be the minister, together with Department of Justice officials Catherine Kane and Matthias Villetorte.

So to begin with, we'll review the main estimates. Welcome, Minister, Mr. Sims, and Mr. Saunders.

Minister, you know the process. You have ten minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the members of the committee for all that you're doing in the justice committee. I know you've been busy and I know you'll continue to be busy. We have a very full agenda, as you know, and I--and I think all Canadians--appreciate all the work you're doing in this area.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to answer any questions you may have with respect to the main estimates.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are fortunate to have in this country a remarkable legal heritage that is the basis of one of the finest justice systems in the world. The Department of Justice has the responsibility of supporting that system and working to make it as fair, accessible, and efficient as possible. This is a considerable task at any time, but even more so today, when we are faced with insecurity on a number of fronts.

You, of course, are aware of the global financial crisis that we are in. More recently we have seen the rise of fear over the possibility of another international threat, a pandemic in the form of the H1N1 flu virus. While neither of these is a justice issue as such, they both inevitably touch on a wide range of legal issues. More importantly, they can seriously undermine confidence in our institutions and our sense of order and security in general, which has implications for the government's priority of a safe, secure society for all Canadians.

These events serve as a reminder of a larger context of the world in which we live. I believe that with calm and consistent leadership, Canada will weather these and other storms to come with our values and our legal institutions intact, but it will require a realistic and serious commitment on our part.

The government is committed to acting responsibly.

The government has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to protecting Canadian families and communities across this country. The Department of Justice supports that commitment through its unique role as the government's legal adviser, which also includes its work in developing policy and, of course, drafting and reforming laws.

Mr. Chairman, over the last year, our government has continued to make progress toward the goal of promoting safer communities by tackling crime with all the resources at its command. In the year ahead, the Department of Justice will support these efforts as efficiently and effectively as possible, both on its own and in collaboration with other federal departments and agencies, but also with partners from the provinces and territories as well as non-governmental organizations. These are very important as well.

One recent example of these efforts took place just last week. The fourth annual National Victims of Crime Awareness Week brought together a wide range of people and organizations jointly working to ensure that victims of crime have a voice that is heard in this country and have greater access to services.

It's been two years now since our government appointed the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime. This ombudsman will continue to ensure that the needs and concerns of victims are met.

Victims of crime will continue to be a priority for this government and the Department of Justice throughout this year and beyond. The estimates include our commitment of $52 million over four years--starting April 1, 2007--for programs, services, and funding to help the federal government and provinces and territories respond to a variety of needs of victims of crime.

The progress we have seen in this area over the last few years is encouraging. I am proud of the role my department has played. The perspectives and stories of victims of crime provide invaluable insight and inspiration in our common effort to ensure that Canadian society remains safe and secure.

Another area in which the department is increasingly involved is the struggle against organized crime. This is a growing problem in Canada, one with wide-ranging effects on crime in general. It also has the potential to not only undermine public security and the rule of law but also to consume a vast amount of resources in the process, as is the case through prolonged investigations and mega-trials.

Although the burden of prosecution has largely passed from Justice to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, as reflected in the estimates, my department still plays a major role--of course, notably on the legislative front.

In February we introduced new legislation to provide the justice system with the tools we need to fight street gangs and other forms of organized crime. The bill includes provisions to address such serious crimes as gang murders, drive-by shootings, and peace officer assault, as well as gang peace bonds. That bill, Bill C-14, passed third reading on April 24. It was introduced into the Senate on April 28. I understand that yesterday a Liberal senator spoke on this issue, and it has already been introduced by my colleague Senator Wallace.

I want to use this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chair, and all the members of this committee for your diligent and expeditious examination of this piece of legislation. It's definitely a step in the right direction.

Around the same time, we also reintroduced a bill targeting serious drug crime in support of the national anti-drug strategy. The illegal drug trade is well known as a major source of income and influence for organized crime.

As I explained at the time, this bill was intended as a proportionate and measured response aimed at disrupting criminal enterprise by providing mandatory minimum prison terms for drug producers and dealers who threaten the safety of our communities and indeed threaten our way of life.

In particular, it provided for mandatory jail times for the importing and exporting of illegal drugs, and special penalties for offences carried out for organized crime or involving young people. The people who bring in illegal drugs to this country are a part of organized crime. I've heard that over and over again.

One cannot dispute that putting in prison a member of an organized crime group, particularly someone who is in a leadership role in the organization, disrupts or weakens the enterprise. I don't see how anybody can dispute that. A weakened organization cannot as effectively conduct their illegal business. I hope there will be agreement from everyone on that point.

More recently, just over two weeks ago, we introduced legislation to crack down on tackling property crime in general, particularly on the serious crime of auto theft. This has been identified as a primary activity for organized crime. I'm very pleased that Bill C-26 is expected to pass second reading today, and that too, of course, will be referred to this committee. I hope that you will deal with that piece of legislation in an expeditious manner as well, Mr. Chairman.

The bill is well supported, I have to tell you, particularly by, among others, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which estimates that auto theft costs more than $1 billion a year, taking into account court costs and other legal expenses, as well as health care, policing, and so on. Once again, this legislation is built on the principle that the best way to fight gangs and organized crime is to disrupt the criminal enterprises they depend on.

I met recently with representatives of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. One dealer told me that one evening his padlocked fence was cut open, and a number of high-end vehicles, worth a total of more than $300,000, were stolen. When he notified the police the next day, they gave him the case number and told him to call his insurance company, as there was no way they would be able to locate and recover these vehicles. The vehicles would have been either shipped out of the country by then or dismantled or chopped up to be sold as parts.

As well as creating the separate offence of auto theft, the bill would provide for the application of customs powers to allow the Canada Border Services Agency to identify and prevent stolen property from leaving the country. This is a huge change, one that has to be made to give our border guards the ability to intercept this kind of activity.

Organized crime represents a serious problem, and no part of our society is immune to its effects. It's not going to be disappearing any time soon, but this government remains committed to addressing the impact of gangs and organized crime on families and communities.

We remain, of course, committed to a balanced approach to justice. Through legislative means, we are amending and updating the Criminal Code to ensure that this country has effective and proportionate sentences while also investing a significant amount in prevention strategies and programs.

Under the national anti-drug strategy, we have provided funds to the St. Mary's Counselling Service's High on Life Challenge program in Kitchener, Ontario.That's an example. We've given $400,000 to the Lethbridge, Alberta, school district for their Teaming up for Addiction Free Youth--the Watson project. We have supported B.C.'s Ooknakane Friendship Centre's youth health and wellness project; in Brandon, Manitoba, the Community Alcohol and Drug Education Coalition drug prevention mobilization plan; the La Ronge, Saskatchewan, Pre-Cam Community School drug awareness and prevention project; and in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, the YMCA Building Assets in Youth program. We've added $1 million to the support, treatment, education, and prevention program right here in Ottawa; and $327,000 to the Vermillion River region. Mr. Chair, these are the kinds of things we have to be investing in. We are giving $10 million for two new treatment initiatives in Vancouver.

I could go on with the list of prevention dollars spent by this government under the national anti-drug program prevention strategy, Mr. Chair. This is what we have to do to make sure there is a balanced approach--we recognize that--to assist individuals, particularly young people at risk.

In conclusion, I would like to mention that the Department of Justice as a central agency supports almost all the work of the government in some capacity, so the scope of its activities is considerable. The department is constantly interacting with the justice system and its many players, including the judiciary, other levels of government, professional associations, and a wide range of non-governmental organizations, from the community level to the national stage.

A good example of this work is the series of funding announcements under the justice partnership and innovation program announced April 7. The program, administered by the Department of Justice, supports activities that respond to the changing conditions affecting Canadian justice policy. These include the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada, the Law Courts Education Society of B.C., and the Canadian Criminal Justice Association's Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express to you and all the members of this Committee, my deep appreciation for the important work you are doing.

The Department of Justice is instrumental in the government's work of responding to the needs of Canadians. As you know, we will continue to bring forward that balanced approach that's necessary on all these issues, because this is what this country deserves.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Minister.

It has been suggested that we go to five-minute rounds, given the fact that we have two one-hour sessions within this meeting. Do we have any consensus here to do that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Since we are talking about budget accountability, I think that for questions on the budget, we should stay with a seven-minute round. However, we can go to five-minute turns for the second round, when we are discussing Bill C-25.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, we do have an agreement as a committee. I believe we had a resolution when we started work that we would go with seven minutes for the first round, so we will follow that procedure.

Mr. Murphy, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Minister, Mr. Deputy Minister, and Mr. Director.

Mr. Minister, I want to follow up with a few...I suppose they're budget items. They're financial resource items dealing with legislation both pending and past. In particular, they're the drug treatment courts. Bill C-15, as you know, is a bill presented by you and your government that, although having within it the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, also allows for a convicted person to be given the choice to enter a drug treatment court in certain circumstances. The purpose, at least the way we're looking at it--and so far we're in support of that bill--is that it's a unique situation whereby a person is given a chance to avoid an imminent mandatory minimum sentence by selecting a facility they hope will rehabilitate the addiction aspect of the offender. I think we all think this is a prevalent part of what makes many of our offenders commit crimes. Addiction is a big piece of the puzzle.

When we see the drug treatment courts, the DTCs, as a white knight or palatable aspect of trying to avoid mandatory minimums, which in general may not always be effective, the issue comes up, how well resourced are they? How well placed are they? Is there going to be an expansion of DTCs so people who might be committing crimes under the purview of Bill C-15 might have access to these courts? Currently they're in the larger centres. That's the general question on funding for DTCs. What level is there? What resources have been asked for or applied for? Do you see an expansion?

With respect to drug recognition experts, DREs, in the past we talked about impaired driving. One of the wrinkles in that regime is to make sure that a person stopped at the roadside can be adequately determined to be impaired and the tool used for the recognition of drug recognition experts.... Has there been sufficient funding in place for some time? Is there sufficient funding projected to have adequate experts to apply the law we passed with respect to impaired driving?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you for that question.

With respect to the drug treatment court funding program, the estimates before you indicate that $3.63 million has been directed toward that particular program. That being said, an evaluation of the program and its funding is under way. We'll have a look at what other funding requirements may or may not be necessary, based on that evaluation.

You've touched on an excellent point that I hope is kept in mind, that through drug treatment court there are options for either prior- or post-convictions for individuals to try to get their lives straightened around, and we hope they avail themselves of that. This is why we advocate a comprehensive approach to these. We'll certainly look at that and make sure the resources are in place.

With respect to the impaired driving reforms, and you touched on drug recognition experts and the changes we made, I should point out that the RCMP has been spending $2 million per year for several years to deliver drug recognition expert training to all police forces at no charge to them. Of course, much of the administration of justice, according to our Constitution, is done at the provincial level. While some new equipment will be necessary or equipment will be updated, I think most people will recognize that this is a small price to pay to make improvements and changes to our impaired driving laws.

I'm very pleased to be part of a government that brought forward those changes. These are all steps in the right direction, and I believe they have the support of almost all Canadians.

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

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You still have two minutes.

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

We can launch into another topic, then.

We just returned from out west, Mr. Minister, and certainly gang-related violence and the policing thereof was, I think, a top-of-mind issue out there. I do realize you must coordinate with another department, Public Safety. I think the take-away I got was that there's an awful lot of need for coordinating efforts at the policing level out there. The laws have to be clear, and they have to be acted upon pretty quickly.

In particular—you would have heard this from Attorney General Wally Oppal—they're looking for better tools. They're looking for resources, number one, so that's the first part of the question.

The second part of the question is that I think they're looking for fairly speedy reforms to, for instance, disclosure under Stinchcombe. This can be codified, this can be simplified, defined as to what “relevant” is. That was a big factor: how many days and hours they have to spend complying with Stinchcombe. Secondly, warrants and information gathering is top-of-mind for them.

I only have two minutes, so I'll leave you with a minute to give us some response on those two items that were very top-of-mind out west.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I've been out several times to British Columbia. It's very clear there's a serious problem with respect to gangs and drugs. Again, it's not isolated in British Columbia. We have some of these challenges right across the country.

I can tell you that Wally Oppal, the Attorney General, whom you mentioned specifically, was very, very pleased with our announcement on getting rid of double credit for time served. As a matter of fact, he joined with me at the press conference, as did a number of attorneys general across Canada, with a number of my colleagues, because they identified this as something that was a priority for them. I can tell you as well that I'm very, very pleased with how supportive they have been on our bills on drugs and gangs. This has been very well received by my provincial counterparts across the country.

With respect to RCMP funding and RCMP cooperation, of course I don't have direct responsibility or even indirect responsibility, for that matter, for the RCMP, but the government has committed funds. And I know the RCMP is working very carefully with all its counterparts across this country for effective law enforcement across Canada. But again, I've been very appreciative and listened very carefully.

With respect to your other part about lawful access, we explore all these issues. I never announce what we are doing until the announcement. You have a very full agenda before you right now, and certainly one of those things they've been looking for is that credit for time served. I hope that will move expeditiously through this committee, as will the other bills.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard. You have seven minutes.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome the Minister and the members of his team to the Committee.

Since I have a number of questions, I will try to be brief, and I know you will do the same.

As you probably know, Quebec scored a major victory a few weeks ago, with the arrest of 156 individuals, 111 of whom belong to the Hells Angels. Five bunkers were seized. Since 2001, Quebec has made tremendous progress in combating organized crime. Considerable action has been taken to that end.

However, I have been made aware of concerns expressed by certain provinces. This is a matter that was discussed at the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers of Justice—megatrials and the resources they require on the part of the provinces. I would like you to provide us with some information on this. Could the Committee be given a copy of the studies that were tabled at the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers of Justice? And, how do you see the future, in terms of megatrials?

I am going to move directly to my second question and give you a chance to answer after that. I will have other comments to make later on.

I think the next challenge will, to a great extent, be the interface between the legal economy and organized crime. Some sectors are more vulnerable than others. There have been several reports on this. I don't know what the situation is in English Canada, but in Quebec, this is an issue that has caused a lot of ink to flow. The construction, automobile and landscaping industries, in particular, have been mentioned in this context.

Do you have any study that would enable us to better inform ourselves as to the threat of organized crime infiltrating the legal economy?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

With respect to mega-trials, one of the concerns they raise with me is not just the question of the cost of a mega-trial, it's getting through them and having them move through the system. The federal and provincial deputy ministers and departments are working on what we generally call criminal law efficiencies. We had the one Bill C-13. As you know, Mr. Ménard, it's very difficult to get one of these bills through, because what happens is you put these reforms together and you'll have one organization somewhere—they sort of cherry-pick these things—say they're not quite sure about one issue.

But I'm very committed to that. We had Bill C-13 passed. That was the fourth attempt in ten years to get that through. I'm committed to moving forward with efficiencies, and of course I'm always looking at ways to do that. But there's a lot of good work being done right now at the federal-provincial level, and I'm pleased to do that.

With respect to the interface between organized crime and legal businesses, I think we're moving forward. In terms of dealing with organized crime, one of the reasons we're moving on identity theft is just for that reason--and I heard this very loud and clear some time ago when I was in Montreal--people collecting and moving information, using computers, sometimes moving it offshore, out of the country, and then using it for ultimately an illegal purpose. Regardless of how it was put together, the gaps in the present criminal law were very clearly identified to me, and I think when you have a look at that bill, when you get that from the Senate, you'll see that it's addressed.

Changes right now that you can see: with respect to giving power to Canada Border Services Agency guards, to make sure they're able to intercept property moving in and out of this country that may start for illegal purposes or end up for illegal purposes. I think all those steps are in the right direction, but I'm always looking at ways to improve the laws.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Are there any studies on megatrials? What challenges do they pose? I have been told about the Caron report, and I would like to read it. I would appreciate receiving an answer in the second round. I will ask my three other questions right now.

Could you tell us about any available material that could constitute conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences? Personally, I have seen a study by Mr. Roberts, the criminologist, who will actually be appearing before the Committee next week. However, that study dates back to 2005-06.

You are a great fan of mandatory minimum sentences, but I believe it is for ideological reasons, which have no scientific basis. I ask that you set aside your political views when answering my question.

First of all, can you or can you not provide studies to this Committee? I am not asking you to read me the Conservative Party platform in its entirety. I can go and read it myself on the Internet.

Next, in terms of cost-sharing for legal aid programs, I would like you to provide us with a table showing how much each province will be receiving and what Quebec's share will be.

In closing, I would like to talk about the Coffin affair. Thank you for your letter. I want to point out, however, that my colleague, Raynald Blais, who is supporting the Coffin family, told me that your department refused to make public certain documents that would enable him to make full answer and defence. In that regard, there has been a lack of cooperation for more than a year. Unfortunately, given that lack of cooperation, the debate will have to be taken up here, in committee. In any case, I would like you to give us instructions as to how to correct this situation.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Ménard, if you're asking for reports, the Lesage-Code report is an excellent report. It deals with a number of these challenges respecting the Air India report, so later on this year that's going to touch on a number of issues that I think you'll find very interesting and will be of some help to you.

You're saying you want a definitive study that will prove human behaviour on the basis of fact. Let's be honest, I don't think there's any study that would satisfy you if you disagree with mandatory prison terms. If you want evidence—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Do you have a study?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

—that these things will work, speak with law enforcement agencies and you'll find out the effect that it has in breaking up criminal activity.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Minister...

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's what we're trying to do.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I will rephrase my question. Does your department have any up-to-date studies dealing with mandatory minimum sentences? You have every right to defend them, just as I have every right not to believe in them. However, as Minister, you are required to base your decisions on scientific facts.

When Libby Davies was here, you were asked about Bill C-15. I respect your position as Minister, but I would like to know whether, other than the one by Mr. Roberts, the criminologist, the department has done any studies relating to the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences, in terms of recidivism and crime rates. I do not believe you have. You have every right to take an ideological position. Canadians will judge for themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Time's up. You may give a 15-second response.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I will certainly look into that, Monsieur Ménard. We are proceeding on the basis on which we promised Canadians we would act.

I didn't want to leave because you wouldn't get the chance to ask me your question. First of all, departmental officials have met with the Coffin family, just so you know. It was quite some time ago. My understanding is that it's currently on hold pending the receipt of submissions from the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, the group representing the Coffin family. I'm advised that the department has been waiting for these submissions for more than a year. They're waiting to hear that. I wanted to bring you up to date on that one as well, and I believe you would have received a letter fairly recently from me on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Comartin for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister and officials, for being here.

Mr. Minister, when we were in B.C., one of the things we heard from one of the federal prosecutors was that there is a problem retaining federal prosecutors because the provincial governments are paying their prosecutors at a substantially higher level. Is there any reflection of additional dollars in these estimates?

I don't want to negotiate with you on behalf of the prosecutors. I don't want to do that. I just want to know if that's being looked at and if there is some attempt in this budget to address that problem.