Justice Committee on May 6th, 2009

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to thank you and your officials for your attendance here this afternoon.

Once again, I'd like to congratulate you on all the proposed legislation before the House--Bill C-14, Bill C-15, Bill C-25, and Bill C-26, plus the identity theft bill, the number of which escapes me; I believe it's in the Senate.

Mr. Minister, as you are aware, this committee travelled to Vancouver last week. In Vancouver I had the opportunity, and again subsequently on Monday when we were examining Bill C-15, to ask questions of a Mr. Kirk Tousaw, who was speaking on behalf of the BC Civil Liberties Association and an anti-prohibition league, whose name escapes me. He's also a one-time New Democratic candidate in the electoral district of Vancouver--Quadra.

You might be interested to know...and perhaps you do know, because I know that you and your staff follow these proceedings quite closely. Mr. Tousaw indicated a couple of things that I found disconcerting, to say the least.

First of all, in his view, very hard drugs, very serious chemical substances such as methamphetamine and crack cocaine and even heroin, ought to be legalized. In fact, he indicated to me that, in his view, the entire Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ought to be repealed.

As you might know--if you heard my S.O. 31 in the House today, you will know--a young 14-year-old girl in Edmonton, the city that I represent, recently died, tragically, from an overdose of ecstasy, which she had purchased at West Edmonton Mall, a place that is frequented by children and other young persons. In light of these events, I just wondered if you had any comment on the suggestion that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ought to be repealed and that hard drugs ought to be no longer subject to prohibition.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There's no chance of that, Mr. Rathgeber. We realize what a serious problem drugs are in this country. I've been to a number of international conferences and I've spoken with people around the world. They say the drug addiction and the whole illegal drug business can destroy a society. That's how serious it is; it can destroy everything around it. The idea that you just make this legal and thereby, in effect, encourage people to take drugs is a very bad idea. I think it's wrong to send out mixed messages to people that somehow it's okay, it's not okay, or we're going to legalize it. This is a bad idea. As you can tell from the legislation that we have introduced, we're taking a tough approach on this, and we're taking a tough approach on the people who are in the business of basically destroying other people's lives.

I mentioned to you that people were bringing drugs into this country. I've talked with drug enforcement agencies starting in British Columbia and right across this country. They tell me that these are the people who are involved with gangs and organized crime. The people who are causing trouble in British Columbia and elsewhere across this country, these are the people who are bringing drugs into this country. This isn't some happy-go-lucky guy who is experimenting on a Saturday night. This is not what we're talking about. We're talking about gangs and organized crime. I would very much reject that. I hope everybody would reject suggestions like that. This is not what this country needs and this is not what we should have.

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

As you know, sir, I do reject it similarly.

I want to pick up on a question from my friend Mr. Murphy with respect to the drug treatment courts. Most of the people we seek to go after are the kingpins, and the pushers, and the traffickers, but there are those who are unfortunately subject to addiction, and for those individuals we do have the drug treatment courts, or at least that is an option for them. I'm actually not that familiar with how that process works, and I was hoping you might be able to elucidate me on the process, and the support that your department gives to the drug treatment courts, and the collaboration with the Department of Health in the overall strategy against drugs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's a program I'm very supportive of. When I was first named justice minister I had heard about drug treatment courts--of course, if you're in the legal profession, you do--but I got some of the details as to how they work and what we are doing, and these are great steps forward.

They began in the late 1980s in the United States. The idea is to give individuals who have unfortunately become addicted but are not in the business of organized crime or involved with violence, that sort of thing, an alternative to be able to avoid a criminal record, or avoid a conviction, and these are steps in the right direction. We have six of these across Canada. I indicated I believe that in the main estimates you have before you $3.63 million has been allocated to that program. Again, I think it's money well spent. You want to be able to get people who, as you point out, have become addicted off that, get them living productive lives, and this gives them an alternative to getting involved, or continuing involvement, with the criminal justice system and the convictions that go with it.

These are steps in the right direction. They have my complete support, and it's exactly what we should be doing to help these individuals. This is something very different from the people who are using guns, and violence, and organized crime. These are the unfortunate individuals who become addicted, and we want to help them.

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

Am I out of time, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have half a minute.

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

Again, congratulations with respect to victims' services. As you know, I made an announcement on your behalf last week during National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, and just so you know, that announcement was very much appreciated by the tribal councils, which are going to receive funding to support victims' programs. So thank you for that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Let me thank you. I appreciate your support and the message you're bringing to this Parliament, that drugs are a problem in this country and that we have to deal with this. So again, helping to make that announcement and your continuing support for our tough on crime agenda, believe me, is very much appreciated by me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to Mr. LeBlanc. You have five minutes, sir.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for joining us on estimates, and then joining us in the next meeting, also, to talk about Bill C-25.

Perhaps, Minister, I could follow up on my colleague Brian Murphy's questions around the drug treatment courts. I share your support of the initiative. I don't share the view that the experiment hasn't worked or that there's no merit in expanding and in ensuring that it remains an option.

I know that in New Brunswick no drug treatment courts are currently operating. I know the New Brunswick government has perhaps talked to you and some of your officials about the possibility of having one on a pilot project basis in Saint John, New Brunswick. In your view, if there are only five or six operating in the country, can some of the money you referred to for drug treatment courts be used to expand? For example, how do you think we could support a smaller province with limited resources, such as New Brunswick, if it wanted to try to set one up in a part of the province like Saint John?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's a very interesting suggestion, Monsieur LeBlanc. That $3.63 million is broken down and allocated among the six courts across the country, but I'm always open to suggestions on how best to deal with the problem of drugs in this country. I think that if you speak with your provincial counterparts, they'll tell you that we're moving in the right direction with the bill on drugs that you have before you, and I'm always open to suggestions and innovative ways that we can do this.

You've pointed out that the drug treatment court is an innovative way to handle this, and I've been pleased with the results at this point.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Minister, I'll follow along the same lines as my colleague Joe Comartin in talking about legal aid.

There's no doubt that there's a constant pressure. You referred to the hundred-and-some million dollars that you're currently allocating--it was $120 million, I think--to help provinces with legal aid costs, and I think you'll agree with me that because of the increasing pressures in provincial systems around legal aid, there are never enough resources in this important envelope.

Our colleague Réal Ménard talked about a mega-trial. New Brunswick is a smaller jurisdiction, and in the large prosecution going on in the Moncton area--an organized crime prosecution, actually--the legal aid certificates that were requested would have totalled $1.7 million out of the $7 million legal aid budget in New Brunswick. One trial would have eaten up a large percentage of the provincial budget. In the end, of course, they had to apply to a judge for extra help.

That pressure is not unique to my province; it's across the country, and there are increasing demands or suggestions that we should look at increasing or improving legal aid with respect to family law matters. Different women's groups have spoken to a number of us about some of the economic inequities that can take place with respect to civil legal aid.

I'm not suggesting anything in the context of a whole bunch of civil proceedings. It would be for nothing other than family law matters. An example would be an allegation of abuse or--more importantly, perhaps--a question of child custody. I'm wondering whether you, with your provincial counterparts, have any view on the possibility of improving legal aid with respect to family law matters.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's interesting, Monsieur LeBlanc.

When I was here the first time as a member of Parliament, it was a line item on the transfers, and I liked the idea that there was a line item for civil legal aid. A decision was made around 1995-96 that it would be rolled into the Canada social transfer.

I'm not the finance minister, but on each budget I watch very carefully. I've been very impressed by the increases every province has received under the Canada social transfer. A decision was made—it wasn't made by my government, as you know; it was made by another government with which you'll be familiar—that this should all be rolled into one. I haven't seen any push by the provinces to go back to having this as a separate line item. I've had people suggest this to me, but once the decision has been made....

I know you watch those budgets very carefully. Mr. Flaherty has had four of them. I watch very carefully to see what the allocation is for every province, and I have to tell you I've been very impressed by the increases that each province has received under those four budgets of Mr. Flaherty. So inasmuch as civil legal aid is now a part of that transfer, I think these are steps in the right direction.

You were talking a little about family and civil law, and mega-trials are an important aspect. We are looking at that. We are looking at the Code-LeSage report. Many of the recommendations there are at the provincial level. If I came forward with a bill on efficiencies and all that, I hope members would expedite it and move it through. As I indicated to you, it took 10 years to get the last bill we had before us through. When you bring forward a bill on efficiencies in the criminal justice system, it doesn't get a lot of publicity, but it's very important.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My apologies, Minister. I did not intend to show any disrespect by not being here at the beginning of the meeting. I was delayed in Parliament because of consideration of Bill C-26. Just to let you know, that bill will be referred to us, pursuant to a ruling by the House to that effect.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Congratulations on your work.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

You see, we can work together. All that is needed is a little understanding, except when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences.

[Voices]

Ah, ah!

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

In that respect, Minister, I have to admit we have a little difficulty. Having said that, I don't want to use up my speaking time.

Minister, we passed Bill C-21, which abolishes Section 67 of the Indian Act and states that the Canadian Human Rights Act will apply. Another consequence of that is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has to start looking at this issue.

The problem, Minister, is that nowhere have I seen any increase in funding for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I can assure you that, if there is no additional money, all of the government's great projects… You insisted on the need to pass it quickly, and I recall quite clearly that you even threw a fit in the House for that very reason.

So, I would like to know whether additional funding has been set aside to proceed with the repeal of Section 67 of the Indian Act.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The Human Rights Commission's budget is not within the Department of Justice, for which I'm appearing today. But I agree that the repeal of that provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act should have been done a long time ago. The idea that human rights apply unequally across this country is very wrong. I was very clear that it should apply to all Canadians, and there should be no exceptions to that.

But again, I don't have the budget of the Human Rights Commission here before me. I'm here on the estimates for the Department of Justice.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Does the Canadian Human Rights Commission not fall within the purview of the Minister of Justice?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, it does.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

If it is within the purview of the Minister of Justice, I would very much like to know whether there is provision for additional funding. Minister, I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I need to have that information quickly, as do the First Nations, even if you only forward it to us subsequently.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We deal on an arm's length basis with the Human Rights Commission. They come on their own with their own budget. I will make inquiries and make sure that you know exactly how much they are allocated.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I am a little undecided. I am going to add an additional request, because there is also the whole matter of regulating the Internet in order to get rid of hate propaganda. People with the Human Rights Commission met with me to discuss that, because we were talking about the Indian Act, but we also talked about hate propaganda.

So, how can we find out whether any money has been set aside in the budget for this? It is clear that the Commission, with a budget roughly equivalent to last year's, will not be able to act on the two bills that have passed and which affect it directly. I simply want to know. If you tell me that I cannot have the answer today, I will wait until next week, but I need to have that answer as soon as possible, particularly for the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.