Justice Committee on March 23rd, 2010

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Do you believe that in this relationship you, as government, have with Mr. Iacobucci, solicitor-client privilege will apply?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We've been very clear on that. He is to present a report on this to us. He is going to make his findings public. We will let people know that. Again I ask you to be patient, Mr. Dosanjh, and have a look at what he has to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dosanjh, you're at the end of your time.

We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard for seven minutes.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you for appearing before the committee, Mr. Minister.

I know you may have been somewhat forced into it, but I can see that you still came here voluntarily. I think this is a good opportunity to compare some of our differing opinions, but I am nevertheless convinced that your opinions are sincere. I want to ask you for explanations on certain topics, and you will have the opportunity to explain those opinions to us.

First of all, we have been noticing for some time now, especially in Quebec, that we will be called upon to have very long trials with juries.

Already in 2005, we had to prosecute the 321 individuals arrested during Opération Printemps 2001—basically, they were Hells Angels and their accomplices. The trial lasted a number of months. In another recent case involving fraud charges against companies associated with Norbourg, the head of the company pleaded guilty, but his five associates had a trial with jury that lasted four months.

Other charges are currently being brought in fraud cases that are expected to be very lengthy.

Does the Department of Justice have any plans to shorten the length of these prolonged trials while obviously still respecting the law as we know it?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Ménard, for your question. You raise a very important Justice initiative. Many of these things, as you know by the LeSage and Code report, involve the administration that's within provincial jurisdiction. That being said, there is assistance that can and should be applied at the federal level. That being said, it's not easy.

I remember having Bill C-13, which was a collection of changes, none of them in and of themselves particularly newsworthy in terms of grabbing the headlines, but nonetheless these were initiatives that had been worked over by the Department of Justice and of course had input from provincial attorneys general. What was of interest to me was this. I remember about a year ago being informed by departmental officials that it was the fourth attempt to get that bill through in ten years. It's very difficult to get these things through. Part of the reason is that they can be derailed if one group, one place, doesn't like one provision. Do you know what I mean? It's because we're putting together a lot of different issues. That being said, I am very much committed, as I was to that particular bill, to get that bill through, because I think it helps clear up some of the issues with respect to the issues that prolong trials.

We of course have had the benefit of the LeSage and Code report, and I had input from provincial attorneys general. There has been a considerable amount of work done at the federal and provincial levels. One of the reports that I want to see is the Air India report. This will deal specifically with issues surrounding trials of this nature. As you know, that is coming to a conclusion, in the sense that we're hopefully going to be soon getting that report. Again, I want to see what recommendations are there with respect to prosecution of terrorist cases and what changes need to be made by existing legislation. I share with you the concern with respect to the prosecution and the handling of cases of that nature. At this point in time, I'm looking forward to the Air India report to see what further recommendations are there. With respect to my own record...and again, I appreciate your committee helping to get that bill through, but it wasn't easy. Again, it was the fourth attempt in a decade to get it through.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We really do not have much time. Perhaps we could get your department's presentation for members interested in the progress being made regarding those measures.

I will switch to a different topic. I believe that you are sincere in your targets to lower crime. This is where our opinions probably differ.

Let's say we pass the legislation you are proposing. Have crime reduction targets been set? In other words, what will the status of crime reduction be three or four years after these measures come into force? Can you estimate the reduction in adult crime and, in the case of young offenders, juvenile crime that you are targeting and hope to achieve through these measures?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I guess it depends on the particular piece of legislation. In some of the legislation that we've had that you've dealt with--on identity theft, for instance--we just want the laws to catch up with what's happening, and usually it's organized crime that gets involved with this kind of activity. You find laws that are out of date by many, many decades; sometimes it's since the 1800s that these laws haven't been updated. We have to update them to make sure we're capturing all the activity. It's the same way with auto theft. Yes, it's a crime to steal a car in this, but you get these chop shops and again organized crime involved with this. We're not capturing all the activity that I think everyone would agree is criminal activity.

Now, with respect to other pieces of legislation, very often depending upon the piece of legislation, we want to send out the correct message. In the case, for instance, of the Nunn report, they focused on a young person who was picked up, charged with a crime, released, charged with a crime, released, and on and on. Well, they made an excellent point. They were saying that this individual, yes, he's a danger to society, but he's a danger to himself. That's part of what we are trying to address. Yes, we're trying to address that we want to get the message out to individuals.

On some of the cases, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we just want to reduce the victimization of people. For instance, people who have a murdered family member are concerned about getting rid of the faint hope clause. I think one of your colleagues said to me, “If you get rid of the faint hope clause, does it mean that some of these people won't commit these murders?” I said that trying to guess or predict why somebody would commit first degree murder is probably beyond the scope of many, if not most, of us, but certainly sending out the message that if you do commit that type of crime you won't get the opportunity to keep victimizing the families that you've victimized... Again, it depends upon the legislation, and there are different focuses on these.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here, and Mr. Sims as well.

I think it was the last time you were before us on estimates that I had asked the question about the legal aid boycott in Ontario and whether the federal government was being assigned the cost of defences. I was told at that point--actually I think I got it as a note at the end of that meeting, and I'm not sure it went on the record--that there is $1.6 million set aside each year for that type of court order, to provide legal counsel to the accused.

I know the boycott ended in the last few weeks, or a month or so ago. Has all of that money been used up? Did we exceed the amount?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'll get you that information, Mr. Comartin, as to just exactly where we are. It's interesting that when you're here on supplementary estimates it's usually never a question about the supplementary estimates, but it is of interest that $3 million of this goes towards legal aid and the immigration and refugee section of that. Again, the departmental officials are trying to get a complete update on that.

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

The $3 million being transferred now, though, is not new money, right? It's coming out of the Citizenship and Immigration budget.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Perhaps I'll ask the deputy minister to respond on the $3 million for Citizenship and Immigration.

[John Sims]

The $3 million, Mr. Comartin—or actually, $6 million—has gone to the key provinces that do immigration and refugee work. The $3 million is being spent in addition to the money that's already in that program for the provinces, which is about $11.5 million. So it's an additional $6 million this year: $3 million paid by Immigration and $3 million paid by Justice. The $3 million that turns up in the supplementary estimates is a reimbursement by Immigration to us because we had the cash available at the moment, we needed to pay the provinces, and they are reimbursing us.

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

So you fronted the full $6 million, and now you're getting $3 million back from Citizenship and Immigration.

[John Sims]

That's right.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

In supplementary estimates to date.

[John Sims]

On the actual amount for the court-ordered counsel, I have a chart here that I'm just trying to understand. So we've spent $2.1 million this year—in other words, more than the $1.6 million that was budgeted.

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

Is the $500,000 here someplace? I couldn't find any reference to it. Of course, given the figures we get...

[John Sims]

No, it's not. It came out of other money in the department. We had to find that money. We expected to spend $1.6 million and had to spend $2.1 million.

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

Do you anticipate going back to the $1.6 million in the 2010-11 budget?

[John Sims]

I think so.

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

Mr. Minister, on another point, the drug bill, assuming it gets back before the House and passed again, either in its present form or in some altered form, is clearly going to result in a significant increase in the number of people who are going to spend time in incarceration. My experience has been that when you impose those additional types of penalties, you end up with a good number of additional trials where people who might have originally pled guilty will now not plead guilty and try to get off on the substantive charge, or perhaps on technicalities.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes.

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

Has the department done any type of analysis of what the additional costs will be—I'm not looking at corrections now—just to Justice in the form of additional prosecutors who will be required if that reality takes place and if additional judges are going to be required?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No, they have not done a formal analysis.