Justice Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

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

Okay.

There were a couple of newspaper articles saying that funds—I think this would be part of that $10 million—were not allocated. I think they said that 43% had not yet been allocated, and that much of the 43% would not likely be allocated. I don't know if you saw those or if you've done any analysis on them. Were those articles accurate?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I hesitate to say. I didn't see every article about every aspect of ours...but the money is there, it's committed, and we want to see all of it spent in assisting the whole area of missing and murdered aboriginal women.

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

It wasn't just on this. It was funds for victims of crime generally--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Oh, I see.

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

--including some of the other programs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The money is solid and will be available for this coming fiscal year with respect to victims of crime. Sometimes, in some of the programs, the money is not completely utilized. Part of what we are with doing in terms of advertisements is getting the message out to people, asking them to please make applications, to please become aware of this. Indeed, that is one of the matters that I raise with my provincial counterparts when I meet them on a regular basis: to do anything they can to make sure victims are aware that these funds are available, just for the reason you've said.

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

Mr. Minister, over this last year as we were doing the work on organized crime, the committee heard--I think in B.C., I know in Manitoba, and I believe a bit in Alberta--that a number of the agencies are finding it very difficult with regard both to dollars for crime prevention and to dollars for assistance victims of crime, in that the accounting, the accountability process they have to go through to spend these moneys, is beyond the scope and capabilities of a large number of them, the smaller agencies especially.

I have two questions. One, have you heard the same complaints? Two, if so, are you prepared to reassess how much monitoring is going to be required for the spending of these funds?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We have to be very careful any time we spend funds. I have to tell you that the feedback I have had has been very positive. As part of the announcements, I was down in Prince Edward Island, for instance, and I was there forming working arrangements with the provincial government in terms of what they are doing.

But if there are individual cases where people say the application is either not being expedited or is being slowed down, please feel free to contact my office. I would be glad to look into that. Because I have no stake in making sure these things get bogged down. We want them to get out and help people, because that's what they're there for.

But again, most of the feedback I get is positive.

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

It's not so much the application process; it's the deployment of the services. Too much time and financial resources intended for prevention or victims are being used on having to monitor the spending of the fund.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'll ask the deputy to comment on that.

[Myles Kirvan]

With respect to spending money on what it was intended for, we're doing a number of things. One of them has to do with simplifying accountability processes. In doing that, as the minister said, we want to reduce the administrative burden on the accountability front while making sure we have the information we need. We are trying to make some efforts to see what we can do to assist on the accountability front.

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

The problem I'm hearing from some of these agencies is that as much as 20% to 25% of this money is spent on administrative staff, in preparing accounting reports and doing budgetary and financial accounting. It seems to me that there has to be some way of reducing that to 5% or 10%. We should be spending over 90% of these dollars on direct services rather than on accounting.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The deputy tells me that he's not aware of which agencies we're talking about. If you forward that to me, I would be glad to check into it. We don't want them to be spending all their time filling out forms or reporting, as opposed to doing program delivery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Petit, I believe you're splitting your time with Mr. Dechert.

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

I'm going to share my speaking time with Bob Dechert.

Thank you for coming, minister.

There is one thing that draws my attention. Following the explanation of all the bills that we intend to introduce, you mentioned one very important thing, information for victims. We know that you have established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, a major success for the Conservative Party. However, I would like you to tell us a little more about the victim information program you mentioned in the last part of your presentation.

I have represented the government in various organizations such as the OneChild group in Ontario and another child advocacy group. I've noticed that the problem is always a lack of information to assist either groups or children. For example, children may see an ad on television stating that they can dial a telephone number and report those who abuse them.

Could you further explain to us the current state of this program and the goals you are targeting?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, we've come a long way, Monsieur Petit, even in my legal career, in terms of handling children. I mean, some of the presumptions into the criminal system with respect to children...the presumption, for instance, that they're lying, or that they can't be relied on. I think we've come a long way.

Our job is of course to assist victims, to reduce victimization among children, to assist children who get into the criminal justice system, and to give them all the services they need. I firmly believe that this idea of child advocacy centres.... There are about five of them across Canada at this point and there are one or two in the works. It really is my sincere hope that this will become the norm in communities across this country, and that they will be that refuge, that resource, to assist children who become victims of crime.

We hear stories all the time of people who say they have been victimized, how terrorized they are, how unfamiliar they are with the system, how foreign this is to them, and how difficult it is. Many times you'll hear years later that people are still scarred by the system they went through when they were children, so it seems to me that with these child advocacy centres, this takes direct aim at the challenges faced by children who are involved with the criminal justice system.

Like it is for any new idea, the question of funding is always a challenge. I congratulate and thank those municipalities or other levels of government that have provided some assistance to these. But for the most part, they tell me that it is a bit of a hit-and-miss process, that a municipality may give them a grant for one year, but then not the next, and this sort of thing. Having some sort of stability in that area I think is a great step forward.

So again, I was very, very proud and very pleased to indicate a few weeks ago that the federal government would be providing funding worth over $5 million in this particular area. It's a step in the right direction: getting the federal government involved with these advocacy centres. They're perfectly consistent with our overall approach in this area and they address a particular need. So yes, I'm quite excited about that. Again, it's certainly my hope that these will become the norm in Canada and that we won't be limited to these five or six that currently exist.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for telling us a little bit more about the criminal justice legislation that you've introduced in Parliament. You mentioned Bill S-6, the repeal of the faint hope clause, which this committee dealt with last week. I think it's interesting that just today Clifford Olson, one of Canada's most notorious murderers, again appealed for parole. We know that a few years ago he was denied the right to appeal under the faint hope clause; however, he can still apply because he's gone beyond the 25-year life sentence ineligibility period.

The parents of two of his victims, Sharon Rosenfeldt and Raymond King, were quoted in the media today about the trauma they go through every time they have to appeal at one of these parole hearings. Can you tell the committee how the families of victims have expressed their displeasure to you with respect to the faint hope process?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, there certainly is unanimity among these victims who speak with me. They tell me they start dreading it. When the 15 years starts to roll around, they start reliving it; they tell me that the trauma they have experienced never goes away. There is the idea and the fear that the individual might be released after 15 years. I can appreciate there are statistics which say that for the most part they don't get out at 15 years, but these victims all tell me the same thing: it's the terror, the horror, the thought, that the individual may be back out on the street. Then, as soon as they're over that process, they're at the 17-year mark, and of course the 19-year mark—over and over again.

Some of them tell me, for instance, that they believe the convicted murderer knows he's not going to get out, that he's not going to pass the test under the faint hope clause. They believe this is his way of victimizing them all over again and to get one more shot at them. They are victimized over and over again. Again, my heart goes out to them. I say that if the individual is convicted of premeditated murder, they should be waiting 25 years.

But yes, I do meet with them. You mentioned Sharon Rosenfeldt. She is an outstanding example of somebody who is fighting to change some of the laws of this country that victimize people. It's not easy. I want to see this passed into law, for once.... It will be applauded by all those who unfortunately have had to go through this process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Jennings for five minutes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Merci.

Thank you very much for your presence here today, Minister, and thank you for bringing forth this bill.

In discussions with some of my colleagues, both in my own caucus and in other caucuses, and with former colleagues in the legal profession, there seems to be agreement. When the death penalty was first abolished, and life sentences with no possibility of parole before 25 years were brought in, in 1996, Parliament probably did not consider the possibility of multiple murderers and whether it would be appropriate to allow the judge the discretion to order that the parole ineligibility be served consecutively in the case of convictions for more than one murder.

I think this piece of legislation is timely. However, I do find it unfortunate--and perhaps you can explain--that while this bill was first tabled in 2009, it sat at first reading for 64 days, and then the Prime Minister prorogued at the very last day of 2009, I believe it was; and we sat through an 81-day prorogation before the throne speech took place on March 23, 2010, and then you and your government did not retable the bill for 216 days.

I think it's unfortunate that for whatever reason--and you may be able to provide this committee and families of victims with the reasons for these delays--second reading was not moved in the last session of Parliament rather than leaving it there for 64 days, and then, once prorogation was over, that you waited 216 days before retabling it. I'm glad that when you finally did table it, you moved second reading fairly quickly and it's been able to come before this committee quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I would remind you we aren't discussing Bill C-48 specifically. We're talking about the supplementary estimates--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

You're correct, Chair, but--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I will allow general questions. We generally do.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Chair, we weren't discussing Bill S-6 and you allowed complete latitude with no recall to the other members, so.... And--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I will just remind you because you referred to a bill and there's no bill before us. We have the supplementary estimates before us.