Justice Committee on Nov. 29th, 2011

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I know, for instance, that the Tax Court is an itinerant court, and obviously when the court displays itself there'd be particular demands upon security. Of course, many of these judges are called upon to make very difficult decisions, some that are not favourable to people who would otherwise be peaceful.

Can you give us examples of the types of security measures that have been put in place to protect the judiciary?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes. A number of different aspects are involved in this. I think you hit the nail on the head when you indicate there are security concerns, as there are with all our courts. But the decisions that are made by those courts that come within the jurisdiction of the Courts Administration Service can have a huge impact on individuals. So what is done here is to make sure that all those involved with security see that it is well coordinated and focused. Again, the Courts Administration Service, like all federal agencies, works with our provincial and local partners in this.

I indicated to you, with respect to the public prosecution, the crimorg.ca website, that I'm always very interested in any move like that that helps increase the communication, the cooperation, that exists. That's what takes place within the Courts Administration Service. Their job is to coordinate to make sure there is a focus, that the steps are in place. Very often, in my analysis of this, they don't give you all the details of exactly what they're doing on specific cases with respect to security because that goes to the whole idea of what security is all about. Nonetheless, we know there are increased concerns and increased risks, so appropriate measures are taken. Again, I'm pleased with the request they have made. It seems to me very reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Cotler, you have five minutes, and we're dealing with the supplementary estimates.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Together with my colleagues, I want to welcome you as well, Minister.

I'd like to ask a question about the issue of prosecutions. In 1987, the Mulroney government, and you were part of that, announced a policy to ensure that Canada would not serve as a haven or sanctuary for war criminals. In 1998, the war crimes program was set up under the Department of Justice and given an annual budget of $15.6 million. In 2000, we enacted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which effectively enhanced the capacity for war crimes prosecution and then became a state party to the International Criminal Court, which further imposed certain obligations.

That budget of $15.6 million remained frozen. I have to say that when I was minister I tried to see it increased, mainly because if you take inflation and new corporate support costs and increased salaries, etc., the value was eroding. Now, apparently, in 2011 it's gone down to $8.5 million. Why would we be reducing the amount for war crimes prosecution precisely at a time when the need for such war crimes prosecution has become greater?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering if Mr. Cotler could tell us where he's referring in these estimates. I don't see the relevance of it to the estimates, but perhaps it's in here somewhere, so could he direct our attention to it?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a copy here. I might add that when I appeared before this committee on supplementary estimates, that question was put to me. I'm just putting this same question to the minister. It's within the framework of prosecutions, and there is reference here with regard to the heading of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I'm speaking about a specific program, which is the war crimes program, and it is an essential prosecutorial responsibility. I think the minister or Mr. Saunders might be willing to respond to that question.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

First, the budget is within the Department of Justice, and I appreciate that. The program works, not just within the budget of the Department of Justice but with the Canada Border Services Agency—

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

The RCMP. I understand that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

—the RCMP, so it's spread across a number of agencies, not contained within this, and it's a call we make each year in terms of the demand. There aren't that many prosecutions, as you would know, Mr. Cotler.

I'll ask the director of public prosecutions, who assists on these, but again, the budget is responsive to the demand that takes place.

[Brian J. Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada]

To date there have been two prosecutions under the modern war crimes legislation. There was one completed in Montreal, which was the case of Munyaneza. There is also one ongoing here in Ottawa. It is expected to go to trial in April 2013.

We find these prosecutions very expensive prosecutions to conduct, because there's a need for commission evidence. Our prosecutors typically fly around the world. These two cases we've been engaged in to date have involved alleged offences—or proven offences, in the case of one, in Rwanda—that made the requirement to take not only the prosecutors but the court, including defence counsel.... In one case, they went to Belgium and to Rwanda. That has increased the costs.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand that, Mr. Saunders. I know it costs $4 million per prosecution, on average. I know myself, because I initiated the first prosecution, that it was $4 million, and people came to me and said, “That's it. We can't do any more.”

That's precisely my point. There is, I believe, still a compelling need, and because our responsibility is enhanced because of our enactment of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, I think maybe we need more than the $8.5 million. Even $15.6 million, in my view, did not suffice, I felt, when I was minister. I don't think the demand is any less. It may even be more. Yet we've reduced the amount available. Could we not seek more rather than have the budgetary allocation halved, in effect?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

If you're making a representation with respect to the next budget, I appreciate that, Mr. Cotler. And I will certainly take that under consideration. Again, when we put these together, as with all these budgets, we get an analysis from those who assist us on this. But I'll take that as a representation for the main estimates.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Go ahead, Ms. Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Oh, I'm sorry. It is Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Good morning, Minister.

Mr. Saunders, thank you for being with us today.

My questions are on the additional funding for the Courts Administration Service, Minister.

I noted with interest that part of that is a request for further crown witness coordinators. It's my understanding that they operate primarily in the north. I believe they are based in Yellowknife, Inuvik, Whitehorse, and Iqaluit, but they often travel with the circuit court.

I'm just wondering if you could tell us what the work is they do and why they're important to the prosecution and to the witnesses and victims of crimes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

As you know, Ms. Findlay, the Government of Canada has a special responsibility with respect to justice in the territories. Again, as part of that, the coordination and the facilitation of trials, the calling of witnesses, and the facilitation of getting witnesses before the court is a big challenge.

I hear this in my discussions with my territorial counterparts in terms of all aspects of the judicial system, whether they're judicial hearings.... There are great travel costs, for instance, in terms of moving judges and court officials and for coordinating witnesses. It seems to me that we have a responsibility, in terms of facilitating the administration of justice, to be sensitive to that and to recognize the particular challenges that exist within our territories. It's important for the administration of justice that justice be available in a way that facilitates the fair hearing of a case. This is what takes place.

Inevitably it costs more money than if you're talking about a court appearance here in downtown Ottawa. That being said, it's important that we do that. So when I see requests from the Courts Administration Service with respect to costs for court reporting, transcripts, and translation services, I'm very empathetic to that, because I know this is an important aspect of that.

With respect to the supplementary estimates, there are the four courts I've identified. But of course the issue is much greater than that, because this, too, is part of facilitating justice across this country. Again, we have a particular responsibility with respect to the territories, so we take that very seriously.

What you have before you here is a very reasonable and, in my opinion, modest request for additional sums under the supplementary estimates (B). I hope it will get the support of this committee.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

I also understand that under those requests there's an area against money laundering of proceeds of crime and the financing of terrorist activities. Of course, I know that disrupting the enterprise of organized crime is of importance to this government. In looking at the background materials, I see that our anti-money-laundering regime was established in 2000, and then the anti-terrorist financing was added in 2001. There seem to be a number of partners involved in this. I'm wondering if you could just explain a little more to us why this is important and how it is that these various agencies and organizations work together on this difficult issue.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

As I have made the case before this committee, these types of prosecutions are sophisticated, and they're becoming more sophisticated. It's absolutely vital that all those elements within the criminal justice system for law enforcement cooperate, that there is communication between all those involved with this.

Now, part of what the Public Prosecution Service does is coordinate, assist, and advise with respect to these complex crimes. It seems to me that this is only reasonable in terms of what we see as the development within criminal organizations. I have pointed out many times in the past that many of these crimes are not one-offs, not one individual who has decided to do something. They are sophisticated operations, part of organized crime. So the measures taken against those organizations have to be developing. They have to be sophisticated as well. So there is a role to play with respect to the public prosecutions in the assistance and the advice of that. One aspect of that, and it is contained within these, is the website that will help coordinate this activity.

We know that the criminal organizations are using sophisticated communication systems, and we can't be on the outside looking in. We have to be a part of this as well. So when I see a request for something like that, as I've indicated, it definitely has my attention, and it gets my support because it makes sense that we have to do what we can. We can't have law enforcement agencies anywhere in this country operating in what they used to call silos. They have to work with each other, because ultimately we all have a stake in ensuring that the individuals who get involved with this type of crime are brought to justice and that there is better security for Canadians.

Again, that is one of the aspects of the supplementary (B)s, and I hope this gets the support of all the members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Minister.

We have Ms. Boivin now.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

In the same vein as Ms. Findlay, I have a single question with regard to that specific point. Why were these expenditures not factored in before the tabling of the 2011-2012 main estimates? What happened that made you come back to ask for an additional million dollars to combat the money laundering of the proceeds of crime and the financing of terrorist activities? The question is all the more relevant since other partner organizations like FINTRAC, the CBSA or the RCMP all came to ask for additional funding as well. What happened all of a sudden to justify asking for these sums that are starting to be rather large?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, if we cut back spending, sometimes we get criticism for that. If it goes up, we sometimes get criticized for that as well. In our parliamentary system, the best, most reasonable estimates of what these programs and initiatives will cost are tabled and are part of the budgetary process. That has been the case since long before I became an MP in 1984 or Mr. Harris did in 1987. There is a process by which all government departments look at what their needs are and determine where adjustments have to be made.

Your job, as you're aware, is to analyze these to see if they are reasonable requests. I ask those questions myself, because it seems to me I would like to get them all within the initial estimates. You'll notice that the Department of Justice, which has by far the largest budget coming within my portfolio.... We are not here making a request, but again, I don't close the door for supplementary estimates (C), because they analyze these things on a regular basis. When these requests are made by the agencies that come within my portfolio—and that is the Public Prosecution Service—we have a look at them if it's reasonable.

I could ask Mr. Saunders why there are specific changes, if you'd like. Overall, I think they're rather modest in terms of the overall budgets that come within this area.

That being said, Mr. Saunders, is there anything you want to add about why there have been changes?

[Brian J. Saunders]

I think that the program was assessed during the year. Following that assessment, we received more money. Our department is not the only one to receive funds. In fact, I believe eight departments participate in the program to combat money laundering.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

Minister, in your presentation, you referred to aboriginal women who have disappeared or were assassinated. I know that in the 2010 budget, you had set aside $10 million over two years to look into the issue of the high number of aboriginal women who have disappeared or been murdered. I think this matter is of concern to every member of Parliament, and to all parties. Concrete measures were to be taken to see to it that law enforcement agencies and the justice system would meet the needs of aboriginal women and their families.

I see nothing in your additional funding requests concerning this specific point. We were all told these past few weeks by these agencies and groups that the amounts needed to try to come to grips with this problem would be much higher. I am trying to understand why this is not included in the additional funds that are being requested.