Martin Cauchon

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I wish to say a few words, as my colleague just did, about a fine study by Justice Canada entitled “Environmental Scan”. This study allowed us to analyze the situation regarding access to justice in both official languages, and to allow the department to position itself within the government's action plan which was introduced by my colleague, the president of the Privy Council of Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I simply wish to say that the Department of Justice received $45.5 million under this action plan. Of this amount, $27 million will be used to meet legal obligations. I am referring, for example, to the decision of Justice Blais of the Federal Court regarding the Contraventions Act and its implementation by the provinces. Just recently, we signed an agreement with Ontario which meets all the goals mentioned in Justice Blais's judgment.

That being said, the remaining $18.5 million will be used to improve access to justice. I also wish to mention that a forum was recently held in Ottawa bringing together various stakeholders, including representatives of administrative tribunals. We had an opportunity to discuss various problems pertaining to the study entitled “Environmental Scan”. This will allow us to develop a training program. I think this is one of the basic elements.

Since I seem to be out of time, this is, basically, what the Department of Justice got under the governmental action plan. This is also the amount, namely $18.5 million, which will go to specific activities allowing us to provide training and other programs, in addition to the $27 million which will allow us to meet our legal obligations, such as the one to which I referred.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, the member has raised a very interesting and important question. I hope I will have a bit more time to express myself because the legal aid question is very important. When we are talking about legal aid, we are talking essentially about access to justice.

We have to make a distinction. For example, criminal legal aid involves the Canadian federal government. Civil legal aid involves the provinces. When we talk about legal aid as well, it is a provincial jurisdiction.

We are getting involved with funding, as the member said. I am pleased to say that over the past few years we have increased our funding. Our aid base was $82 million. Because of unique pressures the provinces were facing, we have added $20 million for the past two years. In the last budget as well we have been successful in obtaining additional funding. That means $89 million over the next two years. That brings our yearly contribution to legal aid to $126.4 million for the next two years.

The member said that the program is sunsetting after two years. That is because the existing program that we put in place is there for two years and after that we will see. In the meantime we are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts in order to renew the system, renew the program, share our experiences, look at best practices and make sure that we have an open access to our justice system. We can have a fantastic justice system but if people cannot access it, we will get nowhere.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, the question is very interesting. When I was in western Canada I had the opportunity to visit a place where they were proceeding with a sentencing circle. I saw the way they proceed with the sentencing circle and the result that was obtained. We have to recognize that when we are talking about sentencing circles we are really talking about them expressing their concerns.

It is interesting because that way of proceeding with sentencing has been put in place when looking at the Young Offenders Act, the new bill. There is room for the community to get involved with regard to the sentencing process. It is a bit like what they are doing and I find it very interesting. They are using it at the present time. What I have heard is that they would like to do more of that.

It takes a lot of people. It takes time as well. They recognize that but we also recognize the benefit of the sentencing circle. We are very much in favour of what they are doing.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, since I became justice minister I have had the occasion to travel the country and meet with my counterparts, as well as with various members of different communities.

The point he is referring to is a real concern. For example, I was once in Saskatchewan having discussions with people of the aboriginal community, although I do not remember the exact number, of approximately 17% of the first nations people in Saskatchewan something like 70% to 75% of them were incarcerated. The member is right, we do have to address that problem as a community.

I am pleased to say that last year the department was able to renew our aboriginal justice strategy. We will be investing $57.3 million over the next five years in various programs that will help those communities. As well, we have renewed the court worker program and invested $5.5 million during 2002-03. This is a fantastic program and I will explain why. People are there to help aboriginal people, to explain the legislation and the court process, and to divert them to social programs when needed in order to ensure that some time down the road they can go back into the community and live a normal life.

As everyone can see, we have addressed the aboriginal concern with the renewal of our aboriginal strategy and with the court worker program. We are also involved in different projects across Canada with another national strategy that is in place, which is the national crime prevention program. It has given us wonderful results so far and we will continue with that strategy. We are involved in some projects with the aboriginal communities as well.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, essentially what the Auditor General's report said and what was questioned, was how reporting was done to Parliament. It was not at all a question of whether or not money was lost left and right. It was very clear that all of the money was very well spent. Why did the prices rise? All of that was very well explained for several weeks here in the House.

So, I think we need to put things in context. There was never any professional misconduct in the firearms file.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, on this side of the House, we have a fundamental belief in this policy of registering firearms. It is a question of principles; it is also a question of values. We will continue to apply this legislation and go forward with the registry, as well as with the permits.

That said, I greatly appreciate my hon. colleague's question, because this gives me the opportunity to come back to the question. Now, the program has been transferred to my hon. colleague, the Solicitor General, who has responsibility for it. However, this evening, I want to take a small liberty in order to come back to the report.

I am asking the Chair for some time, because this is important. I see the Chair, and I understand. Unless my hon. colleague is willing to come back with the same question.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, first, concerning not Bill C-7 but the new legislation, there has been a lot of discussion. As my colleague just pointed out, it is based mostly on the Quebec legislation which puts a lot of emphasis on social reintegration. It was felt that young offenders deserved another chance, and we support those principles.

Of course, there is a substantial difference in the fact that we, on this side of the House, believe that the penalties must fit the seriousness of the crime. That is not necessarily what has happened in the past in Quebec. So, the penalties now fit the seriousness of the crime.

Having said that, I want to point out that, when the issue was referred by the Quebec government to the Quebec Appeal Court, some points were raised. The first one had to do with jurisdiction. The constitutionality of some of the provisions laid out in the bill was also addressed.

I am content. We have not appealed this decision because, essentially, it is easy to see that the decision confirms clearly, cleanly and precisely the Canadian government's jurisdiction in this area.

Second, two sections, two elements of the law, were declared invalid. That is a question of presumption, presumption as to adult sentencing and presumption concerning the issue of publication. This presumption is now squarely on the shoulders of youth. We decided not to appeal because we believed that we could reach the same goals, that is the goals set by the legislators, without necessarily using these two presumptions.

That said, since our hon. friend referred to the funds allocated to implementation and enforcement, I should say that when the law was being drafted, there was always tremendous collaboration among the provincial, territorial and federal governments.

In order to ensure the smooth introduction of the reform and ensure that, together, we could test new ways of doing things and new practices, a fund was set up for the youth justice renewal initiative. I will just point out that from 1999 to 2002-03, this fund contained a little over $6 million that was available to the Government of Quebec, which was led at that time by the friends and colleagues of my hon. colleague, that is, the Parti Quebecois.

I would simply like to point out that the Government of Quebec never accepted any of this money. That $6 million was lost to organizations working at ground level, who could have used it to create all kinds of programs that would have helped Quebec youth. It is outrageous.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, first, the bill is presently in the Senate. I have no control over the other House. All I can do right now is anticipate amendments.

However, I can certainly say, as Minister of Justice, that before going ahead with certain amendments, we must be extremely careful not to change the tests provided in the bill which, as my colleague mentioned, are aimed at protecting the legitimate industry while protecting the animals also, since that is the purpose of this bill.

That being said, my colleague just said, You cannot be too careful. You know, I am always very reluctant to be redundant in drafting legislation. When you take the time to repeat an existing provision in a bill, the courts will immediately wonder what the legislator meant by that. Was it done to change the way this provision was interpreted in the past or was it done to add a totally different kind of protection?

In any bill, we must be careful when deciding to make changes.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my hon. colleague's remarks in reference to an important bill that aims to modernize legislation that has not been updated in a very long time.

First, what is important is that the legitimate trade practices in existence today—and I think everyone agrees here—are not affected and will be not harmed by the bill.

My hon. colleague talked, essentially, about something called a common law defence, found in section 8. This section applies essentially to this case. To come back and repeat what section 8 says would be, at the very least, redundant.

That being said, I would just like to mention something else. In a bill there are certain concepts of law. It is important when looking at a bill to keep in mind the case law. We explained the test to be applied to cases dealing with cruelty to animals. That case, which my colleague must be very familiar with, was the Quebec court of appeal case of Regina v. Ménard. The decision was rendered by Mr. Justice Lamer. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to review the court's analysis.

Mr. Justice Lamer stated that any suffering inflicted needlessly was prohibited. He expressly rejected the notion that the pain inflicted be substantial. He also clearly stated that assessing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury involved two steps.That is the critical test,

First the lawfulness of the purpose for which the pain was inflicted must be examined. If the purpose is illegal, the inquiry ends there. On the other hand, if the purpose is legitimate, there is a second issue to examine, namely whether or not the means used to achieve the purpose are reasonable under the circumstances including the purpose itself, social priorities and available means.

I believe that is a very telling test that offers maximum protection against what the member has just mentioned.

That being said, I would just like to say in conclusion that the bill is now in the other place. It is not yet back in the House of Commons, but we expect that there will be some amendments. That is what I have been given to understand.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, let us have a look at the two points that have been raised. The first point is the question of what we call the mandatory minimum sentencing. Essentially that has been used on a large scale in other jurisdictions in other countries. What we see now is that there are studies going on demonstrating that maybe it is not the best system to put in place.

As I said, I believe we have a fantastic court system here in Canada. We have very good judges as well. They have a good reputation and are highly respected not only here but all over the world. What I said was that it is important to give them the chance to proceed with a full assessment of the situation in order to impose the penalties based on the circumstances and the facts of the case they have before them.

The other point the member has alluded to is essentially the notion of conditional sentencing. It is something that actually has been working for more than four years. The member knows very well, because he is a member of the committee, that it is under review by the justice committee.

It has been used by the courts and it is used when an offender is deemed not to pose a risk to the public. Of course, if it has been used it is because the courts find it an interesting way to deal with offenders who do not represent a risk to the public. Having said that, let me say that we are reviewing the situation at this point in time and I am waiting to see the report that will come out of the justice committee.