JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 5, 1999

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.).): I'd like to convene the meeting and thank Minister McLellan for being with us again.

Welcome, Minister, and welcome to your officials, Janice Charette, Morris Rosenberg, and Monsieur Roy.

Madam Minister.

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup. It's a pleasure to be here to share with you the strategic plans and priorities for the Department of Justice and to entertain any questions you might have in that regard.

Mr. Chair, since you have introduced the officials sitting with me here today, I won't repeat that task.

My presentation this afternoon will be reasonably brief in order to give you an opportunity to ask questions about the report and the plans and priorities of the Department of Justice.

[Translation]

My presentation this afternoon will deal with a number of specific strategic areas that are at the centre of our continuing efforts to reinforce the public trust in the justice system.

Although in the past year we have focused on the youth justice system, crime prevention and the implementation of the Firearms Act as well as the reform of the Criminal Code, we also went beyond these initiatives in the area of criminal justice.

[English]

We have made way for a fundamental review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a legal instrument articulating national values and, with your input, we have laid the groundwork for a single-level trial court in the new Territory of Nunavut.

Let me say a few words about other aspects of the justice policy agenda.

First, there is youth justice reform. Again, the work of the previous committee—justice and legal affairs—provided the foundation for the strategy we released last May. The department has undertaken extensive consultations across Canada, the result of which you see in Bill C-68, which I tabled in the House last month. I believe that the bill reflects the proper balance and flexibility to permit the provinces and territories to respond to the complex issues relating to youth crime.

In the interests of brevity, I will confine my remarks to a few key points. First, in bringing this work to fruition, we recognized that there was no one-size-fits-all remedy to youth crime. We listened carefully to people experienced in working with troubled young people, and we listened to Canadians who told us clearly that while young people who break the law should face meaningful consequences, it is preferable that their problems be identified and dealt with before they come into contact with the criminal justice system. For this very reason, success in implementing our new youth justice system in Canada will demand much of us, of all of us: our community resources, our commitment to our children, and our ability to approach problems with creativity, compassion, and resolve.

This community-based approach to youth justice is integral to our crime prevention strategy. When we support young people at risk, we prevent crime in our communities. Although there is no instant remedy to youth crime, there are known risk factors that contribute to the likelihood that a child will end up in trouble. It is for this reason that we have placed emphasis under our strategy on community safety and crime prevention, on high-needs communities, and, in particular, on children and youth, aboriginal people, and women's personal security.

• 1540

Since last June, we have invested in 396 crime prevention projects across Canada. It was rewarding for me to participate in the opening of, for example, the Drug Treatment Court in Toronto and Success by Six in my hometown of Edmonton. On the surface, these two projects perhaps appear to be very different, but their overall goals are similar.

One is an innovative approach to a seemingly intractable problem in the criminal justice system, substance abuse and high rates of recidivism. The other project is an early intervention program for children whose families are at risk. The children in this program will get a better start in life because of it. Both projects are examples of the criminal justice system moving away from a reactive, costly approach to criminal behaviour and towards more effective community-based solutions. Both projects will increase public safety and stem the human and financial losses that erode social cohesiveness in our country.

If crime prevention is about preventing people from taking that first step into the criminal justice system as offenders, it is also about preventing people from becoming victims, and despite the fundamental good sense behind our crime prevention strategy and projects, there will unfortunately always be victims. The members of this committee have again contributed in a significant manner to the government's work through your report, Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not A Veto. It is an area of our justice system that needed to be examined, and I express my heartfelt thanks to the committee for its fine work on this important issue.

Victims, as I remarked when I appeared before you on April 22, deserve respect, dignity, compassion, and above all, a voice in the criminal justice system. In addition to legislative changes outlined in Bill C-79, the justice department will also establish a policy centre for victims, which will, among other things, provide a victim's lens on all policy and legislative initiatives.

I am proud of my department's work on crime prevention and safety and I consider my department's work on the new Firearms Act to be an extension of that work. Everyone in this room and, indeed, all Canadians have a responsibility to help build a stronger culture of safety and responsibility surrounding the use of firearms across Canada.

All Canadians want measures that help to ensure that guns don't wind up in the wrong hands or won't be used for the wrong reasons. Much of this control takes place in communities across Canada, where responsible firearms owners already store their firearms securely in compliance with safe storage regulations. This is the first component of building the culture of safety.

But there are things that gun owners and firearms dealers cannot do on their own, which the new firearms registry system will do. I want to tell you about a couple of these achievements in crime prevention, especially in light of recent tragic events in two schools, one in Colorado, and one here, in Taber, Alberta. Our legislation is already starting to have a significant effect on public safety. We have created a telephone transfer system whereby a licence can be checked for validity and for events occurring after it was issued. As well, the gun can be traced for illegal activity.

The background checks, now conducted for the first time ever on all firearms sales, are blocking up to 9% of the sales as of April 22. Of this 9%, 8.8%, or 95 cases, were in the end refused, in part for public safety reasons. To date, we have done over 10,000 CPIC checks on potential firearms buyers. Over 8% have been highlighted for closer scrutiny by provincial chief firearms officers, and 95 transactions were refused.

In addition, provincial chief firearms officers have revoked 151 licences to individuals who no longer meet eligibility requirements. This is three times higher than the total number of revocations made over the past five years. This is a direct result of the capacity of the new system to provide information to authorities—for example, in relation to court-ordered firearms prohibitions—in a much more timely manner. These measures also build upon the expected culture of safety.

• 1545

I should point out that my colleague, the Solicitor General, recently announced a $115 million upgrade for the CPIC system. This will help ease concerns among certain groups that the CPIC system could not support the firearms registry. I am confident that with the new system and the commitment of responsible firearms owners to keeping all firearms out of the wrong hands, the culture of safety surrounding the possession and use of firearms in Canada will be enhanced and the long-term impact of this legislation on the safety and well-being of Canadians will prove positive.

One of last year's achievements worth singling out here today as cause for celebration was the creation of a single level trial court structure in Nunavut, our new northern territory. The new court will simplify the court structure, improve accessibility, and reduce both delays and travel time for judges and others. This court was designed in partnership with the people of Nunavut and acknowledges the need for aboriginal people to take control of their lives.

Another achievement over the past year was the passage of Bill C-51, the 1999 Criminal Code omnibus amendments making changes in response to requests from the provinces and federal departments and agencies. Among other things, the bill repealed the year-and-a-day rule for homicide and related offences, and it enhanced conditional sentences, both to make them more effective and to ensure that the courts can deal with those who breach them.

We also reformed our extradition law comprehensively, remedying and eliminating cumbersome deficiencies in the current extradition regime. The adoption of this bill will give us the proper tools to combat crime more effectively—particularly transnational organized crime. In addition, this new legislation will also allow us to comply with our international obligations in respect of the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Chair, before I turn the floor back to you, I want to mention a few other important justice-related matters that are currently under review. For example, as members of this committee know well, impaired driving is a long-standing social and legal problem, and my officials and I look forward to reviewing and responding to your upcoming report on the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code. Be assured that your recommendations and comments on how to address the intricacies of this long-standing and often tragic problem will be thoroughly examined.

I also look forward to having the benefit of this committee's views on the application of the conditional sentence. We know that this subject is sensitive at this time. I believe that everyone—the general public, the bar, and other justice professionals, as well as members of the House—will find your comments instructive as we all move toward a full discussion of the issues at hand.

On another front, family law reform, specifically custody and access, has been another difficult social and legal issue, which has been examined by a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons and over the years by my department. We are carefully considering the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, entitled For the Sake of the Children.

I will be tabling my response to the committee's report on May 10, but for today's purposes I would like to recognize the time and energy given by all members of that committee to the difficult and important task that was given to them: to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices. I would simply note that the government is fully committed to ensuring that the health and well-being of children comes first and foremost and that the best interests of the child will remain the guiding principle of our family law.

• 1550

Last year, we marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Given the celebration and the deliberation occasioned by this anniversary, it seemed particularly fitting to announce last month that the Canadian Human Rights Act will be examined by a review panel of highly qualified professionals. Full public consultations will take place, and the recommendations made by the Auditor General in his 1998 report will be addressed. I believe that the review is a logical step in our efforts to ensure that we have a modern justice system for the 21st century.

Mr. Chair, since my appearance here last year, we have made a good deal of progress on our departmental priorities. Youth justice, crime prevention, and the needs of victims were identified as priorities, and we, I believe, with your assistance and hard work, have followed up on these key commitments—and, I think, followed up, Mr. Chair, in a way that Canadians understand and that I hope is accessible to Canadians.

But as we know, justice is, as always, a work in progress, and when we speak of progress we always have one eye on the horizon. We know that there is no shortage of issues to be taken up this coming year and in succeeding years to make our system even better. Justice issues figure prominently in Canada's relationship to the world, with global crime, war crimes, and terrorism already commanding the attention of our policy agenda.

[Translation]

Our objective throughout our various tasks is to ensure that our justice system is effective, focused on the citizens and that it has the confidence of the Canadian public and reflects their values and expectations. We will continue to communicate with Canadians to help them understand how the various initiatives in the area of justice support the efforts undertaken by the government to meet their needs and address their concerns.

[English]

Finally, on behalf of myself and my department, I do want to thank this committee for its hard work over the past year. I look forward to working with you in the upcoming year in the full knowledge that the commitment demonstrated by the chair and the members of this committee will continue to benefit all Canadians.

Thank you. Merci beaucoup. I look forward to responding to your concerns, suggestions, and questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister.

In regard to questions, we have seven-minute rounds, so I suggest we go to approximately 5 o'clock. The minister has another commitment.

Mr. Reynolds, are you going to start?

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you for being here, Minister.

Ms. Anne McLellan: My pleasure.

Mr. John Reynolds: I wrote you a letter about the Leonard Peltier case—

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: —and I want to just quote that:

In 1995, your predecessor in Justice, Allan Rock, sought review of all government information surrounding

the extradition to the U.S.A. of Leonard Peltier, an American Indian wanted for the shooting of two FBI agents, and Mr. Rock

commissioned the Honourable Warren Allmand to conduct the review and report accordingly.

Mr. Allmand, as you know, is currently the head of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

Due to Mr. Allmand's privy council oath, he cannot make public the contents of his letter to Mr. Rock

in which he reported his findings on the Peltier extradition.

Mr. Allmand has, however, stated publicly and to my office...that the only cause for extradition of Mr. Peltier in 1976

was the information contained in the “perjured affidavit” of one Myrtle Poor Bear, which Canada used as reason to extradite Mr. Peltier.

Given that you, your department, the Government of Canada, and everyone else involved in the Peltier case knows about this miscarriage of justice perpetrated on Mr. Peltier, can you tell the committee, particularly in view of Mr. Allmand's report, why you have not sought remedy for Mr. Peltier?

As you know, he's rotting away in a Kansas penitentiary. Just what steps, if any, are we taking?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you, first of all, Mr. Reynolds, for your letter and for the fact that you told me that you would be raising this issue today before the committee. I appreciate that.

Indeed, as you say, Allan Rock, my predecessor, did undertake a review of the Peltier file. That formal review was not done by Mr. Allmand, although Mr. Allmand was permitted access to the file by then Minister Allan Rock.

• 1555

That review has been completed and I have had the opportunity to analyse the results of that review in some detail. I think I can tell you today that we will be releasing the content of that review. There were a number of reasons why we have not released the content of the review before this time, the primary one being meeting with the requirements of the access to information legislation and reviewing with the privacy commissioner any possible concerns about the release of the report.

Those reviews have been completed, and if you're aware of the provisions of the access to information legislation, there is a specific provision that indicates we cannot release the content of government-to-government communications. Obviously, since extradition is an executive act, in this file there were communications between the United States of America and the Government of Canada.

In the interests of as full a disclosure as possible, Mr. Reynolds, I had my officials contact American officials.

I believe, deputy, that just today we have heard back from them.

Mr. Morris Rosenberg (Deputy Minister, Department of Justice): We have received oral confirmation.

Ms. Anne McLellan: We have an oral confirmation that they will permit us to release those documents.

So I'm very pleased to be able to inform the committee today that in the very near future we will be able to provide to the public and to interested parties the content of the review that dealt with Mr. Peltier's case. Obviously, then, people will be at liberty to read that file, read the correspondence, and move forward as they see fit.

I do, however, want to correct one misapprehension, I think, that perhaps has been repeated by you today but also in some of the newspaper articles that I have read. In fact, Leonard Peltier was not extradited on the basis of an alleged fraudulent affidavit. There was significant other evidence that justified the committal for extradition of Mr. Peltier. In fact, I believe that was so determined by the Federal Court of Appeal. Then the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal, in full possession of all the facts and all the evidence.

Today I am not going to go through the details of the other evidence that certainly, in my opinion and in the opinion of the court, justified Mr. Peltier's committal for extradition and ultimate extradition from this country. But certainly this would form part of the record and you will have access to this.

But I must clarify the record in this regard: in fact, there was sufficient other evidence, separate and apart from the alleged fraudulent affidavit, to justify Mr. Peltier's committal.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you.

My colleague, Mr. Ramsay, offers a further question on the issue, but I only have a couple of minutes left, so I'll ask you one more question.

Yesterday, in the House, the Minister of Indian Affairs was quoted as saying that section 35 of the Constitution

identifies aboriginal rights as not being better rights than ours but being different by virtue of the fact that they were here first.

As you know, British Columbia law states that if there's any change whatsoever to the Constitution, the people of British Columbia must have a vote on that issue.

My question would be to you as the minister in charge of the legalities of what we're doing here. Have you any reports on the Nisga'a case in your ministry or have you discussed it and come to any conclusion as to the Nisga'a case? Is there a change to the Constitution in any way whatsoever? Because if there is, as we all know, it will have to go to a vote in British Columbia. I think that's the issue that nobody seems to be clear on in this whole thing. Is there any change? If you have reports, can they be made available to members of this House and this committee?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, we have looked at that question. It is our best legal opinion that the Nisga'a treaty does not constitute a change to the Constitution as would be comprehended under the B.C. referendum legislation.

In fact, we sought outside opinions, I believe, deputy, in relation to that question, at least one from a leading constitutional expert—

Mr. Morris Rosenberg: That's right.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —and our own constitutional lawyers in our own departments reviewed that question. Indeed, you're right. It was a question that we were most interested in. Our considered best legal opinion is that this is not an amendment to the Constitution that would require or activate the referendum provision of the B.C. referendum legislation.

• 1600

Mr. John Reynolds: What does it mean, though, when she talks about how section 35 says that aboriginal rights are not better than ours but different from ours? How can we have different rights within that section of the Constitution? I think that's just confusing.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Actually it's always dangerous for one colleague to interpret the words of another. But having said that, I think the point that she's trying to make is that aboriginal rights have been defined or are in the process of being defined by the courts and, in fact, those rights are not in any way greater than or lesser than the rights of others.

In fact, we know, and I think we all acknowledge, that there are aboriginal rights that find their creation in a different history and a different situation. In fact, the Constitution...our elected officials, in the process of 1980-81 and the development of the Charter of Rights, acknowledged aboriginal rights and acknowledged aboriginal treaties. That wasn't in any way to make any group in society better than or lesser than anyone else. It was simply to acknowledge, I think, what elected officials—and a large number of Canadians, I think, at the time and now—would acknowledge are a body of rights that attach to Canada's aboriginal peoples and can be exercised by them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Minister, you mentioned in your introductory remarks that young people were one of your priorities and you said that there was

[English]

there is “no one-size-fits-all solution” to youth crime problems,

[Translation]

or something like that. You also mentioned that the implementation of the new legislation for young offenders will require the intervention of all stakeholders.

How can you make such a statement when—and you were questioned many times about this in the House—there is a consensus among lawyers, policemen and social workers in Quebec that the bill that you have introduced threatens the Quebec approach, which is working well for young offenders. How can you expect their enthusiastic involvement when they have publicly opposed your bill?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, far from menacing or threatening the approach of the Quebec government to youth justice issues, I think that upon a careful reading of the youth justice legislation, anyone who wanted to so inform themselves would see that much of the fundamental philosophy and much of the approach set out in that legislation is that which, based on everything I've heard, is strongly supported by the Government of Quebec.

For example, crime prevention is one of the three pillars of our youth justice legislation. In fact, I would hope that the people and the Government of Quebec would agree that the best way to deal with youth crime is to prevent it in the first place.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay, mais—

Ms. Anne McLellan: I would hope that the Government of Quebec would agree—and it appears that they do, based on what I've seen and read—that even after a young person breaks the law and harms another individual, it is important to rehabilitate that person and provide the support necessary for the reintegration of that person into society.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mais—

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, our youth justice legislation, for the first time, clearly puts a focus, an emphasis, on the exactly that.

• 1605

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Minister, you said in your remarks—and I am paraphrasing—that any person who wanted to inform themselves would see that... To my knowledge, lawyers such as you and I, who have read the bill, policemen, for whom it doesn't matter whether it comes from Ottawa or Quebec as long as the young offender system works, social workers, who have read the legislation as well, all are saying that there is something wrong. I do not understand why you persist in saying that this is what the government of Quebec and all stakeholders in Quebec want. You said that your position is supported by everything that you have read, but I have read exactly the opposite, unless we do not buy the same newspapers.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Indeed, I have asked, and I have received no convincing examples of situations in which the Quebec government today is doing things in the courts or outside the courts in relation to young offenders that they could not do after this legislation is passed. If those could be identified in concrete terms, as opposed to the more political and rhetorical terms, I think, that I have heard so far, at least from some in the province of Quebec, I would certainly take a look at those.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

Ms. Anne McLellan: But I believe it's very clear that we have worked very hard. We worked very hard with my former colleague, Serge Ménard, and with others, to ensure that we acknowledge the diversity of concerns and approaches in this country.

I would hope that, of all parties, the Bloc would acknowledge the fact that while we provide you with diversity and flexibility, you must also acknowledge the diverse circumstances of the Northwest Territories, of Nunavut, of the Province of Ontario—

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay—

Ms. Anne McLellan: —as they meet the challenges of youth justice.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am not calling that into question at all. You are asking me for a concrete example. Unless I am mistaken, the bill that you have introduced has, among other objectives, that of bringing about uniform sentencing.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, not at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: No?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No. In fact, I know that your colleague, Monsieur Bellehumeur, has talked about this. In fact, that is not the case. The provision he refers to does talk of similar sentencing. It is a provision that most know is in the code, and most who know that provision in the code know that it has not in any way prevented regional variation. I'm sure that Mr. MacKay and Mr. Mancini would inform you of their experiences in this regard.

I think it is too bad that there are those who choose—and I certainly do not attribute this to you in any way—to take the language and simply rewrite it; it's not the language that is in the legislation. The word “uniform” does not appear in the legislation. The word “harmonize” does not appear in the legislation. I think it's very sad that there are those who would choose to use that language when it's not there and when that is not the intent.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That is more or less the answer I was expecting. You are saying that the people who have opposed your bill want to rewrite the law—

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: —when it fact this is not at all what they want. That is strange. Let me go to something else. That is a most interesting matter, but we are also supposed to examine the estimates.

Could you tell us how much the implementation of the bill that you want the House to pass would cost?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, we have discussed with the provinces, again, with my predecessor in the province of Quebec, Mr. Ménard, and we have had discussions with provincial and territorial Attorneys General. All of them, to a person, made it plain that they wanted additional resources for youth justice and for the implementation of changes to youth justice legislation. In fact, I was able to acquire additional resources of some $206 million in the budget of 1999 to assist in the implementation of changes that emanate from the proposed new legislation.

• 1610

In fact, those additional dollars will help the Province of Quebec reinforce much of what it does presently, and, I think it's fair to say, will probably provide them with the resources to enhance the strategies, especially the diversion strategies that they use and that are being used more and more in all provinces across this country.

This is not a new approach to youth justice in this country and in fact it is being used more and more. We understand the fact the provinces would see it as important for us as a federal government to come to the table with additional resources. We want them to develop more community-based strategies to deal with young people. We want them to do a better job of providing rehabilitation programs, for example, while young people are in custody, be it closed or open. We want more supervision of young people in the community after they leave custody, so that they're not left on their own but are in fact provided with the means to reintegrate into their communities.

All of that does require resources. I have listened to the Province of Quebec as well as to all the provinces and territories, and hence asked my colleagues around the cabinet table in the process leading up to budget 99 to consider providing additional resources for youth justice—and we were successful in that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: So, it is $206 million?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Pardon me?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: In summary, the answer is $206 million?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: That is for the next three years—

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay—

Ms. Anne McLellan: —but in fact, if I may say so, for the new legislation, we're looking at a sustained implementation period over some five to six years and would anticipate additional funding for those years as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): I'm just going to pick up on that question a little bit, the question about the $206 million over three years. Can you tell me if is that is to be parcelled out on a per capita basis? How is it divided among the provinces? Is it on a need basis?

Ms. Anne McLellan: That's going to be decided in consultations with the provinces.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It's obviously going to be very important to fully carry out those discussions with the provinces and the territories. Clearly the vast majority of the new resources we have received will go to the provinces, because they are the ones who in fact presently develop and run the programs that help us achieve our overall societal objective in relation to young people—and they will continue to.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'm glad to hear that, because that's probably the primary concern I have with the new legislation: the implementation costs that fall to the provinces.

Ms. Anne McLellan: And implementation is very important.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

On another topic altogether, aboriginal justice, the Department of Justice policy book I have indicates that there are ongoing efforts to redress the systemic number, the huge number, of aboriginals in Canada's prison population. In the development of recommendations from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples... Actually, you'll know that those efforts will be enhanced by a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on section 718 of the code, which I had the opportunity—and I'll say this publicly—to compliment your predecessor on.

In terms of the foreseeable future, what initiatives will the department be bringing forward to enhance the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in particular the area that I think is called “Crossing the Divide”.

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, there are a number of things that we are doing. Some are continuations of existing initiatives and others are new initiatives. For example, in relation to crime prevention, as a second phase of crime prevention, which we began last year, in June 1998, one of the three priority areas, one of the three targeted groups for us, was aboriginal peoples. Clearly we as a society know that if we're going to prevent the growing numbers of aboriginal people who come before the courts and who are in our prisons, as the Supreme Court identified in the Gladue case, we have to put an emphasis on helping aboriginal peoples prevent crime in their communities and prevent people from falling into a life of crime.

• 1615

Again, we know that it will involve community-based strategies that are targeted particularly at the young and, I think, are targeted at the degree of addiction and violence that tragically, we all know, exists in some aboriginal communities, and which is not the way to provide young people with a good start in life, to get them off on the right track, and to make sure that they stay out of or do not pursue a life of crime.

So we have identified aboriginal people as one of our three key components of our prevention strategy. My predecessor, Allan Rock, also began an aboriginal justice initiative. We want to move that whole justice initiative forward in more aggressive ways, I think, than we have. I think it's fair to say—and I'm not sure who wants to comment on this and who knows more about the details of this than I do—that to date our greatest success has been in the province of Saskatchewan. Our aboriginal justice initiative requires partnering on the part of the provinces, because of course they administer the criminal justice system. They have to be there as partners, and Saskatchewan came to the table very early and wanted to pursue various kinds of justice initiatives on a province-wide basis, which obviously is quite challenging for any province.

But there are other justice initiatives under this program that we are pursuing in other parts of the country. In my own province, there is a group of aboriginal bands in the southern part of the province working with the Attorney General of the province and myself to see if there are some strategies we can put in place to create a criminal justice system that is more culturally attuned and more sensitive to the realities of aboriginal peoples' lives.

So what I would say is that we certainly acknowledge the challenge. We had identified it before the Supreme Court so starkly, I think, presented it for us all in the Gladue case, but there is much more work that we have to do.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'm going to turn to the figures now, if I may. I have a couple of questions about page 33, supplementary information, just for my own clarification. The forecast spending for 1998-99 on “contributions to the provinces and territories to assist in the operation of legal aid systems”—one of my pet projects—

Ms. Anne McLellan: What page are you on?

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'm on page 33, at the second item. The contributions are $81,913,000. They are then reduced for this year and stay constant. Below that—and I don't pretend to know how to read these well—in the second line above total contributions, it says “contributions for access to justice services to the territories (being legal aid...)”. There are some figures there. I'm wondering (a) why there is a decrease in the contribution for legal aid systems, and (b) is that because some is going to the territories from the original budget? I just wondered if someone could clarify it for me.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Perhaps somebody here can clarify this, but my thought would be that in fact our contribution to the legal aid system in this country was reduced throughout program review.

Mr. Morris Rosenberg: That's right.

Ms. Anne McLellan: My guess is—and I'm not sure who would like to comment and more definitively answer this question—that what you see in 1998-99 is the last year of program review. What I would suggest is that it is the effect of that last cut because of program review, where we were dealing with the deficit. We all know the challenge and the hardship that has presented for all Canadians.

Then what you see is the flat line out, which is our ongoing contribution to legal aid, anticipating no further cuts to the program. I think that's what we have there, Mr. Mancini.

• 1620

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay—and anticipating no further increases either.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I'm an optimist, but I can't make any promises.

The Chair: Mr. Mancini, I think we'll have to catch you in round two.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that legal aid is very near and dear to my friend's heart.

Ms. Anne McLellan: And I should hope to you too, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Of course.

Madam Minister, it's always a pleasure to have you here, and I welcome your officials as well, Mr. Roy, Mr. Rosenberg, and Ms. Charette.

My first question has to do with the implementation and the timetable of Bill C-68, the former Bill C-68, not your current bill—

Ms. Anne McLellan: Oh.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —and I know that you're carrying baggage from the previous minister on that—

An hon. member: Retire the number.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —but I think you would have to agree that the registration program has certainly gone beyond the initial cost and time estimates.

It was delayed in its commencement a couple of times, and recent government statistics coming from your department have placed the cost of the registration at over $200 million, with estimated costs of $500 million to $600 million a year to operate. This is certainly well over the original $85 million estimate, and there are hopes—unrealistic hopes, I would suggest—of registering all the guns by the year 2003. The numbers don't seem to add up.

It's thought, I understand, that in 1974 there were over 10 million guns in Canada, with an estimated quarter of a million being imported annually since that time. Firearms groups believe that there are now over 21 million long guns in Canada, so given the sheer numbers of this daunting task of registering all of these guns by the year 2003, I'm wondering if there have been errors made on the part of these estimates.

I guess I'm also concerned about the timetable that has been set up. There are some estimates that put the total cost by the year 2003 at over $1 billion, and there is discussion about the actual time that it would take given the current number of guns and the rate of registration: that it's going to take anywhere from 77 years to 200 years to complete the actual registration.

Even with the upgrade that has been planned for the CPIC system as well, I'm told by members of the RCMP and people in the policing community who I'm still in touch with that the CPIC system is still not going to able to harbour all of this information, and more importantly, I guess, in any event, that the system is not something the police will have the confidence to rely on.

I'd like to know, Minister, if you've investigated some of these problems that appear to be identified. Are the prospective costs and the time implementations going to be adjusted or will they be revisited if, in fact, these numbers are correct?

I know, given the presentation that you've made, and being a member of this committee, that there are certainly a lot of priority areas that you and your department have identified as areas in need of spending, particularly the implementation of the current Bill C-68 and the pressing issues there, as well as the need for more money to bring to fruition the victims' bill, which I commend you for introducing. I would still like to see an ombudsman's office for the victims. Also, there are certainly other pressing issues in the Department of Justice.

So I'm concerned particularly about the cost of this and the priority that the government still places on the old Bill C-68.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, Mr. MacKay, that's a host, a bevy, and a veritable cornucopia of questions in relation to firearms.

Let me first of all start with the cost. My predecessor, Allan Rock, was very specific before this committee. In fact, I can provide the committee with a record of his comments. He indicated that start-up—and he said “start-up”, he used the language clearly—costs for the new firearms licensing and registration system would be $85 million.

Last year, when I came before committee, I indicated, in response to a question from you, I think, that the start-up costs had in fact increased and would be $120 million. Start-up costs have increased. There are reasons for that. Others can go into more detail and perhaps you might want to ask my officials when they come before you on another day, Mr. MacKay.

• 1625

For example, there is the fact that when Allan made that statement, it was not clear, for example, that the three prairie provinces would opt out of implementation; that is an additional cost. For example, Parliament imposed additional screening requirements—required spousal notification. These are all additional costs. There is no question, and it's not news... In fact, it's been over a year now that we have told people that the start-up costs had increased from $85 million to $120 million.

As of December 1, we're in operation phase, and we will be from now until the end of time—or certainly my time in politics—in terms of—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Until the end of time?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, the existence of the registry is an ongoing part of our safety and security network in this country.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But it'll be fully operational by the year 2003.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It's fully operational now in the sense that—

Mr. Peter MacKay: No.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It depends on what you mean by that, but if you mean that it's up and running and that in fact a clean transaction can be processed in eight to fifteen minutes, it is indeed operational.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But how many guns are registered? How can you call that “operational”?

Ms. Anne McLellan: But Mr. MacKay, that's why, in fact, there is a phase-in period. We knew, one, that everybody wouldn't register at the beginning and, two, that no system, however well designed, could accommodate everybody at once. That's why we are giving people a period of time in which to license and to register.

We are watching this system very carefully. We anticipate that the ongoing operational costs will be between $50 million and $60 million a year, which we also identified from the outset of this initiative.

The other point to keep in mind is that like many other systems, like our licensing and registration system for motor vehicles, it's not the taxpayers of Canada who will pay for this, those who are not gun owners nor have any desire to be. In fact, it will be users. I, as a car owner, pay for my licence. If I wish to drive, I pay for my licence, I take my course, and I register my car, if I have one. That's the premise of the system, and that is the premise of our gun licensing and registration program.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Minister, that is an admission that this gun registry was aimed at law-abiding citizens who were already—and I believe these were the words you used—acting safely and responsibly with respect to guns. With all of that, how can you say it's aimed at public safety?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. MacKay, it is aimed at those people who possess and own and want to use guns, just like, I guess, the car registration system in every province and territory—I hope—is geared to lawful and fully trained car drivers, to those who hope to maintain their car in a safe way and in a responsible way so that children don't get access to the keys and go joyriding and so that their car is not stolen, whatever the case may be.

Our gun licensing and registration scheme is to enhance, to build on Canadians' commitment to safety and security and—

Mr. Peter MacKay: But it's a government revenue-generating exercise.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —to enhance that.

Oh, no, it's not going to generate revenue, Mr. MacKay. It is going to cover the costs.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I see.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

We are going to have to come back a little later for the balance of that plethora of questions.

Questions from anyone on my right?

There being none, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Minister, in preparation for being here today we were going over some of the contracts that your department let, and we were interested to note that Georgette Sheridan, a former MP, received a contract of $83,246 for three months in the latter part of 1998. This being taxpayers' dollars, I would think you would be able to give us an explanation of what it was that she did. We had heard that this was for some kind of review of the social union or something or—

Ms. Anne McLellan: No—

Mr. Jim Abbott: What was it?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Let me explain this. In fact, you will remember—I hope everybody remembers—that one of the most significant federal-provincial-territorial achievements in the past number of years, in a very long time, was the signing of the Social Union Framework Agreement by the Prime Minister, nine premiers, and two territorial leaders. In fact, although the Province of Quebec did not ultimately sign the agreement, my colleague, Monsieur Facal, was at all the meetings and played a very constructive role in the discussions leading to the social union framework.

• 1630

The Prime Minister asked me to become the federal negotiator for the social union framework. Keep in mind, colleagues, that the commitment was made by the first ministers—all of them—in December 1997, at a first ministers' meeting, whereupon in February 1998, I think, the Prime Minister asked me, in addition to my duties as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to become the chief federal negotiator. That was in addition to my normal tasks.

I indicated that I would require a support person or staff person to assist me in terms of dealing with that task, which, it became obvious very quickly, was an enormous task, involving communications on an ongoing basis not only with my co-chair, Minister Wiens from the province of Saskatchewan, and with others in that province, but with all my provincial and territorial colleagues, with my colleagues within the Government of Canada, and with non-governmental groups who had issues, concerns, and suggestions for the social union framework.

I employed Georgette Sheridan not for three months, but from, I believe, late summer of 1998 until the successful completion of the Social Union Framework Agreement in 1999.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Minister, if you take a look at the page, it says that her contract was from September 24 to December 31.

I'm just wondering why Canadians shouldn't believe that becoming an Liberal MP is a neat way to get an extra job. We're talking about $83,246 for a matter of three months' work. That's not bad, is it?

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, as I say, Mr. Abbott, I'm sorry, your information is incorrect, in that Madam Sheridan worked for me for a much longer period than that, for almost the full time I was negotiating as the chief federal negotiator on the social union framework. In fact, she was my staff person on that file.

In fact, her choice was quite deliberate for me, Mr. Abbott, because my co-chair was from the province of Saskatchewan and I wanted somebody because I had another job to do and I could not travel to and from Saskatchewan on a regular basis. I thought it would be beneficial, one, to have someone with legal training, because we are negotiating with the provinces and the territories and language is important, and two, it would be very helpful in maintaining the daily ongoing connection with my provincial co-chair and the province of Saskatchewan, which were so instrumental in the successful conclusion of this—

Mr. Jim Abbott: But I—

Ms. Anne McLellan: —if I had someone on the ground, and Georgette, to me, seemed to be a perfectly wonderful choice for that—

Mr. Jim Abbott: So she—

Ms. Anne McLellan: —based on her skill set.

Mr. Jim Abbott: —basically made $20,000 a year more as a consultant than as an MP for a year.

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, and keep in mind, as well, Mr. Abbott, that when you talk about the total amount, some of that obviously is her compensation, but a significant part of it was in fact expenses incurred. If you want to know how much time I spent travelling...

Mr. Jim Abbott: No. I want to know why you let a contract to an ex-MP in that way.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Because I believe— In what way? I believe she was the best-qualified person to help me deliver on the mandate given to me by the Prime Minister, which was to work with my provincial and territorial colleagues to deliver a Social Union Framework Agreement.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You don't think that's—

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I did not think I would have to intervene today, but there are things being said that upset me.

Up to now, all the questions that have been asked, whether or not we agree with the minister, have been put in a graceful manner and they were very clear-sighted questions, but now the debate is getting completely out of hand. I really do not see how being a liberal MP or an ex-liberal MP will prevent someone from being good in his or her profession. That is part of this kind of brainwashing that is being done by people who are trying to brainwash the public into thinking that as soon as you work for the government, and if you are a member of a political party that happens to be the party in power, there is something wrong. People are left with the impression that there is indeed something wrong. I will tell you what is wrong: it is to try to put that idea into people's heads. That is what I want to denounce, Mr. Chairman. It is completely unacceptable.

• 1635

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Minister, I will get back to the Young Offenders Act. Judging by your complete answers, you must be quite unhappy in the House, where you must reply in 30 seconds.

You said earlier that the implementation of changes to the youth justice legislation would cost $206 million. That is what you said earlier, or that is what I understood.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No. That's new money. We already contribute substantial money to the provinces to run the youth justice system.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay. I will come back to my first question. I am not talking about the new money that you are giving to the provinces. What amount will be spent on the implementation of the new legislation only?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: The implementation of the new legislation is almost exclusively within the provinces and the territories. Therefore, with regard to the new money that I requested and received in the budget of February 1999, the vast majority of that will go to the provinces, which will be implementing, for example, or building on and enhancing existing diversion programs, community-based programs, and programs of rehabilitation in their detention facilities.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am not sure that I understood correctly. You are saying that the provinces will be responsible for the implementation of the new legislation that you want us to pass? Is that it? How much will it cost the provinces to implement that new legislation? You must have some estimation of that amount.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, as I say, we have the new money that we received in the budget, but right now we are negotiating, working with the provinces to determine where their additional costs will be. For example, I would presume that my colleague in the province of Quebec, the Attorney General, might well want to enhance some of the existing community-based programs that she has—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand, but—

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: —and those discussions are going on now with the provinces.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay, but I would like to have a breakdown of the additional cost. You just said that the new legislation would bring about some additional costs. You said so yourself 30 seconds ago. My question is quite simple: what is your estimation of the additional costs associated with the new legislation?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: I don't intend to “bank”, if you like, the $206 million we've received over the next three years, so that will be added to the $143 million we provide annually to the provinces for the implementation of the existing youth justice system. We have indicated and the budget has indicated how, over the next three years, that $206 million will be divided in each of those years. We are now in the process of negotiating with the provinces as to their respective programming agendas and the respective amounts that will be provided.

I don't know, Morris, if you want to add anything to that.

[Translation]

Mr. Morris Rosenberg: We are trying to do this in cooperation with the provinces. You do not enter into a cooperation process by saying outright that this will be the formula for distributing the money between the provinces. We are trying to ascertain their needs, the way they will utilize the existing monies and the additional amount they will need to implement their programs. These discussions will enable us to determine the amounts and the distribution between the provinces. At this time, we cannot say specifically what amount will go to Quebec, to Manitoba or to Ontario.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand that perfectly. But you said that you would negotiate with the provinces. I have been a negotiator; I used to work in the field of labour law. Before entering into any negotiation, I would sit down with my client and my client would tell me: "Here is approximately what we are able to pay, here is approximately what we can afford, here is what the union is asking for, and here is how much it would cost." So I am asking you what is your estimation of this amount. I am not asking how much will go to each province, I am asking for your aggregate estimate of the additional cost that will be required to implement that new legislation. I am not asking for the breakdown by province or by program, but rather the total cost for the implementation of the new legislation throughout Canada.

• 1640

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: We asked for and received $206 million over the next three years to assist provinces in either building upon or developing new programming to achieve the objectives of our youth justice legislation. I think that's the best my deputy and I can do, and we'll be happy, because it will be public information, to share with you the outcome of the negotiations with the provinces. It will be clear to everybody in terms of what amount each province and territory will receive of that $206 million, in addition to the breakdown, the allocations, of the existing $143 million a year that we provide.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: There was some wrangling between the government of Quebec and the federal government about an amount of $87 million that is owed to the Quebec government by the federal government since 1989 for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act. Are these $87 million included in the $206 million? Or could these $87 million—you are in the middle of a negotiation—be over and above the $206 million?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No. Quebec is not alone in this. A number of provinces were, I think, concerned when we in fact had to—again, because of program review—cut back our contribution to youth justice in this country. We've already talked of another program in which that happened. We delayed, because in fact it was decided by Canadians, not by this government, that getting the deficit under control and eliminating it and getting the debt under control was their number one priority. In fact, as we know, in the province of Quebec, the number one priority is getting taxes down.

So we listened to Canadians, and that meant that some of our programs had to be reduced, right? Youth justice was no exception to that. Actually, the decreases in funding—Morris, correct me if I'm wrong—started before 1993 and in fact started as early as 1988-89 under the previous government, when contributions were capped. There was, by the previous government, a move away from fifty-fifty cost sharing. Nobody denied that. Nobody is saying that didn't happen.

There are those provinces—all of them actually, all ten and two territories—that would like us to return to fifty-fifty cost sharing. We simply are not in the financial position to do that at this time, but certainly the new resources, the $206 million, when allocated to the provinces, will indeed help them meet the pressures of delivering a youth justice system that meets the diversity of concerns and approaches reflected by the provinces and the territories in this country.

So I am not here to suggest that the previous government didn't cap and move away from fifty-fifty. I'm not here to deny that during program review we in fact reduced the funding somewhat more. We did, and we did it for clear reasons supported by the vast majority of Canadians.

Having said that, we were able to receive additional funding in this budget, and that will certainly relieve some of the pressure on the provinces and the territories.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, in your comments you made reference to the comprehensive review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I was just wondering what form that review will be taking.

Ms. Anne McLellan: We announced the review in April. It will be a review that takes approximately one year. It will be chaired by the former Mr. Justice Gérard La Forest. He will be joined by three other panel members.

Their terms of reference are fairly broad, but in fact they are basically to review the Canadian Human Rights Act. For example, in regard to the grounds of discrimination, do they meet the needs of a modern society heading into the next century? Should things be added? Should things be better defined? Should things be taken out? Although that probably wouldn't be the case... Although I can't prejudge any of the work of the review panel, obviously.

• 1645

We also asked them to specifically address their attention to the concerns of the Auditor General in his report. In fact, the public accounts committee identified the same concerns a few months ago in adopting the Auditor General's report, if you like, and in asking what steps we would be taking to move on the Auditor General's concerns. His concerns dealt primarily with the structure of the commission and the tribunal, as to whether it's an efficient system, as to whether, in light of 20 or 25 years' worth of human rights experience in the provinces and territories and other countries, it might not be time to analyse and review whether our structure is the appropriate one for the next century.

It's a wide mandate, but it is one that I have no doubt the four panel members will be able to deliver on in a timely fashion, and I think it's important. We've had the Canadian Human Rights Act in place for over 20 years. It's time to take a look at it and see whether it meets the real needs of those who believe they have had a right violated or have been discriminated against, by either the federal government or those agencies and parts of the private sector that are federally regulated.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So does the mandate have a specific return date?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Indeed. I have indicated that I would like this review completed within one year.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, you said, in response to a question from my colleague, Mr. Marceau, that you acknowledge that there was a cap put on by the previous government with respect to the funding for the Young Offenders Act and its administration, and—

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes. That would have the Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes. You acknowledge that the current Liberal government went beyond those freezes and cut back further in the administration of the costs.

What you haven't acknowledged is the billions of dollars that were cut from transfers to provinces by your government since it took office in 1993 and the effect that has had on the delivery of services like child welfare and social services—in every province. Yet these are the same services that are going to be required, in many cases, to pick up the slack through the administration of this new Youth Justice Act.

You've said yourself that this is a very proactive piece of legislation that is going to require early intervention. Well, we all know that early intervention, on the ground, in many cases involves child welfare, social services, home visits, and these types of things. Those are the services that have been cut the most in the last six years as a result of cuts to transfers. That hasn't factored in.

So as a result of these cuts, you're now downloading, through this legislation, further workload for these people, these front-line delivery-of-services people in the provinces. How do you justify that?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Indeed, we're not downloading. What we're doing through the budget is getting new resources to help them do what they were already doing—and hopefully enhance it. If you're suggesting to me that transfer payments were indeed cut by this government, if you're suggesting to me that governments—Quebec's, Ontario's, my own in Alberta, and others—had to cut programs—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Anne McLellan: —to deal with what was identified as Canadians' number one priority, which was getting their fiscal house in order so that we could sustain into the future and the next century the programs we all care about, then, yes, we all did that.

In fact, because of the budget of February 1999, provinces and territories will have an additional almost $206 million to help them be proactive, be it in diverting young people out of the formal justice system or in rehabilitating and reintegrating those who do break the law and harm others.

So yes, there have been cutbacks. I don't think that surprises any of us. I'm not here to apologize for that. We did what we believed we had to do, and other governments all over this country did the same thing. We are now able to provide additional funding for the problems.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But the $206 million that you're talking about is not nearly the equivalent of the results of the cutbacks by your government from the administration of the Young Offenders' Act and is not equivalent to the cutbacks that resulted from the cuts to transfer payments—

Ms. Anne McLellan: You know what?

Mr. Peter MacKay: —and it's to be administered over three years—

Ms. Anne McLellan: You know what?

Mr. Peter MacKay: —so that's less than $100 million a year that's going to be added to the administration of this new act. It's still nowhere near the 50% obligation by the federal government to the administration of the Young Offenders Act.

Ms. Anne McLellan: You know, if what you're saying is that the previous government moved away from fifty-fifty cost sharing, yes. If what you're saying is that to deal with the number one priority of Canadians—deficit and debt reduction—we further reduced our contribution, yes. If you're suggesting that we are now reinvesting, yes.

• 1650

Are you suggesting that in fact the provinces can make choices about transfer payments? The amount has been reduced, but it is up to the provinces to decide their priorities. In fact, they can—and I would hope that some of them will—take some of those dollars and say that their young people are so important to them that they will spend those dollars here as opposed to there. That's why the provinces wanted a transfer, a block fund without strings. They wanted to make those kinds of more efficient allocative decisions for their local circumstances. We delivered on that. This government delivered on that, and therefore, I would hope—

Mr. Peter MacKay: What I was suggesting is that the money you're putting back is not equivalent to the money that was taken out.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, you've already mentioned that in that last question.

Mr. John McKay, please.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): First of all, Madam Minister, I congratulate you on your ability to draw a crowd.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John McKay: I have to question whether there's any work being done in the courts of this nation as we speak.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I hope so.

An hon. member: Careful. You don't want to go there, John.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John McKay: I'd like to draw the conversation back to some marginal relevance as to why you're here, and that is apparently about main estimates.

I noticed that in the beginning the gross program spending goes from $655 million down to $629 million, then down to $600 million, and then down to $591 million, over the course of the next three years plus one. You then take about $10 million out of client services and another $10 million plus out of planned spending, etc.

Something has to give. We all understand program review, etc., so what is it that's going to give here? What services are no longer going to be available through your department because of these reduced revenues?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Actually I would defer to those who are experts in this matter, but I do believe, Mr. McKay, that the vast majority of the reductions that you see here, moving out past 1998-99, are in fact due to the fact that firearms registry costs will consistently go down over the next number of years and, therefore, there will be less requirement—I think.

Do we have someone here who is going to explain this?

Mr. Morris Rosenberg: Robert Bourgeois, from corporate affairs is—

The Chair: Minister, if we don't have the time, you can undertake to provide this information.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. Bourgeois, I think you can explain this.

Mr. Robert Bourgeois (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Affairs, Department of Justice): Yes, in terms of the 1999-2000 planned spending—

The Chair: Excuse me. Could you introduce Mr. Bourgeois, just for the record?

Mr. Morris Rosenberg: Sorry, Mr. Chair. This is Robert Bourgeois, who is the assistant deputy minister of corporate affairs in the department.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg.

Mr. Robert Bourgeois: Over the next three years, in terms of the major items that will account for the decreases, it's primarily, for this year relative to last year, attributed to firearms, and the reduction there is for $64.6 million. If we move, then, to the next year, firearms is again a major item, which accounts for—

Mr. John McKay: Excuse me. Could you direct me to the material in the main estimates that you're deriving those figures from?

Mr. Robert Bourgeois: If I can direct your attention to page 4, to go from the $655 million down to the $629 million, and then down to $600 million and to $591 million... To try to basically explain the major differences between those items on a year-per-year basis, what I can do is just give you the principal areas of increase and the principal areas of decrease, which, for instance, would account for a net reduction in the two years of $26.3 million, coming down from last year to this year. Those are as a result of a number of increases, principally totalling $40.8 million for youth justice, $14.4 million for crime prevention, $2.3 million for dispute resolution, and a series of lesser items—

• 1655

Mr. John McKay: Sir, you're jumping numbers here. I followed you from page 4, and I followed your numbers through and then you said—

Ms. Anne McLellan: John, I think it's fair to say the numbers that Robert has just given are not in this document.

Mr. Robert Bourgeois: They're not in this book.

Mr. John McKay: Not in this book?

Mr. Robert Bourgeois: No, that's the net.

Ms. Anne McLellan: He's explaining... What you have in the document is the net numbers—

Mr. John McKay: Okay.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —so what we can do is provide you with that information. I realize that as Robert goes through those numbers here, it's a little hard to follow them in regard to the increases and the decreases in the programming.

If you would like, Mr. Chair, we can provide you with that in a tabular form.

Mr. John McKay: That would be useful, but give me the global answer, then, in terms of what's up and what's down.

Mr. Robert Bourgeois: Okay. In terms of the global answer, in terms of what's up and what's down, for the reduction of $26.3 million for the first year, the two largest items are for an increase in youth justice and an increase in crime prevention. Youth justice is up by $40.8 million, crime prevention is up by $14.4 million, and the major decrease is for firearms, $64.6 million. So if you take a significant number of increases and decreases, you come to a net decrease of $26.3 million—these numbers you see on page 4 on your report.

If you go to the following year, that is to say, 1999-2000 versus 2000-01, there's a total difference of $28.8 million and that is principally as a result of an increase of $25.5 million in youth justice and principally as a result of—

Mr. John McKay: I don't understand it. Your program spending goes down by $29 million and you talk about going up.

Mr. Robert Bourgeois: Well, because it's a sum of ups and downs. There are both increases and decreases—

Mr. Morris Rosenberg: There are more downs than ups.

Mr. Robert Bourgeois: —and there are more downs than ups in this case.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The big down is on the firearms registry, right? But there are some programs that are increasing, so it's a combination of ups and downs, but the downs are more than the ups and, therefore, we have a reduced budget.

Mr. John McKay: The downs are more than the ups?

Ms. Anne McLellan: We will send you the details of that.

The Chair: I think it would be better if you would, Madam Minister. It might be more productive.

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

I apologize for a detailed question.

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, that's quite all right. In fact, it's a good question, because the net cost, if if you look from 1998-99, the year that ended March 31, out over the next three years, including the one we're in, our expenditures go down from $652 million to $526 million.

Mr. John McKay: Yes. On the face of it, that's a reduction of 10% to your budget.

Ms. Anne McLellan: We put a premium on efficiency that way, Mr. McKay.

The Chair: I indicated at the beginning of the meeting that we would terminate at 5 o'clock. We are at that time now.

Perhaps as a courtesy, Madam Minister... Mr. Reynolds indicated that perhaps Mr. Ramsay had a question.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I would be happy to receive Mr. Ramsay's question.

The Chair: This is the last line of questioning.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Probably I'll never ask you another question.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Oh, Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: There are really two areas, but the first thing I'd like to ask you is that inasmuch as we have such a great desire to visit with you, why is it that you're only willing to share one hour with us today?

Ms. Anne McLellan: I've been here for an hour and a half.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Oh, an hour and a half.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes. In fact, I think committee members who come here regularly will tell you that I'm found in and about the environs of this committee on a fairly regular basis, Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: That's good.

Ms. Anne McLellan: There's no lack of me being around.

The Chair: Perhaps we could get to the question, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Right.

There are two areas—and I wasn't going to touch on the firearms bill until you mentioned it in your opening remarks. The fact is, under section 92 of the Criminal Code part of Bill C-68, when a transfer of a firearm takes place, the receiver of the firearm must have a registration card or a registration of that firearm according to section 92—and I think it's under paragraph (d). If they don't have it, they're subject to a penalty of 10 years in jail.

• 1700

You're not registering. You're not issuing registration certificates. Your department is issuing TAN numbers, which amounts to...and there's no legislative authority in either the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code portion of Bill C-68 for a TAN number. It amounts to a temporary registration. Are you prepared to bring in amending legislation that would create a temporary registration? There is no provision for it now and there is some concern that you're violating your own act.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I understand this argument. Certainly it has been one that has been raised by some in the firearms community. There is a case, as I understand it right now, that has been commenced by an individual. That matter is before the courts. My department will be filing its statement of defence in relation to this matter very soon, but we believe, and our factum obviously will indicate that we believe, along with the provincial firearms officers and territorial firearms officers, that the issuance of TAN numbers is in fact in fulfilment of and in compliance with the legislation.

I don't know if you—or Bill—want to add anything to that in relation to this issue, which is one that we have talked about.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: My question, of course, Madam Minister, was whether, in view of the possible outcome of this court challenge, the department is considering legislation that would amend the bill and allow for a temporary registration certificate.

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, we're not, because we believe that which is being done, the issuance of TAN numbers, is in compliance with and fulfils the requirements of the existing legislation—but perhaps Mr. Bartlett could respond.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: No. That's fine.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Okay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I want to move to another area. I just wanted your response to the possibility of amending your legislation.

Ms. Anne McLellan: As you know, Mr. Ramsay, because this matter is before the courts, it's inappropriate to speculate.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I understand.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I have simply indicated to you that we will be filing our statement of defence and that is clearly the thrust of our statement of defence that we will be filing.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you for that.

Before I move on to my other area—

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, you may want to move on now, because your time is short.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It has to do with the Leonard Peltier case. Does the Department of Justice consider the affidavit referred to by John Reynolds to be false and fraudulent? If it does, does the department consider the additional evidence you referred to, which was used to justify the extradition of Leonard Peltier from Canada to the United States, to be validated any more so than the affidavit in question?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Just let me reiterate what I said earlier. The review done by my predecessor, which will be released by myself very soon, does conclude that there is no evidence of any fraud in the extradition process. I want to make it absolutely plain here today again, because there has been misunderstanding on this point: the review further concludes that without the Poor Bear affidavits, which is the only aspect of the evidence in this case that has ever been called into question by anyone, there was sufficient evidence to justify extradition.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Does the justice department consider that evidence to be valid?

The Chair: Last question.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: When will you be able to release the report you referred to?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Very soon. You heard from my deputy that we heard from the United States government today and that they are willing to have government-to-government communications released. Therefore, it will be a case of simply compiling the entire file and providing it in a timely manner.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Madam Minister, we appreciate your presence here today and we appreciate your responses to some very tough questions.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It was my pleasure to be here. I always enjoy being here. I thank you all very much and I look forward to coming back and seeing you all.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An hon. member: ...every day.

• 1705

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, you know that we could have a lot of very interesting policy debates around this table.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.