JUST 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 16, 2001

• 1633

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call the eighteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.

Today we'll be hearing from the Minister of Justice on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

Before calling on the minister and other witnesses, I'd like to thank the members for their patience in allowing us to push back the meeting an hour to accommodate a couple of our guests—I guess we didn't accommodate them quite enough. It's a busy place here, and we do our best to make sure everybody who can be included is included.

With that, I would call on the minister, and perhaps she can introduce her travelling companions.

[Translation]

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Let me introduce my deputy minister, Morris Rosenberg, and Catherine MacLeod from the deputy's office. We have then a cast of thousands back here, all of whom come from the Department of Justice and are ready at a moment's notice to answer any questions you may have.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, colleagues, and thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and to bring you up-to-date on the work of the Department of Justice.

I am joined here by my deputy,

[English]

as I've indicated, Morris Rosenberg.

[Translation]

Before I begin my formal comments, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for the hard work and dedication you have shown in examining and refining the legislative initiatives that have been placed before you. Together, we have dealt with issues that are important to Canadians.

• 1635

[English]

In the past my practice has been to take you on a quick tour of the accomplishments of the Department of Justice over the past year. This year I would like to provide you with a picture of our departmental activities, the evolving environment in which the Department of Justice operates, and how it responds to the changing needs and expectations of Canadians.

Since becoming Minister of Justice I have considered my main goal to be helping to provide Canadians with an effective and responsive system of justice. In recent years this goal has become more challenging, as all of you on this committee are well aware. Today globalization and technology are having an impact on law and the administration of justice. Take, for example, crime. Crime follows opportunity. Modern society presents opportunities for new crimes and new ways of committing old crimes, often at long distance and across borders, using telephones or the Internet, and there are new ways of concealing evidence, laundering money, and committing fraud.

So the challenge is to maximize the benefits of globalization for our citizens, while at the same time protecting them from its risks. To do this effectively, we must be willing to rethink our basic notions of sovereignty, human rights, and privacy. Most importantly, we must be willing to work around the world, in a wide variety of fora, on a host of emerging issues that are of direct relevance to the lives of Canadians here at home.

In the time I have today I cannot detail all the work the department is doing in the international arena, but I would like to give you a few highlights, because it's becoming of increasing importance and relevance and, I think, is often perhaps not accorded the attention it deserves.

We continue to play an important role in international forums, such as the United Nations, the OAS, the OECD, the Council of Europe, and the G-8, in addressing international criminal justice issues. The Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which came into force on October 23, 2000, enabled Canada to meet its obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. We do continue to work with the Department of Foreign Affairs to support the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

We also participated in the negotiation and development of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which Canada signed, along with two supplementary protocols, on December 14, 2000. I'm very proud to say that people in my department were some of the lead negotiators and drafters of that particular convention.

Departmental officials played a signficant role in the negotiation and development of the Council of Europe draft convention on cyber-crime, which is scheduled to be finalized in this year. As well, the department participated in G-8 working groups relating to transnational organized crime, mutual legal assistance, and high-tech crime. We have also been working with the Commonwealth secretariat on computer crime.

International anti-corruption efforts, particularly in the UN, the OAS, and the OECD, are also part of our ongoing commitment in the international arena. We expect to play a key role in negotiating a new UN instrument against corruption.

As a final bit of important information, Justice will be working with our colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to prepare for the Canadian presidency of the G-8 in the year 2002.

Dealing with emerging issues is only one part of our challenge. Another is the growing interest of Canadians in having a greater voice in all aspects of the justice system. I see the emergence of an expectation, a demand for a government that is not there merely to impose, but to interact with our fellow citizens. For us in government, this new reality is gratifying, because it is evidence of an engaged citizenry, the cornerstone of a civil society. It is also a validation of the path we have been following, to consult with Canadians, to share information, to offer more opportunities for the provinces and territories and other stakeholders to participate in the development of our legislative and policy agendas. Your role in all of this is crucial, because as members of the justice committee, you have a unique capacity to invite Canadians to express their views. Over the years your reports and advice have proven invaluable, and you have had the opportunity to shape the legislation that comes before you.

• 1640

So, colleagues, what are the challenges ahead?

One area where extensive public involvement is necessary is family law. Our goal has been and continues to be to provide Canadians with a seamless and effective family law system across Canada. This being so, and because this is a matter of shared jurisdiction, we have undertaken with the provinces and territories to consult with Canadians. In addition to hearing from Canadians, we know we need to support programs for child-centred initiatives in family law. Last year's federal budget included close to $30 million of new funding, and this funding will continue until 2003. These funds will go to the provinces and territories, so that they are able to expand programs and services, such as parenting information and skills development, mediation projects, and innovative court-based support programs.

Numerous pilot projects across the country that seek to reduce confrontation and enable parents to focus on what is in the best interests of their children are being supported by federal funds. For example, one project in British Columbia requires parents separating or divorcing to consider a range of dispute resolution options before going to court. They must meet separately with a triage family justice counsellor before setting a court date. The counsellor takes into consideration any family violence issues, conducts a needs assessment, provides referrals, and offers information on dispute resolution options. Meetings are mandatory in non-urgent cases only. Urgent cases are heard by a judge immediately.

Some people have been quick to criticize the Government of Canada for not moving fast enough on legislative changes in this area. To these people I offer the explanation that we are committed to hearing from Canadians. We are committed to working with the provinces and the territories. We are committed to making changes that are in the best interests of the child.

Before I leave this issue, I would encourage those who think we are not moving fast enough to keep in mind the shared jurisdiction over family law. The provinces and territories have laws that apply to parents who have never married or who have married and are now separated. Their property laws—the provinces, the territories—their social assistance programs, their taxation systems, to name but a few, are interwoven. Any amendment to one will have important repercussions on a myriad of other programs. So we must take the time to do it right. It would therefore be unwise, as some would advocate, to move precipitously in this area.

[Translation]

This government has a history of decisive action to safeguard our most vulnerable young citizens. Bill C-15, the package of Code amendments that I introduced on March 14, creates a number of offences that will further protect children from sexual exploitation.

[English]

In addition to Bill C-15, we are continuing to look for other ways to improve the public safety and security of children. To that end, the child victims and the criminal justice system project is currently winding up consultations with front-line workers, officials, and other groups dedicated to protecting children. Certain areas of possible reform are emerging, including new child-specific offences, for example, criminal child neglect causing serious bodily harm or death, improved procedures for child witnesses, changes to the minimum age of consent for sexual activity, and sentencing to protect children.

We have a mandate to protect children from criminal harm, and we are looking at ways to use federal legislation to prevent convicted offenders from reoffending against children. But before we do this, we want to make sure that any reforms we introduce will be effectively implemented to improve security for children. For this reason, we are in the process of discussing possible reforms with the federal and provincial agencies that have practical experience of what is involved in protecting children from those who would offend against them.

Responding to the concerns of victims of crime remains a key challenge for the criminal justice system. Last August I announced a $10 million victims fund as part of a five-year, $25 million commitment by the Government of Canada to address victims' issues. This will help to ensure that the perspective of victims of crime is considered in the development of policies and legislation that affect them. For example, $175,000 has been allocated to Nova Scotia's Justice Department victims' services division, in order to create public education material for victims of crime and to improve victim services.

• 1645

Another important aspect of our victim initiative stems from Bill C-79 amendments, which, among other things, expand the provisions on victim impact statements and recognize that victims may need special consideration to participate at trials. Equally important is our continued commitment to engaging victims, advocates, service providers, and other players in the criminal justice system in an open dialogue aimed at informing legislative and policy development.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to take a moment to say something about the work of Priscilla de Villiers and CAVEAT in the context of victims. Under Priscilla's leadership, this grassroots organization has played an important role in changing the criminal justice system by ensuring that the perspective of victims is considered. Last week Priscilla announced that, after 10 years, CAVEAT would be closing later this month. On behalf of the Government of Canada, and I know all of you, I would publicly like to thank Priscilla and her team of volunteers for their dedication and commitment, for their perseverance, and for taking the opportunity to come before this committee on several occasions to share with us her experiences and thoughts on how to improve the justice system for those who find themselves involved in it through no fault or desire of their own.

In keeping with our fundamental values of equity and fairness, we need to be sure that all Canadians have reasonable access to the justice system. Legal aid is an essential part of that equation. That is why we have provided $82 million in each of the last five years to the provinces and territories for criminal legal aid. However, we recognize that there are increasing pressures on the system. To alleviate some of the pressures, we are providing an additional $20 million to the provinces and territories for fiscal 2001-2002. However, this alone, as we all know, is not a long-term solution. That is why we are providing resources for a joint federal-provincial-territorial research initiative to develop a long-term legal aid strategy that will provide greater accessibility to legal aid services across Canada.

While access to the courts must always be assured, alternate ways of resolving disputes can bring greater satisfaction at lower personal and financial costs than litigation. Therefore, wherever possible and appropriate, the Government of Canada is promoting innovative new mechanisms to resolve differences outside of the formal court process.

As part of the search for more effective alternatives to the courts, we are giving more attention to the concept of restorative justice. Restorative justice is about victims, offenders, and the community acting together to deal with the impact of crime. It's about helping victims overcome the trauma of crime and giving non-violent offenders a chance to help repair the damage that their actions have caused to victims and the community. In the area of youth justice, there are group or community justice committees and conferences. And, as part of the aboriginal justice strategy, we are seeing a greater reliance on sentencing and healing circles and alternative justice activities.

Mr. Chair, I have talked about how our policy development has evolved in this complex and challenging new environment of public participation, information, technology, globalization, and rapid change. To meet these broad governance challenges, the Department of Justice is changing the way we do business. Our new strategic plan, for example, calls on us to capitalize on our strengths to develop a more integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the delivery of services and policy. In particular, we are closing the gap between operations and policy so that these two business lines can function in a seamless and complementary manner.

In the interests of predicting and adapting to the rapid changes around us, we are also embracing innovative ways to organize ourselves and deliver our services. Thus, you will see a reorientation of our federal prosecution service, the Justice Department lawyers who prosecute federal offences in the areas of illicit drugs, organized crime, proceeds of crime, income tax evasion, and a host of regulatory issues. You will see a renewed federal prosecution service, featuring more cooperative approaches with the provinces and territories and strengthened relationships both inside and outside the department.

With the proliferation of international trade disputes and complex domestic litigation, we are also exploring better ways to manage our resources. We are therefore putting into place a new framework, which we call legal risk management, or LRM, to enhance our ability to foresee pending litigation and deal with it in a way that is both effective and likely to have the best outcome for Canadians. With LRM we will depend more on our regions to keep us informed of potential cases and explore a wider range of options to resolve disputes before they reach litigation. LRM is also about clearly articulating the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders to avoid duplication and to ensure that we are handling cases in the most effective way possible.

• 1650

Ladies and gentlemen, the development of a fair and effective system of justice is an ongoing work—a work in progress. The world around us is constantly changing, and so we must be ready to respond. As a government we are fully aware of that changing environment, the public's increased access to information, their demand for engagement, and their expectation that governments will be interactive and responsive to their views.

At the Department of Justice we are taking these expectations seriously. We are listening to Canadians by actively going out and soliciting their views on a wide range of topics. We are involving Canadians at the very heart of our legislative and policy processes. We believe this approach has helped craft measures that better meet the needs of Canadians.

[Translation]

Whether in the area of crime prevention, fighting organized crime, sentencing, civil or family law, our commitment to co-operation has resulted in better solutions for the people of Canada and to a safer and more secure society.

[English]

Of course, you play a pivotal role in this process. By inviting people to express their views on government initiatives, you are helping give Canadians the voice they deserve. For that I thank you, and I look forward to continuing our productive working relationship, and I welcome any questions or comments that you may have. And indeed, Monsieur le Président, let me say that I feel as if I almost live here with you and the committee members, since I have been here so often since the reconvening of Parliament. It's always a pleasure to be here, and I look forward to your comments and questions. Merci.

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to follow up on some comments that we heard from the Solicitor General and from Commissioner Zaccardelli in respect of the sex offender registry. I'm just wondering how much you could help us with this.

The Solicitor General indicated that we have a credible and comprehensive national registry called CPIC, and it's a national registry of all convicted offenders, including sex offenders. He said, “CPIC is Canada's national sex offender registry. It does not need to be created because it already exists.” He said, “We clearly already have a sex offender registry on a national scale.” He also indicated, “I was also very pleased that the government saw fit to put $115 million into the CPIC system to make sure it was updated and one of the best systems available.”

The commissioner stated that it appears, in direct contrast to the enthusiastic endorsement of the CPIC system, that the contents or the information that is on CPIC... Obviously there are elements of a sex registry and pieces of information, he says, on CPIC... It's really what we would call rudimentary, but there are elements there.

He talked about major upgrades to the system that prevent us from adding any additional capacity to the system at this time. He also advised us that they require legislation, in fact, to implement a sex offender registry, because of course CPIC doesn't put any positive onus on a sex offender to register on an ongoing basis, so there's no way of keeping up with the sex offenders.

My questions are on the funding. Are you aware of the $115 million and how that is being specifically directed to update the system in respect of tracking sex offenders?

Secondly, in view of the commissioner's comments on May 9 of this year that legislation is required in order to implement an actual sex registry—and I assume by that he means a sex offender registry—can you give us an indication as to when the legislation will be ready for introduction in the House?

• 1655

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you very much, Mr. Toews, for your question.

Let me say that I agree with my colleague, the Solicitor General, that with CPIC we have a registry. Obviously, the purposes of CPIC go well beyond issues surrounding sex offenders and keeping tabs on those sex offenders.

Let me say that, as far as I am aware, the Solicitor General... I know I have indicated to my provincial and territorial colleagues that I am more than ready to engage them in a discussion as to the changes necessary to CPIC to ensure that we do have an effective national registry, as the Solicitor General has indicated that he believes CPIC is.

I am fully willing to concede that there is probably more work that needs to be done in relation to that registry.

I was not aware of Commissioner Zaccardelli's comments, but obviously I take anything the commissioner says very seriously, as does the Solicitor General.

In terms of possible legislative changes, we do not need any legislative changes to create a registry. In fact the registry, in our opinion, exists, and that registry is CPIC.

You are probably referring to the fact that legislation would be required to ensure that those who refuse to register in fact do so. Is that what you're specifically referring to?

Mr. Vic Toews: That's exactly... How can you have an effective sex offender registry if there is no requirement, for example, for a sex offender who has been deemed by whatever process... I assume there will be a hearing process; someone will be designated a sex offender who should be registered. Obviously we have to set up the hearing process and indeed require under pain of some penalty to register either on an annual basis or when the address of that sex offender changes.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The latter is the key point—what you need is a mechanism by which you can ensure that you know where someone is presently residing.

Mr. Vic Toes: Well, no.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The conviction, I mean, is—

Mr. Vic Toews: If I could just interrupt, the other aspect of having a fair hearing is of course troubling as well. We don't just put people onto a registry without—

Ms. Anne McLellan: No.

Mr. Vic Toews: —some kind of a due process. I don't know whether that requires viva voce evidence or otherwise, but I think there is an entire legislative package that needs to be looked at, given that the commissioner has indicated that they need this legislation in order to put the system in place. I'm just wondering where we are, aside from any technical things, in terms of the actual setting up of the program so that the commitment that was made by the government in the House a few months ago to have a sex offender registry in place is in fact carried out.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I think you raise a very important issue. As I've indicated, I am willing to work with my provincial and territorial colleagues to see what needs to be done to ensure that CPIC is a useful system as it relates to sex offenders. What I will do is ask my deputy minister, Mr. Rosenberg, to take this up with his deputies. He is meeting with provincial and territorial deputies in June. I had anticipated a report from my colleagues at our next meeting, likely early this fall, but certainly I will ensure that Mr. Rosenberg talks to his provincial and territorial colleagues about this, and we will address possible legislative changes to meet the commitment made by the government.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Toews and Madam Minister.

Mr. Ménard, seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am sorry I missed the beginning of your presentation, but since you were a little upset with me during Question Period, I thought my absence might make your heart grow fonder.

With your permission, I would first like to welcome Jean-Sébastien Renaud, who is a member for a day from my colleague's riding of Longueuil. He wanted to see how committees work.

I have four questions for you.

• 1700

Can you give us a breakdown of the $206 million in assistance to the provinces for the youth justice strategy? You know just how much Michel Bellehumeur is your friend, and how conscientious he is. Could you detail what the $206 million is going to be used for and how much of it will be spent on concrete assistance to young people? That was my first question.

My second question is the following. Two amounts of money have been earmarked for the fight against organized crime: first, there is the $200 million you announced at a press conference last month, and then there is a pre-existing $584 million. Can you talk about the breakdown, and tell us how much money Quebec will get?

My third question is about marijuana. Do you not think the time has come to consider legalizing it? It would do no harm to consider it. You could also tell us how much money Canada spends to combat drug trafficking.

My fourth and final question is about the Canadian Human Rights Commission. How are your plans to reform the Commission coming along? The inclusion of social condition under the Canadian Human Rights Act is overdue. I am dying to work with you on reforming that act. Eight provinces have already included social condition in their human rights legislation, yet the federal government has not. Please be precise in answering.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: I'm going to work from the bottom.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't forget to congratulate my colleague.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Congratulations.

[Translation]

Congratulations. Welcome to Ottawa.

[English]

I'm going to start and work up. As you know, I undertook a major review of CHRA, the Canadian Human Rights Act, under the chairmanship of the former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest. He and his commission reported to me last June. They have some 160 amendments for change. In fact, because there are so many amendments and they are so sweeping in nature, both in terms of the structure of the commission and the tribunal process as well as substantive grounds, for example, in relation to the adding of social condition and other things, we are engaged right now in an interdepartmental process.

His recommendations affect every department of government. There's not one department or agency that would not in some way be impacted by at least some of those 160 recommendations. So that process is being led by my department. In fact that is ongoing. But it is a major process because we have so many people to talk to. Then we have the federally regulated private sector, which is also dealt with under the Canadian Human Rights Act—for example, the telecommunications sector, the banking sector, railways, and so on.

So what we are doing now is engaging that process in relation to the specific recommendations. But, absolutely, I undertook this investigation because I believed that some twenty or more years after the CHRA it was time to review it. I think we've seen recently, from the commission itself commissioning that in-house study of their internal management, that there are issues we need to address. We want an effective Human Rights Commission. We want an effective complaint system. We want legislation that reflects the modern realities of Canadian society.

That's not an easy task, but it's an important task. And in light of some things we saw last week, at least in terms of processes and structure, we need to work and move fairly quickly on this.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Will you table that in September?

Ms. Anne McLellan: I can't promise that I'm going to table proposed amendments to the CHRA. We may move on some structural changes in September, or even sooner if I could.

In terms of our consultations with other departments and the federally regulated private sector, I'm not sure we're going to be able to do that by September, but we are working on it. I give you my word that we are working diligently in terms of the implications of some of these recommendations.

Marijuana I have indicated before... And I know, Mr. Ménard, you're not going to be really happy with my answer.

Mr. Réal Ménard: For the second time today.

• 1705

Ms. Anne McLellan: I knew you would not take my response personally in any way.

We are not going to legalize marijuana or other so-called soft drugs. That is not on our agenda. My colleague the Minister of Health has moved in relation to medicinal use. The U.S. Supreme Court decision of just a few days ago doesn't really have any relevance to us in our context, but it's interesting to see the approach of the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the questions addressed to them regarding medicinal use.

We have carved out our own approach, a different approach, and I think a compassionate approach, where the Minister of Health has brought in new regulations under section 56 of the CDSA, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and indicated that those whose doctors confirm that marijuana is required for medicinal use will obviously be allowed to use it for those purposes. But we have no plans at this point to move forward with decriminalization, or to go the further step to legalization.

However, we all know that this is an area where we are learning more all the time. Medical evidence is still somewhat at variance. You get reports that indicate long-term use has serious medical consequences, other reports that suggest otherwise. I think it's incumbent upon us before we act to act on the best scientific evidence we can, and we are obviously in the process of determining what that is.

Also, I'm very interested in the work being undertaken by our colleagues in the Senate through a committee chaired by Senator Nolin. They're doing major work in relation to a whole panoply of issues in and around drug use. I look forward to hearing what they have to say. The Senate, I have to say, does outstanding work very often when they take on these major studies, and I look forward to what Senator Nolin and his colleagues have to say in this area.

In regard to the second question you asked, on organized crime, $200 million was announced by our colleague the Solicitor General and me a few weeks ago. As I indicated, some $45 million of that comes to the Department of Justice, in part to establish our federal prosecution service, our strategic prosecution service in the sense of bringing together some of our most experienced prosecutors who will work in the area of organized crime.

As I mentioned when I was here testifying on Bill C-24, organized crime trials are complex: there's a lot of wiretap evidence; it's lengthy; there are multiple parties; you need your best prosecutors, your most experienced prosecutors. So we're going to take some of those resources and put them toward creating—it's probably dramatic, but an accurate description—a little bit of a SWAT team that will be doing federal prosecutions in relation to organized crime.

The $584 million was given to the RCMP. That was money provided last year in the budget to the Solicitor General for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Those dollars are not going to Quebec, or any province; nor are the $200 million. Those dollars are either for our federal prosecution service, as I've indicated, or for Canada's national police force.

In relation to the allocation of dollars for provincial activities under the youth justice legislation, we were successful in getting additional dollars and those additional dollars are some $206 million.

I can assure you, Monsieur Ménard, Quebec stands to gain dramatically in relation to this new allocation. They gain something like 39% over and above what they're presently receiving.

Catherine, I'll let you perhaps say a little bit more about that for Monsieur Ménard.

The Chair: Could you be as brief as possible, because we want to move—

Ms. Anne McLellan: He had four questions.

The Chair: I know he asked four questions; I've been counting.

Ms. Catherine Latimer (Director General, Youth Justice Policy, Department of Justice): The additional funds are a contribution to the overall amount the federal government puts toward supporting the provinces' administration of youth justice activities.

• 1710

There are really three categories into which those resources fall: one is the baseline agreement; the second is the bridge funding, which is intended to encourage innovative approaches and to help implement the new legislation; and the third is the youth justice renewal fund. So there are really three categories of input.

In terms of the base agreement, there is essentially a 2% addition to all jurisdictions over the five-year window of the initiative, and there is an equity distribution. Under the previous regime, where there used to be more access to 50-50 cost-sharing, some of those jurisdictions that availed themselves of more expensive routes for youth justice, such as custody, ended up getting disproportionately more of the federal government's resources, when it was not necessarily consistent with the policy intent. So part of what we've done is reallocate the funding levers to ensure they're delivering the policy intent, which is to promote alternatives to custody and more community-based alternatives. So Quebec and some of the other jurisdictions, such as B.C., that have lower custody rates stand to get quite a bit on this equity adjustment.

If you want the absolute figures for Quebec in terms of the bridge funding and the base funding over the next few years should agreements actually be reached with Quebec, it would be $34 million in 2000-01, $37 million in 2001-02, $39 million in $2002-03, $40 million in 2003-04, and $39 million in 2004-05, for a grand total across the life of the initiative of about $248 million.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll turn to Mr. DeVillers.

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

Madam Minister, I know that at some point you'll likely be before us on Bill C-15—

Ms. Anne McLellan: I will.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: —but if the rumours are true, it may be later rather than sooner. So I'd like to get a couple of questions in on that, if I can.

One issue has to do with agricultural activities. In my riding I've been receiving inquiries from agricultural producers, and I just wondered if you could tell us what the intent of the government is in respect of restrictions on agricultural activities through Bill C-15.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Really, there are no restrictions on agricultural activities. As I have said before, in modernizing those provisions of the code it was never our intention to interfere with the activities of farmers, hunters, fishers, or others. I think we have made that plain through the clarifications. We listened very closely to members of our own caucus, members of the opposition, and stakeholders from across the country, and we have amended those provisions to make our intention absolutely plain. I believe we have now made it plain that we are striking at the kinds of wilful, abusive conduct that, tragically, we read about all too often in the papers, which is clearly unacceptable to all Canadians.

Let met tell committee members that there is no subject on which I receive more mail on a weekly basis than the animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, including demands from people to modernize the provisions, because they believe they are profoundly out of sync with the values of modern Canadian society.

In fact, this is part of our ongoing initiative to modernize the code. We don't do it all at once. It's simply too large a project. We do it part by part and piece by piece. These provisions have not been amended in a very long time. As they presently exist, they do not reflect the values of the vast majority of Canadians.

But we do want to reassure medical researchers, hunters, fishers, farmers, and ranchers that these provisions will not criminalize any activity they are presently lawfully carrying on. In fact, the clarification in the law should make it much clearer in terms of what we are striking at and the kinds of wilful, horrible, and abusive conduct that Canadians condemn outright. Therefore, I think the provisions should be acceptable to everyone.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The other provisions in Bill C-15 are those dealing with section 690, the miscarriage of justice. Perhaps you could comment on the relevance and importance of those amendments from your perspective.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I think section 690 of the code is a very important section, and it's one that is used by a substantial number of Canadians every year.

• 1715

Section 690, for those who perhaps aren't as well aware of it as you are, Paul, is a provision in the code that is viewed, I suppose, as a provision of last resort after an accused person has run through all of his or her appeals and they make the argument that they have been wrongfully convicted.

We spend a lot of time, and I know this committee does, thinking about ways of changing the criminal law, in some cases to make it tougher or more effective, in terms of ensuring that we condemn certain kinds of anti-social behaviour. We criminalize it, and we facilitate catching the criminals and dealing with them.

However, it's a human system, and a system makes mistakes. That's what section 690 is there for. We all know of some of the mistakes, such as Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall, and David Milgaard. I think I've said to this committee before, think about the irony of the fact that Canada's longest-serving prisoner at the time spent 24 years behind bars and in fact DNA evidence exonerated him. So a provision such as section 690 is important.

There are concerns around section 690, and that's why we are reforming it in the sense that we're bringing greater accountability and transparency. We're setting out in the code the key conditions, if you like, in terms of what constitutes the basis for a section 690 application. I will have to report to Parliament every year. I will have to prepare an annual report in relation to what my department does.

We are going even further in terms of creating an independent unit within the department. It will have an independent head. If you have any suggestions as to who might head up this unit, I would gratefully receive them. We're in the process of trying to find the right person from outside the department to head up this unit, which is of great importance to me and I think to all Canadians. We're increasing the powers of the investigators in this unit, because what they're called upon to do is assess this application that alleges a wrongful conviction. They need the power to call witnesses, to demand the production of documents, and so on. We're not adopting the British model. We're not creating this huge new bureaucracy that stands alone as an independent commission. In my view, there is no necessity for that. The process we have in place I think reflects the best possible approach and one that would meet the legitimate needs under section 690.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few comments and questions about the whole issue of conditional sentences. In Manitoba, specifically Winnipeg, we've seen a dramatic increase in so-called property offences, break and enters and auto thefts, and many are attributing this dramatic increase to the use of conditional sentences. Conditional sentences leave the public with the impression that people are in fact in custody while in fact they are not. A conditional sentence, in the opinion of any objective and detached observer, is simply another name for a suspended sentence.

Clearly, there are no additional conditions that can be placed on a person in the context of conditional sentences that could not have already been done in the context of suspended sentences. In fact, the only thing it appears to be doing is giving the judiciary an added burden to interpret these laws and also to comply with what is apparently a deliberate policy of keeping people out of jail even when the public interest may well indicate that they should be in jail. I'm specifically concerned about these property offences.

• 1720

I understand that the department is monitoring the case law and looking at the developments with regard to conditional sentences. Are you coming to any conclusions in respect of the impact of conditional sentences, specifically in the context of conditional sentences that are now being used to release violent offenders back onto the streets?

In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of many, this was never the intention of conditional sentences. Yet robberies and other crimes are being punished, if one can even use that word in this context, by the imposition of conditional sentences. Why couldn't you just use suspended sentences if that's what in fact you're trying to do and be honest with the public? The use of conditional sentences is being dishonest with the public in terms of the impression it's leaving with them. I'm concerned that we would ask the judiciary to be involved in that kind of sentencing process.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Let me say that you raise an issue that I find to be very difficult and very troubling. I share your concern about a conditional sentence being used in relation to serious, violent crimes. In fact, that was never the purpose. My predecessor has made that very plain and in fact went back in and tried to clarify that with further amendments to the code.

We awaited the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification. They did provide some clarification, but perhaps not the degree of clarification many would have liked.

First of all, no judge should be issuing a conditional sentence where he or she believes that the accused person is a danger to the community. That's just a given as far as I'm concerned. You and I, Mr. Toews, might disagree with some of the circumstances in which judges have made an assessment as to whether someone is a danger to the community and what that means, but for me that's the bottom line. No judge should be granting any conditional sentence in any situation where an accused person could endanger the community.

I think we need to watch this very carefully. I understand the frustration of Canadians, and I share some of that frustration in relation to this area. I appreciate courts of appeal, such as my own in Alberta, taking a very clear stand. They've articulated some very clear circumstances in which conditional sentences should and should not be used. I'm not going to say that there's uniformity of approach from courts of appeal across the country in this regard.

I think we need to continue to monitor this area. I am more than willing to contemplate going in and making legislative changes if it is our assessment that the courts are not... Let me rephrase that: when I say we, I include this committee, because you still have a review to do on conditional sentences. Your committee was seized with this task some years ago by the House of Commons. I know you're very busy, but I would really appreciate it if you could perhaps get to that sometime soon, maybe in the fall, because I want to hear, and probably will hear, from my provincial and territorial counterparts in relation to conditional sentences. So if the committee could take up that work, I would appreciate it.

We are continuing to monitor this area. My bottom line has always been that if we conclude that these sentences are not being appropriately used and if there are people at large in the community who are proven to be a danger to the community, that is a singularly inappropriate use of a conditional sentence, and I will do whatever it takes to make sure it stops.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Grose for three minutes.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1725

At the risk of being called a one-trick pony, I was going to address the youth criminal justice system, but Mr. Ménard stole most of my thunder. He didn't seem too happy with the answers; I was thrilled.

I also wanted to ask about Bill C-15. I get all kinds of letters from farmers and also from animal rights people. The closest thing to a farm in my riding is my vegetable garden. I did have a problem last year with my potatoes, but that's for another day.

There is one thing the provincial people keep asking us: When are we going, if ever, to return to pre-1989 funding, which was 50-50? I love to ask that because that was before my time, so it can't be my fault.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, obviously 50-50 cost-sharing is something the provinces would argue for in a number of areas, not only youth justice, but legal aid... Today I had the opportunity to meet with a very important part of our criminal justice system, native court workers, where in fact we contribute to the provinces directly for the work they do in the courts. That used to be 50-50, and it no longer is.

All these changes began more or less in the late 1980s, when the then government of the day became seized with the fiscal situation of the country. And of course we were dealing with an even more horrendous situation in the mid-1990s, so we have not returned to 50-50. However, I am pleased to say that in an area like youth justice, for example, we have received additional funds, which will be ongoing, which will increase the federal contribution. Are we back at 50-50? No. Would I like, at some point, to increase our contribution further, whether to 50-50 or some lesser amount? Yes, absolutely.

Where we need additional resources, I am more than willing to go and make that argument to my colleagues around the cabinet table. As a federal government, we need to understand that in the area of criminal justice it's a shared jurisdiction. There are many things we do that create expectations in relation to the public and that put additional financial burdens on the provinces and the territories. We need to be mindful of that.

I think we're doing a much better job. In my department we now go out of our way to try to understand, before we bring forward new legislation or new policies and programs, what the implications may be for those who work with us as partners in the administration of the justice system.

Are we doing our share? I think it will probably be a strange day when we have provinces coming here and arguing that we're giving them enough money, but my goal is to ensure that we're treating everyone fairly and that we're giving them adequate resources to deliver on our expectations, be they legislative or programmatic.

Certainly I'm always open to the concerns of the provinces. Legal aid is another area, as I mentioned in my comments earlier, where we're doing a major research initiative with the provinces and the territories. We know that there are long-term sustainability issues around legal aid. We have to look at them and the federal government has to be there, honestly and fairly, saying, with the provinces, how do we make sure legal aid is available in the long term; what should it look like; and what is our fair share in comparison or contrast to the provinces and the territories or, in the case of legal aid, the profession, which must obviously come to the table, and does through pro bono work and other means.

It's a complex area. I think we have gone some distance since we've turned the fiscal corner in terms of increasing dollar amounts, including youth justice; additional dollars this year and hopefully next for legal aid while we get our research done; hopefully some additional dollars in areas like crime prevention, which we talked about in the Speech from the Throne and the red book; and aboriginal justice initiatives. These are areas where I am working hard to attempt to convince my colleagues that additional resources are needed. And all those things are done in partnership with the provinces.

The Chair: I have five names left. I'd like everyone to be very brief. We would like to get to Mr. Williams' motion, as I mentioned yesterday. Please be brief, because we're going to hear bells shortly.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask a very quick question to our friends, the police officers here in this room. On pages 28 and 29 of your report on priorities, you indicate that your department is going to equip itself with new technical resources to better fight organized crime. What exactly are you referring to?

• 1730

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: I think that's probably a question that is better addressed to my colleague, the Solicitor General. I can tell you what dollars are used, our share of the $200 million: $43 million or $45 million comes to the Department of Justice, and I've explained what we're going to be using those dollars for.

In terms of the additional funds, they will be used by Canada's national police force, the RCMP. In fact, Commissioner Zaccardelli and the Solicitor General would be the people to ask.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is about technical resources. In your department's report, it says that your department is going to acquire technical resources and additional technology to help police officers fight organized crime better. What does that mean in concrete terms?

If you do not have the answer now, you could perhaps write to me.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: What page are you on?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On pages 28 and 29 of your Report on Plans and Priorities.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: I'm going to let my deputy minister answer this.

[Translation]

Mr. Morris Rosenberg (Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice): I am looking for the reference.

Mr. Réal Ménard: On pages 28 and 29, it says your department is going to be equipped with better technical resources to assist policing.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Why don't we move on and we'll come back to that. I promise to answer it before we're through here.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Owen, very briefly.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three quick questions, one on legal aid.

Since the Canada Assistance Plan was turned into the CHST, there's no longer a specific obligation for civil legal aid funding. The federal-provincial-territorial agreements dealing with criminal legal aid I gather are under renegotiation now.

In terms of your experience with the shifting in various provinces between criminal and civil legal aid—and I'm thinking of many cases in family legal aid in particular, where the consequences of not being represented to a person in court may be much more severe than someone before a criminal court—I wonder whether you're experiencing, over this ten-year period, a disturbing shift in provinces from civil to criminal legal aid, particularly given charter and agreement obligations.

Another question is whether you're giving any consideration to having joint prosecution services provided with the provinces. I know some provinces have been keen to assume this role for efficiency purposes as well as coordination purposes of prosecutions.

The third question is whether there has been a response to the Law Commission of Canada on their report on institutional child abuse, with particular reference to residential school child abuse.

Ms. Anne McLellan: On the last question, the report has been prepared. I do not believe it has been publicly released yet, but it will be coming in the next week or so. The response is forthcoming. We'll make sure the committee gets copies of that response.

On joint prosecution services, yes, it's part of our federal prosecution service review. We are interested in looking at ways we can work with the provinces. You are quite right, there are some provinces that are quite keen on looking at greater integration of prosecutorial services, certainly in the area of organized crime, but in other areas generally. I think we have to be open to looking at how you put together your best people to deliver the best quality of legal service as it relates to the prosecution function. I'm not one of those who has any problem... I don't stand on jurisdictional turf here, in the sense that if there's a province that wants to look at some kind of sweeping joint prosecutorial pilot project and use it as a model for the country, I'm quite happy to consider that.

I think we have to look at everything available to us, because you're talking about limited resources here and we want to get the best quality justice we can with the dollars we have available.

As to legal aid, civil legal aid is funded through the CHST. It is now block funding, as you know, so there's no particular line item. The dollars are in that block fund, and it's up to the provinces to determine how they want to use that.

• 1735

Certainly your point is a good one in terms of challenges for the legal aid system as it relates to areas like family law. I'm hearing a lot of concern in relation to that area, and certainly it's one of the things we will look at when we do our joint research project with the provinces and the territories.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Monsieur Rosenberg is ready to answer Monsieur Ménard.

The Chair: Monsieur Ménard, can we do this very quickly? The bells are ringing, and we have a motion we have to—

Mr. Réal Ménard: We can discuss it after.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Well done, Réal.

Now, you see the motion before you from Mr. Williams calling on the chair of the Human Rights Commission to be called to testify.

Do you have any clarity you wish to bring to this, given the time constraints?

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): I raised it in the House, Mr. Chair, and the Speaker referred it to this committee because the report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is automatically referred to this committee by virtue of the Standing Orders. This is why I've raised the issue here.

The Chair: You've heard the motion. Are there any other opinions to be expressed?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

In the current year, has the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before the committee to defend her report? When the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, of which I was a member, still existed, every year, the Chief Commissioner appeared before the committee for questioning. That was very important.

[English]

(Motion negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister and officials.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It was a pleasure be here, as always, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.