Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1017
View Peter MacKay Profile
CPC (NS)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, colleagues. It's a pleasure to be before you to discuss, as noted by the chair, the main estimates for the Department of Justice.
This is my 56th appearance before a standing committee as a government minister. Joining me today are the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general, William Pentney; the associate deputy minister, Pierre Legault; and senior assistant deputy minister of policy, Donald Piragoff; all of whom have extensive experience before committees as well and certainly within this department.
Mr. Chair and colleagues, in my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I'm responsible for ensuring that our justice system remains fair, relevant, and accessible to Canadians. It also involves, of course, overseeing a significant budget, with an eye to fiscal prudence and respect for taxpayers.
The Government of Canada introduced measures in connection with several criminal justice priorities. Our objective is to to make our streets and communities safer, and ensure that our justice system continues to bolster the safety of Canadians through our criminal justice laws, policies and programs.
Among them, Mr. Chair, we are pleased to announce that the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act has come into force. This law takes effect very soon and deals specifically with law enforcement online. This is a bill with which you and members of this committee are very familiar. I thank you for your work in this regard.
We've seen increased activity with regard to the subject of cyberbullying, which has had a devastating impact on many young people in Canada, affecting their reputations, their self-esteem, and their mental health. Also, it has directly contributed to the unfortunate decision that a number of young people have taken to end their own lives, young people like Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, Todd Loik, and countless others, which is why the government acted to protect young people from malicious online behaviour, such as posting intimate images on the Internet, and the insidious and relentless harassment that often follows.
This is coupled with outreach efforts that are ongoing, and with education and the involvement of many people and organizations—such as the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg—which have directly contributed to the assistance of young people who are feeling cornered, hopeless, and in some cases desperate. Things such as GetHelpNow.ca and Cybertip.ca are areas in which young people are able to access information about how to remove offending material.
The Government of Canada also understands that Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe, and we are committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who may pose a high risk to public safety. It's an obligation and a responsibility that we take very seriously.
Obviously, the evolving threat of terrorism is one those most troubling threats. In response to this risk, we introduced a bill earlier this year, which again is a bill you're familiar with, Bill C-51, to strengthen our existing anti-terrorism laws to ensure that they continue to respond appropriately to all forms of terrorism.
As you know, the bill is currently before the Senate. Among other things, such as enabling police to be more proactive in identifying radicalization and acting accordingly, this bill will fill a current gap in the Criminal Code by creating a new Criminal Code offence criminalizing the advocacy and promotion of terrorism, including those that would encourage attacks on Canadians.
Protecting victims of crime is another area in which we have been very active, as has this committee. We are moving to provide a more effective voice in our justice system as a key priority for our government. Victims of crime deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.
Mr. Chair, to that end, we introduced the Victims Bill of Rights. It received royal assent last month. This legislation enables the rights of victims of crime at a federal level and establishes statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and in some cases restitution. It also ensures that there is a complaint process to deal with breaches of those rights.
Again, I could mention others that this committee has been seized with, including Quanto's law, tougher penalties for child predators, and several other bills, for which I again express my appreciation for the diligence of this committee.
Mr. Chair, the Department of Justice is estimating net budgetary expenditures of $673.9 million in the year 2015-16, which is a net spending increase of $43.3 million from the 2014-15 main estimates. The net increase in spending illustrates the Government of Canada's commitment to maintaining, as mentioned, the integrity and the importance of our justice system in terms of accessibility to it through programs and personnel.
Mr. Chair, one especially important area of increased spending, totalling $1.9 million, represents the funding in support of non-legislative measures to address prostitution. In 2014, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act came into force. This uniquely Canadian model was informed by the results of government consultations, public consultations, on the subject of prostitution in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Bedford.
That consultation received more than 31,000 responses from Canadians, in addition to the in-person round tables. This was the largest consultation, I note, ever undertaken by the Department of Justice to date, and it recognized in the legislation the significant harms associated with prostitution. In a combination of Department of Justice money and Public Safety money, $20 million is being made available through a fund over five years for programs aimed specifically at helping those who sell sexual services to exit prostitution.
Mr. Chair, this is a compassionate and common-sense program that we are delivering, and we believe it will make a positive difference. The funding will provide services such as trauma therapy, addiction recovery, employment training, and financial literacy. It could also be used to support transitional housing, emergency safe houses, child care, and drop-in centres. I can tell you that there has been tremendous uptake on this program funding. In addition, there will be funding made available to help law enforcement agencies connect with those who want to leave prostitution and help them find emergency or long-term services, such as those I just mentioned.
The new resources demonstrate the government's commitment to meaningfully support those exploited through prostitution. We are ensuring that the laws address as well the serious harms associated with prostitution and deliver the protection that vulnerable Canadians and communities have come to expect and deserve from this government.
Mr. Chair, in February of 2015, the government announced that it had extended its support for the aboriginal justice strategy to include an additional $11.1 million for fiscal year 2016-17. The aboriginal justice strategy supports community-based justice programs across the country that have delivered results in reducing crime and victimization in aboriginal communities. There are approximately 275 aboriginal justice programs. There is outreach to over 800 aboriginal communities now, touching every province and territory, both on and off reserve, and in rural, urban, and northern communities.
Lowering recidivism and reducing the overrepresentation of aboriginal Canadians in our justice system is at the root. The programs are cost-effective and produce short- and long-term savings for Canadians by freeing up police, court, and correctional resources to address more serious crime. This is in addition to other programs such as the $25 million that is directly focused on the subject of murdered and missing aboriginal women.
Although there was an effort with respect to the main estimates—an increase of $43.3 million—there have also been decisions taken around the providing of legal services as part of our commitment to better and more effectively manage resources. Within the department, there was a review of the legal services provided to all government departments. As you know, we do a great deal of work on behalf of other departments and other agencies in government. As a result, we've identified immediate measures to reduce legal services demand and costs. There is another wave that is aimed specifically at simplifying and increasing access to legal services. It will be implemented within the coming fiscal year.
Over the next year, the department will also continue to work to meet the needs of the Government of Canada's policy objectives. They include enhancing legislation to hold offenders accountable; supporting initiatives to address such issues as security and terrorism, as I referenced earlier; working with other departments to address crime prevention; rehabilitation, treatment, and enforcement activities that relate to illicit drugs; and continuing our aboriginal justice issues. I would also add to that list the work that's done with young offenders. In particular, there are various branches of this youth justice initiative that deal with guns and gangs.
These initiatives will help the Department of Justice continue to build a system that improves access and meets the diverse needs of Canadians.
Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada is determined to protect the integrity of our justice system. We have reaffirmed that commitment through the level of funding allocated to the Justice portfolio.
The items presented by the Department of Justice for inclusion in the 2015-2016 main estimates will help to guarantee that we continue to have a fair society that respects our legislation and has an accessible, effective and equitable justice system.
Finally, the funding that the justice portfolio has received delivers results. I'm proud to say that, aided by very able officials, we'll continue to see that these funds are spent wisely while ensuring that Canadians have the fair, relevant, and accessible justice system that they expect.
I want to again thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, for your diligence and determination in examining in many cases very complex bills and for the contribution you are making in that regard.
I look forward to taking your questions over this period. Similarly, I know that officials here, along with representatives from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, from the Administrative Tribunals Support Service, and other officials will be attending, I believe, at the next meeting, on May 13, to answer any questions in those particular areas.
Thank you, Chair.
View Bob Dechert Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today and sharing your comments with us.
You mentioned in your opening comments, Minister, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, formerly known as Bill C-13. You mentioned that it's come into force, which is good news. I understand that you have been visiting some schools across Canada and talking to young Canadians about the dangers of cyberbullying and other forms of online predatory actions. In particular, I note that you will be coming to my city, Mississauga, later this month, visiting a school and speaking to students about this very important issue.
I wonder, Minister, if you could explain both the importance of the passage of Bill C-13 and discuss some of the experiences you have had with students in some of your meetings across Canada.
View Peter MacKay Profile
CPC (NS)
Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Dechert.
You've been intimately involved in our efforts to bring this legislation forward, and the consultations and the outreach, which, in addition to the bill itself, I would describe as of equal importance. The legislation, as you know, specifically hones in on this subject of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. That is part of the concern.
Obviously a young person very often feels completely devastated by these images that are sometimes taken in circumstances that are regrettable, that may involve alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, and may involve circumstances that are out of context; yet here is that image haunting that young person, potentially for the rest of their life. We've seen the devastating impact that can have.
Passing the legislation was important. It sends a message, as criminal justice bills tend to do, of deterrence and denunciation. It's also important that young people are aware of those consequences.
But to come back to your question, we need to reach those young people, and the education system, the schools, have been more amenable to having those discussions. In fact, we've been contacted and invited to come and have these discussions at schools. We will very often have members of the local police department present, people like Lianna McDonald, who has headed up an incredible effort, not only nationally but internationally, to make young people aware of the assistance available to them. We've advertised online. You may have seen some of these very pointed, and I think quite impactful messages that are available on television and at movie theatres, but most importantly, in that realm of online communication.
You asked for some of my reflections on this. Every time I've been to a school, and I've been to a number of them now, I learn something new. Young people are very dialled in to what's happening online. They're talking more openly and frankly about how this is happening. They're aware that this is going on around them to other students, and we're encouraging them to take a good Samaritan approach and stop it, confront it, when it's happening. We are also encouraging them to reach out to the person who is often the victim and report it, and to know where to get help, that there are programs and personnel who are prepared to work with them to in some cases remove the offending material.
It's complex to say the least. Much of this is happening from outside of our own country. In some cases our laws do not allow us to go into the IP service provider's jurisdiction to try to remove that material. But there's work being done in that regard. I was here previously talking about our alliances with other countries where there is a similar phenomenon. I'm quite heartened by the very focused attempt that many countries, including our own, have taken to try to save young people, and anyone for that matter. It doesn't apply only to youth, but that's where this impact is perhaps being felt most acutely.
Nathalie Duhamel
View Nathalie Duhamel Profile
Nathalie Duhamel
2015-01-29 11:33
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, everyone. I would like to thank the committee for this invitation.
I will make a brief presentation about the Regroupement québécois des Centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel—or RQCALACS—and then focus on best practices. I would like to mention that I can answer your questions in French and English.
The Regroupement québécois des CALACS was established in 1979 and has 27 members in 16 different regions of Quebec.
We are involved in providing assistance and prevention among young people and the public through outreach activities. We provide information to the media, do research and are involved as representatives with governments. Our main concerns are the cross-sectional approach of discrimination, hypersexualization of the public space, the trivialization of sexual violence, prostitution and sexual violence on the Internet.
I will now address the issue of best practices. I would like to underscore the fact that the 27 CALACS members in our organization are themselves preventative measures for sexual violence and are examples of best practices. We provide an alternative to the legal system because we know that 75% of women do not file complaints. So it is essential to provide them with services that are rooted in their community that can provide them and their families with assistance.
The CALACS provide individual and group assistance services. They also provide accompanying services and can even accompany a woman through the legal system, if that is what she decides.
These centres came out of the women's movement in the 1970s. They developed a feminist approach to intervention that aims to give the power back to women. These centres view sexual violence as an act rooted in the inequality between men and women. They helped to broaden the definition of sexual violence. Now, this definition doesn't include just rape, but also sexual harassment, incest, online luring, sexual exploitation for the purpose of prostitution, pornography and sex trafficking.
However, I must point out to the committee that the CALACS are still in dire need of funding and that a few additional human resources would help us better respond to the demand, to prevent long wait times before women can get assistance and to eventually develop services in northern Quebec.
I would like to mention our second best practice. The CALACS work with young people in schools through sexual assault prevention programs. We talk about sexuality, power relationships, consent and hypersexualization.
We also work with the general public in local communities through lectures and public activities. We organize a day of action against sexual violence against women that is held every year on the third Friday in September.
In terms of other best practices, we have also developed training on preventing sexual violence against seniors. We have also created a guide for responding to hypersexualization. At the moment, we are working on developing best practices for cybercrime.
In addition to direct services and prevention activities, the CALACS have developed what we call a cross-sectional approach to better include aboriginal women, disabled women, immigrant women and women refugees to better take into account their unique circumstances and their vulnerability to sexual assaults. This project includes providing training to our members, but it is also open to other people. We can tell you today that four CALACS have developed expertise for working with aboriginal women.
This year, a contribution from Status of Women Canada has enabled us to create a francophone community of practice dealing with sexual violence that brings together organizations working in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick.
The purpose of the project is to create a virtual library of programs, projects and activities to ensure better sharing. The project also aims to provide a forum for discussing various concerns. We think this community of practices will have an impact on the ability of participant resources to intervene better.
In terms of promising practices for prevention, I would like to mention that Regroupement québécois des CALACS has made it possible to create the Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, or CLES, which has done a significant amount of work on making legislative progress on prostitution in Canada.
The Regroupement québécois des CALACS is also involved in various research projects at the university level. We mention this as a best practice because it is essential. We are currently working with academics to focus on trafficking and sexual exploitation, which enables us to train 45 trainers who, in turn, provide this training to others.
We also have a research project that deals with the cross-sectional approach. We are also doing research that aims to document sexual violence in universities. We have seen this issue of sexual violence in universities on the rise recently in Canada. We are looking at the need to adjust institutional approaches to this problem.
We are also doing research on equipping the CALACS with a shared program on working with youth. Lastly, we are doing research on improving our data collection system to create a better profile of the women who use our services.
In recent months, during the “been raped, never reported” campaign, we have seen that many women need to talk about what has happened to them. It's an important step forward, but the current media treatment of sexual assaults must be better so that the effort the women are making to talk about what has happened to them does not fall on deaf ears.
We would like the government to invest in a sexual assault awareness campaign. We find that there is a gap in this respect. The government raises awareness about smoking and drunk driving, but there isn't enough discussion about violence against women. The government could explain what exactly sexual assault is and what constitutes consent. Our goal is to fight against the myths and bias to change people's thinking in the long term.
NGOs alone cannot invest in campaigns like this, which are very expensive. We would like to have men speak out during these campaigns, which should be rolled out on television, radio and on social media, as well as in print.
We can't just rely on social media or traditional media to boost awareness about sexual violence against women. We have to be able to reach out to a large audience. We absolutely must respond to the needs of women who spoke out during the “been raped, never reported” campaign. We must do so in a way that makes it possible to reach women in the regions who are not necessarily on Twitter. We must increase our support of prevention and public awareness activities.
Thank you.
Nathalie Duhamel
View Nathalie Duhamel Profile
Nathalie Duhamel
2015-01-29 12:33
We're starting off in that field. For the time being, we're principally trying to get a grip on the diverse reality of what cybercrime is and what it comprises, and trying to see and develop ways to reach young people, who are the most exposed.
View Mike Wallace Profile
CPC (ON)
View Mike Wallace Profile
2014-06-12 11:02
We'll call this meeting to order.
This is meeting 31 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13.
(On clause 20)
The Chair: We've finished with NDP-5. We're now moving on to NDP-6, still on clause 20.
This is the first motion in a set of amendments that remove the reference to "public officer" from the bill. The following amendments are consequential to this change and the vote on NDP-6 will be applied to them as well in order to remain consistent: NDP-7, NDP-8, NDP-10, NDP-11, NDP-13, NDP-15, NDP-17, NDP-21, NDP-22, NDP-23 and NDP-24. If NDP-6 fails, NDP-7, NDP-8, NDP-10, NDP-11, NDP-13, NDP-15, NDP-17, NDP-21, NDP-22, NDP-23, and NDP-24 will all be removed.
As well, there are amendments that have line conflicts with this change. If NDP-6 is adopted, then we'll worry about that at the time. Okay?
Madam Péclet, would you like to move NDP-6 and introduce it?
View Ève Péclet Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This amendment is somewhat in the same vein as our amendment NDP-5. It is consistent with the experts' testimony on the definitions of "peace officer" and "public officer". According to the witnesses, the use of the words "public officer" in clause 20 of the bill is clearly a problem and should perhaps be reviewed.
We introduced our amendment NDP-5 precisely for the purpose of replacing the term "public officer" with "peace officer".
Mr. Chair, I think it is important to mention that all the experts who testified during the study of Bill C-13, particularly the Privacy Commissioner, noted the problem caused by the use of the term "public officer". I think it would be logical for the committee to take the experts' testimony into account and to adopt our amendment NDP-6, which would delete the words "public officer" used in lines 6 to 10 on page 14.
That is the end of my presentation on that subject.
View Bob Dechert Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, there has been, I think, some fairly considerable discussion about the definition of “public officer” and why there are a number of appropriate officials within that definition to whom these investigative powers would legitimately be available. I don't think we need to go into much more detail on that. The arguments have been made already.
On that basis, we will be opposing this amendment.
View Mike Wallace Profile
CPC (ON)
View Mike Wallace Profile
2014-06-12 11:06
I will call the question on NDP-6.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: NDP-7 is removed, but we have NDP-7.1.
This is the first motion in a set of amendments that seek to change the wording of "reasonable grounds to suspect" to "reasonable grounds to believe". The following amendments are consequential to this change and the result of the vote on NDP-7.1 should be applied in order to remain consistent: NDP-12, NDP-14. PV-13, NDP-16, PV-14, NDP-18, NDP-27, NDP-29, PV-16, and NDP-31.
Madam Péclet, would you like to move it?
View Ève Péclet Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
I think it's reasonable. We all agree that most witnesses who testified in front of the committee also raised concerns that the threshold for making a demand was unfortunately reviewed at the lowest threshold.
In listening to the Canadian Bar Association, but also other numerous witnesses, including Michael Geist to name one, they were particularly concerned that the government would want to lower the threshold for obtaining lawful access to information.
I would expect the government to understand that the wording “reasonable grounds to believe” would be more appropriate in the kind of situation where very personal information would be obtained by law officers. As the government just refused our amendment regarding public officers, if they want to make it available for any public officer to have access to the personal information of Canadians, then I think the threshold should be reasonable grounds to believe and not reasonable grounds to suspect. Most of the witnesses have testified that this should be the threshold in the law.
I want to hear what the government has to say.
I would like to hear what the government representatives have to say about this kind of intrusion into Canadians' privacy and personal information.
I would like to hear a representative of the government party speak to this amendment.
View Bob Dechert Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, the government will be opposing this amendment.
As Madam Péclet knows since it was discussed by many witnesses, including the victims and organizations representing victims and all of the law enforcement witnesses we heard, reasonable grounds to suspect is a common standard. It is used in many similar provisions in the Criminal Code, including with respect to telephone data. Therefore, we think it's completely appropriate that it be the standard in this case. On that basis, we will be opposing this amendment.
View Ève Péclet Profile
NDP (QC)
I understand the government's point of view. This is a criterion pertaining to the burden of proof that is used in certain instances in the Criminal Code. It is something that is widely recognized by authorities.
With all due respect to the witnesses who think the contrary, I will say there is a consensus on the idea that telephone data are not the same as data that can be intercepted on the Internet. Data gathered from the Internet is much more sensitive. I want to note that several witnesses said that data gathered from the Internet is much more sensitive and much more personal.
I understand that the government could consider this for data preservation purposes. To obtain a warrant we must continue to use the traditional legal principle of "having reasonable and probable grounds to believe", not "to suspect".
I would ask the government to consider the fact that the majority of witnesses said this might cause problems. I understand that the government wants to go in a particular direction, but why not give us more time and split the bill so that we can study this provision in depth?
View Mike Wallace Profile
CPC (ON)
View Mike Wallace Profile
2014-06-12 11:12
Thank you, Ms. Péclet.
We'll vote on amendment NDP-7.1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We've come to amendment PV-10, which is still in order.
Madam May is here. You have one minute, Ms. May.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My amendment falls within clause 20, of course. It's attempting to enact a number of the recommendations that were made to the committee by the Canadian Bar Association in terms of the powers of preservation of information and records. It would restrict the power of officers to make such preservation demands to exigent circumstances, so where there's reason to believe that if you don't have a preservation order right away and take some shortcuts, that material might be destroyed. Otherwise, there's no reason not to have a judicial authorization, so it should be restricted to exigent circumstances.
The other recommendation is in relation to laws of a foreign state. Those laws of foreign states should relate to matters that would also be criminal in Canada before a preservation order could be issued under clause 20.
I won't read through the amendment because it's fairly complex, but I think it's clear and committee members will have already reviewed it. We want to make sure that the exigent circumstances and the rationale around them must at least be reasonable that any offence committed in a foreign state must also be an offence in Canada, and the reason these rather shortcut measures are being taken is that if they don't, there's a significant risk that material will be destroyed.
View Bob Dechert Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, the government does not support this amendment.
Under section 487.11, as Madam May will know, police may already act without a warrant in exigent circumstances. In our view, making exigent circumstances a requirement in the context of a preservation demand is illogical and would render the tool useless.
Canada's telecommunications industry is largely unregulated and has thousands of providers with a variety of business practices. The creation of the preservation tools reflect that diversity and the fact that the industry is not required to retain data. A preservation order does not give foreign authorities access to any data whatsoever, as the order is only meant to ensure that the computer data still exists until the appropriate judicial order is issued in order to obtain that computer data. Cooperation with our international partners is essential to ensure that critical data is not lost during often time-consuming traditional mutual legal assistance procedures that enable the requested party to actually obtain the data and disclose it to the requesting party.
On that basis, we will not be supporting this amendment.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1017 | Page: 1 of 68

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data