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 10, 2000

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the justice committee to order. Today we'll be dealing with the main estimates 2000-01; votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 under Justice, report on plans on priorities.

I'd like to welcome the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Anne McLellan, and Morris Rosenberg, the Deputy Minister of Justice, before the committee.

Certainly we've heard a great deal in the last couple of weeks about the value of the minister appearing before this committee on other subjects. I point that out deliberately. So I assume that in traditional fashion the minister will have an opening statement, and we look forward to that.

Madam Minister.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Thank you, committee members, for inviting me here again.

I do want to introduce to everyone who doesn't know him my deputy, Mr. Rosenberg. And I have some of my other officials with me around the room, so as the afternoon progresses I may be calling on them to join Morris and me here at the table.

First, let me say that as Minister of Justice I take very seriously our shared challenge to ensure that Canadians have confidence in our justice system. I am pleased to give you a quick progress report this afternoon on some of my priorities in this regard.

First, crime prevention is a proactive response to the issues of safety and security, and is one of the most effective means by which to create safe communities. Our crime prevention strategy has supported over 900 projects across the country. These projects are developed by communities who ensure that their needs and their concerns are reflected in programs that target the root causes of crime. As we mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, we will move forward to secure additional funding so that we can further enhance our work with communities.

[Translation]

On the issue of victims, Canadians have responded positively to our changes in Bill C-79. We received $20 million in Budget 2000 to be spent over the next five years in our Policy Centre for Victims. The Centre will further ensure that the perspective of victims caught up in the criminal justice system, will be heard and acted upon.

[English]

On the youth justice front, members have heard from a great number of witnesses, and I understand you are in a position to move ahead on the clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-3.

I now want to discuss some of my department's, and this government's, emerging challenges. In an increasingly interdependent world, globalization is having a significant impact on my work as Minister of Justice.

Three weeks ago I attended the tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Vienna, where 140 member states gathered to address the growing problem of transnational organized crime. And let me say I was very pleased to have the justice critic from the Canadian Alliance, Mr. Reynolds, with me on that occasion. I think, John, we both learned a lot in terms of both the challenges and some of the solutions we're all working on together as it relates to transnational crime issues.

• 1540

When I speak of organized crime, I am referring to drug-related violence, murders, bombings, the victimization of the elderly through telemarketing fraud, money laundering, as well as credit card fraud, prostitution, and the smuggling of migrants. Organized crime thrives on social and economic inequity. Insidious and pervasive, it affects the lives of each of us. This means that the task of combating organized crime must not be left only to the criminal justice system; it is a task that must be shared broadly within society. No government can be expected to deal effectively with these growing problems alone. Communities, social service agencies, and the private sector must focus their attention on this problem as all have a role to play and must be part of a strategy that includes prevention. My department is working with federal and provincial counterparts to develop such a strategy, and ministers will discuss concrete proposals in September when we meet in Iqaluit.

The impact of globalization on crime is nowhere more apparent than in the incidents of cyber-crimes. The most recent example is the events of last week with the so-called “love bug”. Fortunately, Canada has laws that criminalize this kind of activity. Section 430 of the Criminal Code deals effectively with persons who commit mischief or cause danger to life in relation to, among other things, destroying, altering, or interrupting data. These offences, mischief and causing danger to life, are liable to imprisonment for a term of not exceeding 10 years and life respectively.

While Canada is in a position to deal with people who commit this type of offence, we, along with other members of the international community, must continue to develop common standards for legislation and enforcement responses to this problem. Just today, for example, the press reported that the Philippines does not have computer crime legislation to address the love bug situation. Our efforts at the international level are directed to this type of problem.

The G-8 has been working toward finding solutions to transborder computer-crime-related crime issues. In December 1997, justice and interior ministers of the G-8 adopted a statement of principles and an action plan to address high-tech crime. Since then the G-8 has created a network with points of contact to provide law enforcement with rapid assistance on a 24-hour-a-day basis. Our aim should be to expand this network to every country so as to enable law enforcement personnel to investigate high-tech crime wherever and whenever in the world it might occur.

The underlying reality is that any legislative measures we adopt, whether domestically or internationally, to address high-tech crime will have to involve a rethinking of our basic notions of sovereignty, human rights, and privacy. While it is imperative that we continue to protect all of those rights, we must also recognize that our current notions were formed in a context that is much different from the world in which we live today. The landscape in which law enforcement now operates when investigating computer-related crime looks quite different from that of the past. Therefore, we have to adapt our laws and our thinking to accommodate this new reality. Without dispensing of our conceptions of human rights and sovereignty, we must find a way to adapt these notions to a new environment so that they apply to the world in which we now live.

In addition to creativity, our new challenges will require courage; courage to rethink our firmly held assumptions about how the world and our legal systems must operate, and courage to forge ahead with the bold steps necessary to confront the challenges facing us in this new age. With creativity and courage we can overcome these challenges, make the Internet safe, and preserve our basic freedoms and values.

• 1545

Now, Mr. Chair, I would like to say a few words about our firearms program. As our Prime Minister stated recently, this is a public safety issue, and our approach reflects our values as Canadians. When he spoke last year in Michigan, he said that the National Rifle Association is one export Canadians will never buy. He is right. Over 75% of Canadians support our gun control program, including the registration of all firearms.

Firearms control is about creating a culture of safety and responsibility around firearm ownership and use. Still early in its implementation, the program is already reaping public safety benefits. Since the licensing and registration system was put in place on December 1, 1998, over 3,700 potentially dangerous gun sales have been investigated; 713 licences have been refused, and 930 licences have been revoked, for public safety reasons. That is a revocation rate 15 times greater than the previous five years combined.

The new spousal notification line has received over 3,200 calls. This has proven to be an excellent tool for an applicant's spouse or others to share concerns about public safety.

As you may have heard last week, the Miramichi firearms centre played a pivotal role in uncovering what is believed to be one of the largest firearms smuggling rings in North America. Likely destined for the black market, nearly 23,000 firearms and their component parts were seized. This is a concrete example of what this system can contribute in our fight against crime and the illegal gun trade.

The facts speak for themselves. This system is keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

We do, however, Mr. Chairman, know that we still face challenges with regard to the implementation of the Firearms Act, but we are making ongoing improvements to streamline our operations and meet these challenges. We are making every effort to reach gun owners to inform them of their obligations under the law and to assist them in complying with the regulations. To that end, we are stepping up our advertising efforts to remind gun owners that they must obtain a licence by the end of this year.

We are making that process easier and more efficient for them with a new, improved, and simplified application form for licences.

In addition to simplifying the process, we will also be launching an outreach program to help gun owners apply for licences and to register their guns. We know from pilot projects that by offering this level of service, we can dramatically reduce error rates, thereby improving efficiency and reducing the overall costs of processing licences.

As with other initiatives of this size, we have had our share of bumps along the road, but we owe it to Canadians to make it work. We know this program is enhancing public safety, and with our new initiatives we will do even more in this regard.

Let me now turn my attention to aboriginal justice, which is another serious challenge for all of us. In 1997, aboriginal people represented 28% of the accused Criminal Code offenders in Canada, and 15% of admissions to federal facilities, yet they make up only 3% of our total Canadian population. In a survey from the same period, it was found that aboriginal people made up 15% of victims of violent crime. These statistics are without doubt very disturbing, but make it clear that we must address the root causes behind these numbers.

Our aboriginal justice strategy has begun to address some of these issues through the design of community-based solutions to the problems faced by aboriginal people in the mainstream justice system. The strategy actively administers 84 community-based justice initiatives serving over 280 communities across the country. Each of these programs is administered by the aboriginal community and cost-shared, through joint contribution agreements, with the provinces and the territories.

• 1550

Programs have been developed that incorporate restorative justice principles derived from aboriginal traditions and cultures while respecting basic legal principles and the charter. For example, a number of diversion projects have been developed that permit the community to be involved in resolving the issues surrounding the commission of an offence or in the sentencing process.

Aboriginal communities work with police and crown attorneys to develop criteria for the diversion of an offender and guide the process of working with the offender, the victim, their families, and others in the community to address the problem through reconciliation.

For example, in Saskatchewan the strategy supports the Meadow Lake Tribal Council community justice program, serving nine first nations communities with a population of 9,000 people. The tribal council is also engaged in self-government negotiations. The experience it has gained in developing and implementing community justice committees will be an invaluable resource as it assumes greater responsibilities.

The strategy also works in urban areas—for example, the Aboriginal Ganootamaage Justice Services of Winnipeg. They run a diversion program that serves the 60,000 aboriginal people who live in that city.

I am pleased to say that these programs have had a dramatic impact on individuals by providing a more culturally relevant and supportive approach that draws upon all the resources in a community. The programs provide communities with the tools they will need to administer justice in the context of self-government.

Another aboriginal file of great importance to the government is residential schools. I know committee members have probably read much of this troubling file in newspapers and have probably heard much about it in their local communities. We are working with all parties involved to address the issue in a manner that will lead to healing and reconciliation.

An example of this is the 12 dispute resolution pilot projects we have put in place across the country. Through these projects, all parties assess the claims and work together to find innovative solutions. This process has proven to create a climate conducive to building trust and partnerships.

Let me turn now to another priority for the Department of Justice—namely, our ongoing work on custody and access and child support. This is a complex, sensitive, and emotional subject. Indeed, the special joint committee's work clearly demonstrated that this is not an easy issue. In its strategy for reform, the government committed to shifting the current focus of the family law system away from parental rights to parental responsibilities to emphasize the best interests of the child.

The strategy recognizes the need to address the issues in a multifaceted approach. We have done this through extending for two years the financial assistance we provide to the provinces and territories for initiatives related to child-centred family law. To this end, we recently allocated an additional $29 million to help them expand such programs and services as parenting information and skills development, mediation, and innovative court-based support programs.

These programs include family law information centres in Ontario, where parents can obtain information and legal advice; family justice centres in British Columbia, where parents can obtain information, counselling, and mediation services; and the Alberta Queen's Bench child support centres, where lawyers will answer questions and clerks will help individuals fill out forms and calculate child support amounts. A range of such court-based services are available in most provinces and territories.

We have also worked in federal-provincial-territorial collaboration. In February I wrote to my provincial counterparts urging them to ensure that the development an integrated family law strategy would be a priority in their jurisdictions. We must work together. As you all know, family law is an area of shared constitutional jurisdiction.

• 1555

While federal laws govern cases of divorce, the provinces have legislative responsibility for custody and access in cases where families are separated or have never been married. The provinces also have jurisdiction for the administration of justice, which includes the delivery of court-based and community services.

To make changes to the Divorce Act without changing provincial and territorial laws would only aggravate the difficulties faced by families facing separation or divorce. Our goal, shared by the provinces and the territories, is to ensure a seamless and effective family law system across Canada. We have that seamless system now, where reforms will be applied uniformly to all affected families.

Finally, our approach in this area involves public consultations with Canadians on options for child-focused amendments to the Divorce Act. It is, however, I think important to recognize that simply changing the legislation will not, in and of itself, provide an effective solution to what we all know are sometimes very difficult, stressful, and, dare I say it, even traumatic situations for particularly children.

Cooperative parenting, for example, cannot be legislated by a change to the Divorce Act. We have, though, made good progress through the child support implementation fund. We are providing $50 million over five years to the provinces and territories for community-level programming and services to help parents find common ground on issues arising from separation and divorce.

If we are to help Canadian children deal with the difficulties and upheaval they face when their parents separate and/or divorce, our goal must be to encourage parents to put aside their own anger, hurt, and hostility and focus on the best interests of their children.

Mr. Chair, the objective of our work has been and will continue to be the enhancement of a citizen-centred justice system in which Canadians can have confidence, a system that reflects their values. I believe we have produced a record of solid achievement in that regard, and we have accomplished this in large measure by committing ourselves to public consultation and by becoming effective partners with other levels of government and other sectors of Canadian society.

Canadians want and deserve a system of justice that is fair, a system that seeks to prevent crime and deals effectively with it when it does occur. With policies and programs such as the ones I have outlined today, I believe we will work together with our provincial and territorial counterparts, community organizations, law enforcement officials, and others to ensure that Canadians can continue to have confidence in our justice system.

[Translation]

I would like to thank all of the members of the committee for the good work they have done over the past year. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the coming months.

Thank you very much.

[English]

I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

Mr. Reynolds of the Alliance for seven minutes.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for your comments. I would like to start off by asking you about Bill C-17.

I know many organizations and groups that represent those who make their living raising cattle, hunting, angling, fur farming, or in other related industries have all sent letters to me about the concerns they have about this bill, saying it's not clear about protecting them from prosecution for conducting a legal and legitimate business. I know they've all met with you.

I'm wondering if you can advise us now on whether you have or are prepared to make some amendments to that bill that would take away the fears these groups have.

• 1600

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds, for that question. I think it's a very important question, and you're right, I think many of us have been receiving concerns, either in person or in writing, in relation to those parts of Bill C-17 that deal with the modernization of the provisions in the Criminal Code dealing with cruelty to animals. Of course, on an ongoing basis we modernize various parts of the Criminal Code, and those particular provisions have largely been untouched for some 100 years.

I do want to underscore that except for two offences in the package you will be considering for Bill C-17, all are existing offences and are not new. They have been in our law. What we are doing is increasing the sentence. But the offences themselves are exactly as they have been for well over 50 years.

We will do what we can to ensure that there is no misunderstanding in the legislation in its final form as to what is the intent of the government. Our intent is not in any way to interfere with normal practices of animal husbandry; for example, ritualistic killing, which certain faiths have as a foundation of their faith; fishing; and hunting. Slaughterhouses in this country have been regulated both provincially and federally. None of that changes. I know that trappers have expressed concern. There is absolutely no intention on our part that this legislation would interfere with those activities, which have been ongoing for a very long time in this country. I have had some discussions already with some as to how we can clarify that intent.

Having said that, one must remember that I receive no greater mail on any subject than in relation to cruelty against animals. It's an issue, obviously, that touches a chord in many Canadians. Humane societies, SPCAs, and other highly regarded community organizations and their members have, I think, spoken eloquently in terms of the necessity of simply modernizing these provisions and bringing them more in line with the expectations of the public.

But I take your point, and we're working very hard to make sure those concerns are dealt with.

Mr. John Reynolds: I agree with your last point. But the question is, are you going to get those in before we get the bill? Will you make those recommendations? I'm having a hard time saying I'll support the bill—and yet I agree with your last comments—because of these other issues. People have given legal opinions saying that you could be charged or someone could challenge this in the Supreme Court. We're looking for something definitive so that we can say, let's all support this bill.

Ms. Anne McLellan: We have looked at those legal opinions and certainly disagree with them. We've even met, I think in at least one case, with one of the authors of one of those opinions.

While I don't want to commit myself today to the exact process, I think I can say that we are sensitive to the concerns that have been raised. Whether it is when I appear at the outset of your deliberations on Bill C-17 or at some other point earlier than that, I certainly want to clarify any of the confusion around those parts of this omnibus bill.

Mr. John Reynolds: With regard to computer-related crime, you talked about that quite a bit, and I agree with your comments. I agree with what our government is doing worldwide. I went to the conference with you, and Canada fought very hard for a protocol, but we weren't successful. Is there any progress being made in that area, based on what has been happening around the world in the last couple of days?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Let me ask Mr. Mosley to speak directly to the protocol.

You're quite right to flag the fact that Canada is working very aggressively with other countries in a whole host of forums—G-8, OAS, the Commonwealth, and elsewhere—to ensure that we have the laws in place domestically. But equally important, because of the nature of this crime, is that we're working bilaterally and multilaterally to have in place the processes, the agreements, and the arrangements so that our law enforcement people can do what they have to do working across borders.

Mr. Mosley, over to you.

Mr. Richard Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada): Perhaps by way of clarification, the protocol was not actually on the agenda for the recent UN congress. There was a workshop on computer crime.

• 1605

But we are working in the context of a number of fora, including the United Nations, to develop standards and principles for each country to adopt so that its domestic legislation and its arrangements for mutual legal assistance between countries would be consistent. In that regard we're working within the G-8 and the Council of Europe and directly with the United States. Those discussions are proceeding, and we're making good progress. We hope within the course of next year, I think, to be at some agreement, particularly with the Council of Europe document.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, it was the G-8 conference in Peru that we were at where I think one country wouldn't sign the protocol. The G-8 are the most important because they're the ones who are really using the computers more than anybody else in the world today. I was wondering how we were trying to convince those one or two countries that weren't prepared to sign the protocol and still wanted another year to work on it.

Mr. Richard Mosley: That's quite correct. We got past that particular impasse at that meeting in Moscow in October of last year. Those discussions are ongoing. The country in question is not opposed to collaborative efforts among the member states of the G-8. There was a domestic political matter that they were concerned about. Actually, next week there is a meeting in Paris organized by the Government of France that is addressing the whole question of government-industry relations, and we will be represented there. A number of departments will be participating in the Canadian delegation. The effort is to try to reach agreement with industry as to how to address some of those outstanding issues.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Mosley.

Mr. Bellehumeur, seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Minister, you said that the committee had started the clause-by- clause study of Bill C-3. I would like to point out that the committee is far from being ready to begin the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-3. I don't think that my colleagues across the table are ready yet to vote on each of the clauses. When I listen to your speech—and you are the one who raised the subject of Bill C-3—I am tempted to use it as an example to show that when you say you want to work in partnership with those who are involved in prevention and when you say that you are open to certain things that might prevent crime, your comments do not ring true.

I did not want to talk about Bill C-3. I have enough to say about it in other committees, but you left yourself wide open. I can't resist. I find it quite striking, Madam Minister, that your speech bears little relationship to what you are actually doing. Unless you are not giving Quebec the same kind of attention that you give the other provinces, Bill C-3 is a striking example of the fact that you are turning a deaf ear to what the people involved in this area are saying. You are not listening to what the men and women who work with young people on a daily basis are telling you, Madam Minister. They are telling you that you are on the wrong track, and yet you continue to want to pass this bill. How can you reconcile what you just said about Bill C-3, a bill that you even quoted from, and what is actually being done in Quebec?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: First of all, I take your point, Mr. Bellehumeur, that you probably don't want to spend a lot of time talking about this this afternoon, and that's quite all right with me, if you have other questions.

But on the point you raise in relation to Bill C-3, we have listened very carefully to witnesses, not only from the province of Quebec but also other witnesses, and in fact we're bringing forward some 162 amendments to Bill C-3, Mr. Bellehumeur, many of which have been suggested by organizations, such as the Barreau du Québec. While it is not possible to adopt the suggestions of every group, be that a group from Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, or Nunavut, we have tried to listen intently and to provide amendments that we believe are in keeping with the basic principles of the legislation and that will make the legislation a more effective and flexible piece of legislation by which we as a society can deal better and more effectively with the many challenges surrounding youth justice.

• 1610

I suppose at the end of the day you and I will have to disagree in terms of whether I have listened and whether I have acted. Have I acted on every suggestion from Quebec or Ontario or anywhere else? No, I haven't. Is there sufficient flexibility in this legislation to allow the Province of Quebec and the agencies and those who work in those agencies to continue doing what they're doing in the way they're doing it? Yes, I believe there is. I believe this is a better bill because of the intervention of organizations like the Barreau du Québec.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I don't know if you have seen the correction issued by the Barreau du Québec last Friday, but contrary to what has already been said, the Barreau du Québec does not support Bill C-3. Madam Minister, even with your amendment, I have not spoken to one single person who supports your bill. That said, we can talk about it for hours on and, which is what I will be doing in the coming weeks, even if it is obvious that we will never manage to agree because we each have a different perspective.

I am sure that you will have an opportunity to return to the committee to answer questions on the Young Offenders Act before we proceed to the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-3. I am confident that my motion will serve to convince the people sitting across the table, but that will happen later on.

Today, Madam Minister, I see in the summary of estimates that at the Justice Department, there has been an increase of $117 million over last year's estimates. I am a lawyer, not a mathematician, but I know that represents an increase of more than 20%.

When I look at the other expenditures, whether it be for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, or something else, I see that the increases are minimal. They represent about 2, 3 or 5%. To what does the Justice Department attribute this increase of $117 million, which represents slightly more than 20%?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. Bourgeois.

[English]

Mr. Robert F. Bourgeois (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Justice Canada): Do you want to introduce me?

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, just go ahead.

The Chair: It's necessary for you to introduce yourself for the record.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Bourgeois: My name is Robert Bourgeois and I am Assistant-Deputy Minister, Corporate Services.

The difference is mainly due to the fact that the department took part, along with Treasury Board, in an exercise called "Program Integrity", which examined, among other things, the department's workload and the increase in the number of files. That accounts for an increase of some $90 million.

Mr. Morris Rosenberg (Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice Canada): I think I can elaborate on that. The workload in the Justice Department has increased substantially over the past few years because of certain societal phenomena: the impact of the Charter, for example, the referral to the courts of certain political matters and the increase in litigation in areas such as Native rights, immigration and international trade law. For all of these reasons, there has been an increase in the workload and therefore, a budget shortfall within the department due to increasing demands. Most of the increase that you have noted will be used to make up the shortfall between what the department has on hand and what the new workload will cost.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I think that's enough. I've waited three weeks to say that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Go ahead, Peter.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Minister, thank you very much for coming and for your kind words.

[English]

It's very nice to see you here. There are a lot of big issues that your department is wrestling with, and subsequently this committee has been very busy as well.

• 1615

I am not a mathematician. As my friend said, I am a lawyer. This youth justice bill is tougher than Chinese arithmetic in terms of its complexity. I note that there has been a plain language initiative from your department. With respect to that, there is certainly a need for application of plain language in Bill C-3.

Similarly, there are some serious problems with respect to the implementation of a preliminary inquiry procedure, a parole procedure. With respect to definitions, we've heard judges who have testified before the committee in the deliberations on this bill who have said it's virtually unworkable. They don't understand some of the cross-references. Even definitions for serious offences and minor offences appear to leave a lot of ambiguity in the minds of legal scholars who have looked at the bill.

My question is with respect to some of the amendments. I mean, 163 is a shocking number of amendments to be introduced by the government on their own legislation. There are going to be upwards of several hundred more from the opposition. Do you anticipate that there is going to be a concerted effort to streamline or make this bill more user-friendly and something that the legal community, the entire legal community—and I include policing agencies, other law enforcement agencies, and victims... Is there a sincere effort from your department to make this bill more workable?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Oh, absolutely. I can say without any hesitation whatsoever that my department has made a very sincere effort to identify areas of complexity and suggest possible changes to deal with that, as have the people who have appeared before this committee. I know committee members have been working hard on this. Let me say that the amendments we are making are largely based upon things we have heard at this committee from witnesses and in discussion with committee members. Almost all those amendments—not all, but almost all—are an attempt to do what you suggest, which is to help clarify and simplify.

We share the same goal at the end of the day, Mr. MacKay. Because of your involvement in the justice system in Nova Scotia, you know and I know how important it is to have all key players in the justice system understand the laws that may apply to them, understand the processes that may apply under those laws.

In fact, the basic structure of this youth justice legislation is quite simple. The superstructure of this legislation is quite simple in terms of distinctions between things like violent and non-violent offences, the attempt to keep more and more of those young people who commit non-violent offences out of the formal justice system, providing better resources for those who are brought into the formal justice system to ensure their rehabilitation, their reintegration into the community.

The actual superstructure of this legislation is not that complex, but you are dealing with a criminal statute. That's where we derive our constitutional authority to deal with this area. Therefore there is a necessity, I think a particular necessity, to be as clear as possible. Sometimes, unfortunately, that may require a few more words rather than a few less so that it doesn't leave something in an ambiguous state and thereby lead to confusion on the part of both crown and defence counsel and the judges themselves, hence leading to more appeals through the judicial process. We're very sensitive to that. We want to try to avoid that to the greatest extent possible.

The other key component of this is that, as with any major change in an area of the law, public education is very important. In fact, one of the things we saw, unfortunately I think, after 1944—excuse me, 1984—was that there was not a concerted and ongoing education and information effort in relation to that legislation. Obviously people became accustomed to it because it's been in use for 15 years. But what we want to do is... We have begun this process of education and training in terms of key players in the justice system. We are working with the police, we're working with crown prosecutors, judges.

All of this will be key. When one makes a significant change in today's world, it is absolutely important that one has a well-developed public educational and professional educational component to anything one does, and we're very aware of that.

• 1620

Catherine, do you want to come and add anything specifically?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, but Madam Minister, I have a couple of quick questions. I know now why we have thirty-second time limits in question period for questions and answers.

You've talked in your presentation about the firearms registry. It did yield some good results with respect in particular to the licensing aspect. I still completely disagree with the registry element of it. I'm wondering if we have some concrete figures now, because you're here on the main estimates and the numbers are there, and we note that the budget has been increased. So in terms of where the money is going to be spent, how much is this going to cost by full implementation?

To that end, I also want to ask a question on the funding side of it with respect to victims. We know there's an allotment of money here for a victims centre. Does this mark a movement towards a central victims' ombudsman office? And will there be specific programs? That is, will money be earmarked for programs? I'm talking about homes for battered women and programs aimed specifically at treatment for violent offenders who batter their wives or children. Is there an intention on your department's agenda to move towards specifically earmarking funding in those areas of victim assistance and treatment?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Let me answer that question first, and then I'll deal with the firearms registry.

We made a commitment to the provinces and the territories that they have primary jurisdiction over direct service to victims of crime. While there is a small area in which we as a federal government could provide direct services to those who are not covered by various provincial programs, it is fair to say that almost all the victims' services in this country—direct services—are provided by the provinces and the territories, as they should be. Therefore we will not be in the business of direct services.

In fact, one of the things we did was change the treatment of the victims' surcharge, moving it from a voluntary to a required surcharge and increasing the amount, to provide the provinces with additional revenues to help them in their direct service provision.

The victims policy centre, for which we received new funding in the budget of 2000, is to do research work in conjunction, for example, with organizations that work with victims. Mr. Sullivan is here today representing one of those organizations.

We have developed a work plan. We're in the process of revising that plan, now that we've received the money in budget 2000. We see that the role of the victims' centre will evolve as we work with victims' groups, with the provinces, and with the territories in areas of shared research interest, in areas of facilitation, and things like that. But we are not in the business of direct service delivery of victims' services. That is a matter for the provinces and the territories.

In relation to the firearms registry program, we have identified that this program is costing more than what was originally projected. I do, however, want to reiterate again here that there is great confusion in terms of what the record, even the record at this committee, discloses as to what my predecessor said in terms of costs.

This number, $85 million, is thrown around by people as representing the total costs over the relevant five-year period of the firearms program. My predecessor never said that. My predecessor indicated that the $85 million would be the startup cost of the new system. I was quite forthcoming two years ago with you, Mr. MacKay, that in fact that startup cost has gone from $85 million to $120 million. That startup ended as of December 1, 1998, and we are now in full operational mode.

• 1625

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can you give us the figures today and the estimated costs now as to final implementation and operation?

Ms. Anne McLellan: The total cumulative costs over the five-year period from 1995 to 2000, which is the relevant five-year period that was discussed both by my predecessor and by me, are $327 million. The original projection was approximately $200 million for that five-year period.

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

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a quick comment. Mr. MacKay, you commented on the very large number of amendments on Bill C-3. It always strikes me as kind of odd. If the government comes in and simply rams through its bill without any attention to what happens at committee, everybody is concerned about a lack of good process. Conversely, when we have a really good process and people struggle and fight and listen to and debate these things, there will be a lot of amendments if committee has a role. So if I have anything to say on Bill C-3, it's that it's been a really good process, and at the risk of sucking up to the minister, I commend her for being so willing to work on it.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Strike that from the record. Thank you.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Well, it's not something I'm known for, is it?

Ms. Anne McLellan: No.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Reg Alcock: I do have a question, though, about this whole area of cyber-crime. We've been interested in the impacts of the attacks by mafiaboy and I Love You—God knows there's been a number of them—the targeted attacks on the big portals. But there's a whole other area as we move down this track on e-commerce. Finance is running through the whole area of taxation and trying to think through how that happens. Increasingly as we're buying things from other jurisdictions, all the consumer protections from the fraudulent offerings and that kind of thing... Can you give us a sense of what's happening in the body of international law and policy that is going to be necessary?

Ms. Anne McLellan: You raise a very interesting question. When you talk about the growth of e-commerce, a major component of which is the buying and selling of goods over the net, there are a whole host of issues. Privacy issues are the most obvious, and Minister Manley and I have tried to deal with some of those in Bill C-6.

You raise another issue: the normal kinds of contractual promises one anticipates when one purchases a good. Going back to my second-year law school commercial law course, it's merchantability, fit for the purpose, and all those kinds of things. Some of those are implied obligations; some need to be expressed. But you raise a really important question about how you enforce them when in fact the person from whom you've bought the good on the net is in the United States or Great Britain or whatever.

It would seem to me if you're dealing with a reputable vendor, if you're dealing with the Spiegel catalogue in Chicago, they have their warranties and their exclusions right on the site, and you can use those; you can enforce them. Obviously whether one wants to start an action in a small claims court in Chicago is another issue, but you'd have that issue if you bought the thing looking at the catalogue and it came through the post. So in some respects those issues are the same. As long as on the website you're dealing with a reputable dealer or provider of services and they have their warranties and disclaimers on the site, you're in much the situation you would be in if you were buying goods through a more traditional means.

Caution applies to those of us who might shop via the net that perhaps you want to make sure you're dealing with reputable merchants on the other end.

Rick might have a more detailed sense of the kinds of issues that might arise as people develop their use of e-commerce.

I should warn you, Reg is an expert.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Hardly.

Ms. Anne McLellan: His life is this stuff.

Voices: Oh, oh!

• 1630

Mr. Richard Mosley: I don't profess to be an expert in e-commerce, and certainly not in contract law. I can tell you that the criminal law in general terms continues to apply, so if the matter is fraudulent, it can be dealt with under the Criminal Code in Canada or under the comparable statues in other countries.

But the problem, as the minister has pointed out, is how you do the cross-border searches and seizures or get the evidence in the other country to facilitate a prosecution. It's a major problem, particularly with, for example, telemarketing fraud. Steps have been taken by Parliament in this country to facilitate prosecutions in Canada of telemarketing fraud. The Competition Act was amended. The Criminal Code has been amended. But still, the cross-border aspect makes it very difficult.

So we're trying to work again in the community of nations to address those issues. How do we trace the data that will allow us to track somebody who's committed a crime via the Internet? “Trap” and “trace” are the terms that are used in that context. We're working directly with the United States, because most of that business is of course between Canada and the United States at this present time.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I'd like to finish now with a question. I understand the work that's going on internationally around targeting people who are attacking. You referenced that in response to an earlier question. But this is more broadly in the area of commercial law. Are there interjurisdictional groups that are working on that now?

Mr. Richard Mosley: Most definitely. If I may, we're not just looking at attacking computer systems; we're looking at the use of computer systems to commit other crimes. So that work is ongoing.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, with respect to the victims policy centre, you've indicated that you've allocated $20 million over five years. I wonder if you can tell us how you see that $20 million over the five years actually breaking down.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The dollar amounts?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Obviously not just the dollar, but in a ballpark, how that will break down and what we can expect from that $20 million.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, first of all, just in terms of the breakdown, the budget for the victims centre, we are allocating approximately $4 million in each of the next five years for the victims centre.

As for the things we want to do, the first—and I've talked about this before here in this committee—is to make sure that within the federal government we have what we call the victims' lens in relation to what we do, the legislation we pass, not only in the Department of Justice but across the government. The legislation we have—put it through that victims' lens. Is it sensitive to the needs and concerns of victims? Does it provide victims, in appropriate circumstances, with access to the justice system or access to various programs or whatever the case may be? That's something that's very important to us.

But right off the bat is, in a sense, getting our own house in order in the most direct sense. Whether it's my department or whether it's the Department of the Solicitor General or Environment or HRD, whoever it is, let's make sure that when they're initiating legislation policy changes, program changes, we are taking the opportunity to look at that from the perspective of a possible victim and making sure we're being sensitive to all the possible interested and involved parties.

Obviously, as I say, we are going to develop in partnership, in conjunction, in consultation with a lot of the victims groups a research agenda. Our level of research—and Mr. Sullivan would probably agree with me here—done here in Canada is maybe a bit behind the research being done in other countries, and that's something we want to deal with. If we can institute research, either ourselves or in partnership with victims groups, with others who are working in the field who have expertise, that's very important. We will learn more about victims and their role in the justice system and their needs and what works and what doesn't work in meeting those needs as that research moves forward.

• 1635

I think it's very important to underscore, in the world in which we live, that out of that money, we are not in the business here of creating a bureaucracy. We will have a very small number of people in the victims' centre as such, and what we want to do is use most of that money, in the form of grants and contributions, to work with organizations such as Mr. Sullivan's and others, front-line organizations that work with victims and will be able to provide research and develop research projects in conjunction with us, perhaps the provinces, and others.

So I want to reassure people that very little of that money is going to be eaten up by the so-called federal bureaucracy. Almost all of it will be going out in the form of grants and contributions to others who are on the front lines.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cadman.

Madam Carroll, please.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too am going to use the caveat, Minister. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was lobbing you a question. The reason I say that is I'm going to use an article out of the National Post, which we know is very predisposed to the government and as such might create the wrong perception.

A headline in May 8's National Post is “Canada tougher on youth crime than U.S.”, and they make reference to the fact that a recent study now has conclusively produced the evidence that we are incarcerating several times higher than other common-law countries in Europe, and specifically than the Americans, which was very stunning for the director of systems research at the national centre in Pittsburgh. He simply couldn't believe this was true.

Of course one of the reforms we have spent a lot of time discussing here is using alternatives for our non-violent young offenders, but they quote you as saying:

I would ask those who see [youth justice reform] in a relatively simplistic way, which is to put more young people in jail for longer, I would ask them what they think that solves, because we put more young people in jail than any other industrialized country.

As the National Post went on to say, nobody could prove what you were saying was true, and now the proof is in the pudding, and more than that, even in the National Post. So I wondered if you'd like to comment on that.

Ms. Anne McLellan: That research is very important. We had based our earlier assessments of the situation and where we stood in relation to the incarceration of young offenders, especially for non-violent crimes, on work somewhat, I suppose, fragmentary in nature—work done by various law professors and criminologists, drawing upon the then available statistics in the country, in the United States, and in European countries and Australia.

What that article refers to is an upcoming study by the Department of Justice in the United States. I have not seen the study myself at this point, and Catherine, I don't know whether you've seen it yet. It's being released this week. I don't know whether it's been released yet or not. But what it does, I gather, perhaps for the first time in a very comprehensive way, is set out what incarceration rates are in the United States in relation to young offenders. It does confirm our initial impression, based on the research we had, that this country, our country, incarcerates young people, especially for non-violent crimes, at rates out of proportion with virtually every other western democracy.

That's why I asked the question to those who suggest, “Well, if you'd just put more young people in jail for longer, we'd have a safer society.” Well, we're putting an awful lot of young people in jail. We put more in jail than the United States, and we divert fewer out than they do in the United States. It should call upon all of us to stop and think about what are the effective solutions to youth crime.

What you see reflected in Bill C-3 is an acknowledgement that when you're dealing with non-violent young offenders, especially those who have committed a first offence, probably the last place those kids should be is in a formal justice system. That's why so much of Bill C-3 is devoted to diverting those kids, those young people, out of that system and into community-based systems.

• 1640

Of course the formal justice system has a role to play. If a young person murders or rapes or commits an armed robbery, nobody anywhere would suggest that the formal criminal justice system does not have a role to play. But in terms of looking at non-violent youth crime and how we can best deal with that, I think Bill C-3 points us in a very positive direction and in a relatively new direction.

It doesn't matter where you are in this country, there is no province you can look to where the incarceration rates are not simply too high for non-violent offences.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I find it rather funny, Madam Minister, when you say that Bill C-3 will contribute to the use of alternative measures for some young people, and will result in fewer people in prison, when your bill goes against what you are saying, particularly in the case of 14 and 15-year-olds and the assumptions that you are making. You are shaking your head, but I am not the only one to tell you this. All of those who are involved in enforcing the Act in Quebec are saying the same thing.

But that is not my question. What assurance do you have that the provinces that were not applying the Young Offenders Act will do a better job with Bill C-3 and divert more young people? When we hear comments like those made by the Attorney General for Ontario, who says that you are not going far enough and that your bill is not harsh enough, what guarantee do you have that these people will change their practices? You are changing the law for them. It's because of those who are not properly enforcing the Young Offenders Act that you are changing it. How do you know that they will apply Bill C-3?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, we are changing this law for Canadian society—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That is not true.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: —to ensure that we have a youth justice system that is based upon three important principles. First of all it's prevention, and then it's meaningful consequences. Meaningful consequences, as I have said all along, does not mean putting young people in jail. It means a range of consequences, depending upon what the young person has done. A clear attempt in this legislation...

You ask how one knows whether other provinces will apply this law. First of all, this law provides much clearer statutory direction to, for example, the front end of the system, the police. It provides much clearer statutory direction to judges in terms of what they should be doing in terms of making determinations in relation to where a young person can best be dealt with in the system.

I think that is very important, and I think it will send a powerful signal. We're providing specifically police and prosecutors and judges with more direction and more ability to look at a wide range of options in terms of dealing with a young person, especially a non-violent young person who might very well be better served—and society better served—by being dealt with in the community.

So I am very hopeful that this legislation will lead to a situation where we have a lower incarceration rate for young people who commit non-violent offences. One of our goals, clearly, is to ensure that as a society and as communities we are looking at mechanisms other than simply charging a young person and having that young person dealt with in the formal justice system. Bill C-3 will go a long way to providing that direction.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Grose.

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

Incidentally, Minister, you inadvertently mentioned 1944. I thought for a brief moment, gee, we're going to talk about something I know more about than you do, because I was there and you weren't.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ivan Grose: You mentioned federal and provincial cooperation. I have the misfortune of being in a riding adjacent to the Ontario Attorney General, who makes a statement a day, about which I say, gee, I don't think that's right. So I look it up or have it looked up. In fact, if this goes on for a couple of more years, I think I could qualify for the bar exam.

• 1645

But invariably the statements he makes misrepresent what we are doing, what our laws say, and when I face him with this, he shrugs and says “That's politics.” Is this the kind of cooperation you're talking about?

Ms. Anne McLellan: I'm not going to comment specifically on my colleague, the Attorney General of Ontario. Mr. Flaherty makes his views clearly known to me, as I make mine known to him, and I think it's fair to say that we have a frank exchange on a wide range of issues.

When you talk about the notion of “That's politics”, in fact I think when one is dealing with the justice system, that is so profoundly important to the strength of our democracy, it is so profoundly important in terms of the way we treat each other and the way we sort out each other's relationships, that one should not play politics with the justice system.

And one should never play politics with the criminal justice system, where one is dealing with difficult circumstances by definition, where, regardless of the crime, something bad has happened to somebody. Someone's property has been damaged. Someone has been hurt. An action determined by society as constituting an offence has taken place. It is most inappropriate to play politics in those circumstances where an accused person's liberty might be at stake; where one wants to have the assurance that the judiciary is independent, that the judiciary feels free, unfettered by political interference or pressure, to assess the facts of that case on the evidence presented before them and make a free and informed decision. To play politics in any way with that is profoundly anti-democratic and, I think, should be profoundly disturbing to all of us.

I want to make it absolutely plain I am not suggesting that any of my colleagues do that. But since you've opened the door to this, I want to say that as far as I'm concerned, on behalf of the Government of Canada, the justice system is simply too important to be a political football for those who have axes to grind.

Having said that, I will say that the justice system, like everything else, evolves. It grows. It has to meet new circumstances and new challenges like e-commerce and cyber-crime, for heaven's sake. So it's not static. It doesn't stay the way it always was. But again, when we think about changing it because of its importance as one of the foundations of a functioning democracy, I think we must try to step back from our partisan political roles and inform ourselves to the greatest extent possible and make informed decisions that, at the end of the day, we do believe will create a better justice system in line with the fundamental values of Canadians.

Canadians respect the rule of law. Canadians want independent judges. They don't want to know that their judges could be pressured by a politician into making a decision about someone's rights or someone's liberty. They believe in these things profoundly, and it is our obligation, every one of us, to fight every day to make sure those things remain untarnished by politics and political pressure. If we fail in that, I think then we will find ourselves in a profoundly disturbing situation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. MacKay.

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

A lovely speech, Madam Minister, and I couldn't agree more. But I want to ask you something.

I wasn't even going to go here, but when it comes to tarnished political footballs, as we speak, a member of your department is testifying in a courtroom in this country about a fallacious, slanderous letter that was written to another country—and you know of which I speak. That letter has yet to be retracted, even though your government has issued an apology and paid $2 million in damages. How long is it going to take before you call off the political henchmen and dogs in pursuit of this particular case?

• 1650

That's my first question.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

The Chair: —before we even entertain it, given the fact that this is current in the court, I think that we would best—

Mr. Peter MacKay: I expected that answer, actually, Mr. Chair. In the context of what was just stated, I wanted to put that on the record.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. MacKay, you ask this question every year.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I wasn't going to ask it, but you opened the door.

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, but you ask it—

Mr. Peter MacKay: You opened the door.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —every year.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Ms. Anne McLellan: And I will tell you the same thing.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I expect you will.

Ms. Anne McLellan: There is an ongoing RCMP investigation. It is not for me, nor is it for the Solicitor General, to terminate that investigation. That would be absolutely outrageous.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It would.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It would be doing the very thing we just talked about earlier. It would be political interference in a police investigation.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It started because of political interference.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The RCMP began that investigation. They are continuing that investigation. If the letter you refer to is to be withdrawn, it will be done so at the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not dictate to the RCMP.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is there anything in your department that vets requests that go to foreign governments to see if they're properly worded, to see if there's any basis for making those kinds of allegations, so you don't find yourself in this embarrassing situation where you're being sued in the courts in this country?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, as I think I mentioned to you, probably when you and I were both very new in our respective roles, in response to the first time you asked this question—Mr. Thompson was with me at that time—we are conscious of the fact that there were important questions asked about the substance of that letter and the fact that some of the language in that letter created a degree of pain and confusion. I would ask Mr. Rosenberg to talk about the things we have done to ensure... and in fact we have put in place after that.

We took this very seriously. We wanted to make sure what happened in that case did not happen again, and therefore we took steps internally, with new processes within the department, to ensure it would not happen again.

Do you want to speak to this?

Mr. Morris Rosenberg: Well, not that I have much to elaborate on this.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, you might.

Mr. Morris Rosenberg: We have a group that looks at these matters. It's important to maintain, as the minister said, a sense of independence between the RCMP and the department, and it's important to ensure that these matters are looked at to make sure they meet basic requirements, but that decisions by the RCMP to make a request, to do an investigation, are not countermanded by the Department of Justice. So we will look at these matters from the point of view of ensuring that they meet formal requirements and we will pass them on, but we are not going to put ourselves in the position of second-guessing what the police do. That would be improper.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. DeVillers, if you could take your seat, you're entitled to your budget.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): I have a question to ask, or a point of order, then, as a start, on the in camera meeting later for the adoption of the CCRA report. Do we need quorum for that and do we have it? There's one member in abeyance in the hall that we could—

The Chair: We need quorum.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: And do we have it?

The Chair: Well, we need nine, so we won't—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: We don't have it.

The Chair: We have it right now, but the members are at liberty.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I do not have a notice.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Did Roger not send you a copy of the report?

[English]

So if someone could ask—

The Chair: I just want to correct an impression, Paul. It is not in camera.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: All right.

The Chair: Now your question to the minister, if you would.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: If someone could ask Ms. Redman to stay, then I'll ask the minister a question. Thank you.

As you know, Madam Minister, a subcommittee of this committee is going to start its work on organized crime, and a couple of issues came up that I'd like to tie into that organized crime. One is the costs involved with investigating and prosecuting because of the international nature and the technologies involved, and so on. I wonder if you could give us some indication of the government's or your ministry's intentions as far as possibly putting more resources towards the whole area of organized crime.

• 1655

On the second one, you were talking about federal-provincial relations, and I'm sure the subcommittee is going to get into that whole area once it starts its work. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on what work is being done now on the federal-provincial areas of organized crime.

Ms. Anne McLellan: In terms of cost, you're absolutely right that if you're the police and you start to investigate a complex transnational... Not all organized crime has to be transnational, but I think almost all of it is, by definition, these days, whether you're dealing with motorcycle gangs with contacts across our border into the United States, or with triads, or whatever the case may be. But whether it's interprovincial or transnational, it's an expensive kind of crime to investigate. It tends to be complex. It obviously also can be quite violent, depending on the nature of the crime, and it generally will involve all sorts of wiretaps. That stuff gets very expensive.

Rick, is it in one case in Montreal or in Edmonton, by the time one did the wiretap—is this possible, one wiretap?—and all the transcription and everything else, it was a million dollars?

Mr. Richard Mosley: We've estimated that on a major investigation with cross-border implications, a single case can amount to $1 million or more.

Ms. Anne McLellan: That's just the investigation. It may or may not include, I guess, all the aspects of the police investigation.

The police need high technology to investigate these crimes, so their costs go up in terms of their capital infrastructure, which is why my colleague the Solicitor General requested and got significant new resources to help the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in particular, fulfil their function as a national police force in relation to dealing with organized crime.

He has also received additional funds in the budget of 2000 to deal with the whole host of issues surrounding lawful access, which is very important. That speaks to interception and search and seizure.

Then you have the legal aid costs. Look at the Manitoba Warriors case that is before the courts now in Manitoba.

Rick, refresh my memory; they estimated at one point that their total legal aid costs would represent what percentage of their total annual budget?

Mr. Richard Mosley: My recollection was that it would have been at least 50% of the provincial legal aid budget for the year. Of course, that was at the point at which they were facing a trial with 35 accused. A number of those accused have since entered pleas of guilty, so the number of accused remaining before the court for trial is reduced.

Ms. Anne McLellan: But as you can see, the costs are enormous.

Then think about the fact that in some of these trials, once you're in court, these trials can take up to a year, and in fact, as we know, it has been referred to in the papers from time to time and is an area where we have undertaken our own investigation with key parties.

When you're investigating this kind of crime, when you're prosecuting this kind of crime, when you're the judge sitting on these kinds of cases, it is not unusual to be threatened. It is not unusual to have your family threatened. That's another side to this. There, one is not most concerned about the cost but about the physical security of these people, but there is obviously a cost involved if you are providing 24-hour-a-day security to prosecutors or judges, as the case may be.

• 1700

So organized crime is an expensive kind of crime to investigate, to prosecute, and on which to get convictions. We are well aware of that, which is why both my colleague the Solicitor General and I acknowledge and have requested additional resources to be able to do our share in partnership with the provinces and others.

That leads very quickly to your other question. We are working very closely with the provinces and the territories. Everybody agrees that the only way we deal with organized crime effectively is to have a high degree of integration between federal and provincial law enforcement officials and also at the prosecutorial function.

I'll give you a quick example. The Province of Alberta has established its own organized crime unit. It has a number of police representatives, including the RCMP and local city police. It has provincial prosecutors and a representative from my federal prosecution service. The only way we deal with these things effectively is to integrate our resources, both human and financial, and work together.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman, and then Mrs. Redman. Remember, everybody, we have to deal also with Mr. DeVillers' report.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have a quick question.

Going back to my previous question, Madam Minister, you made a point of mentioning that you expect the majority of the money to be going into research, and you mentioned grants and contributions. In light of what has been going on in the House over the last few weeks, will you guarantee us that you're going to put strict guidelines and criteria, and monitor the outcome, monitor the resource?

Ms. Anne McLellan: I'm sorry, Mr. Cadman, when I talked of grants and contributions, that was not perhaps the most felicitous phrase I could use, but in fact that's how they're described—Gs and Cs, or grants and contributions.

But, yes, absolutely, our budget for the centre is not a large budget, and there is much work to be done. So in fact we will be very rigorous in establishing guidelines and criteria in terms of our work plan, what we're looking for, the groups with whom we work, our expectations in relation to those groups, and the work they do for us.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Some commitment to follow-up in particular is what I'm looking for.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, absolutely. It seems to me that in the front end you need clear guidelines and criteria. Then at the back end, and even during, you need ongoing evaluation mechanisms and for those evaluation mechanisms to be transparent. Those people who are in receipt of dollars from us, who are doing work, need to know our expectations in relation to evaluation. They need to know when those evaluations will be called for and done, and they need to know the consequences of those evaluations.

So I think it's absolutely key to have, going in, clear criteria and guidelines, and then during and coming out, a rigorous evaluation process, because if we have $4 million a year for the victims centre, it is not a lot of money to do the kinds of work we need to have done and I know you would like to see done. Therefore, we can't afford to waste it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

This is another question about Bill C-3, and actually it's not a bad segue from what Aileen Carroll was talking about. That is, given the incarceration rates of youth and the fact that we're looking at a renewal of the youth justice initiative, it's intended to be multidisciplinary and cooperative in addressing youth crime. I wonder how we're reaching out to individuals in groups that haven't traditionally been involved in youth justice.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It's very important when you're dealing with youth justice to understand, first and foremost, that our target should be prevention. The way you really create a safe and secure society is by preventing crime in the first place, not reacting to it after we've created another victim, after someone has been hurt or their property has been damaged or destroyed.

If you're going to deal with prevention, which is a proactive front-end approach, what you have to do is identify the root causes of crime. That is going to require that you work with a whole host of agencies and people that sometimes haven't been as directly involved in the justice system as we would like.

• 1705

For example, look at the root causes of crime: poverty, addiction in the family, drugs and alcohol, domestic violence, poor health, FAS. Our colleague Paul Szabo is doing very good work in relation to FAS, along with many others. The three prairie provinces have created a network to pool their resources to deal with the challenge of FAS and to try to prevent it.

What does that mean in terms of who we will have involved? Even looking at the prevention side of youth justice, who are we going to have involved? We're going to have doctors. We're going to have prenatal specialists. We're going to have people working with teenage mothers-to-be, schools where those young people go to school, communities, religious leaders. We're going to draw upon a host of people who have probably only been tangentially involved in the justice system before.

Part of what we're doing through our crime prevention programming is working with those people through local community involvement. Local communities identify their needs in terms of prevention. We will work with a whole host of new people, I think, in terms of creating that network of early identification and support and help for families and for the young people in those families so that in fact we can lower dramatically the incidence of involvement of young people in the justice system in whatever way they might become involved in it. That, to me, is one of the most exciting things that we as a society are doing.

We in the federal government have our piece, and provinces are involved energetically in crime prevention, but most importantly, the local communities where we all live with our families are embracing their responsibility in terms of all of us working together to prevent crime. You prevent crime first and foremost by having healthy families and healthy, well-adjusted kids growing up in those families.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. I think we're actually beyond your time, but I'm sure if you wanted to come back, we have a member who would be pleased to invite you.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you. Merci. It was a pleasure.

The Chair: Now we have to turn to other business. I ask members to stay, and I also would like to correct the record. We're now going to proceed to meet in camera. I invite those of you who understand who you are to perhaps have conversations outside the room.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]