JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, April 20, 1998

[English]

• 1535

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): All right, we're back. It's April 20 and we're studying main estimates today.

With us from the Department of Justice we have the Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, with George Thomson, deputy minister; Mario Dion, associate deputy minister, civil law and corporate management; Thea Herman, senior assistant deputy minister, policy sector; and Richard Mosley, assistant deputy minister, criminal policy.

Just before we begin, I want to say that we have for circulation—in both languages—two letters from the minister, one in relation to our planned study of victims' rights and one in relation to the issue of conditional sentencing. I'm going to ask to have those circulated to committee members because they may be of interest in terms of this process today.

Minister, I understand you have a statement.

[Translation]

The Honorable Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. My presentation this afternoon will be brief to give you an opportunity to ask more questions about the report as well as the plans and priorities of the Department of Justice.

[English]

Thank you very much for inviting me here today. And since you have already introduced the members of the Justice team or, as I like to think of us, the Justice “family”, I won't repeat that and take up time.

Since taking office last year as Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, one of my principal objectives has been to work towards increasing the confidence of Canadians in all parts of our justice system. Many countries yearn to emulate the success of our justice system.

However, our system of justice is a work in progress. Much work remains for the Department of Justice and indeed for all of us around this table.

In my remarks this afternoon, I will review some of the approaches my department will be taking to increase Canadians' confidence in our system of justice. My premise is that our system of justice must be able to accommodate all Canadians, whatever our backgrounds. My remarks will address a number of specific policy areas that are at the heart of our efforts: the areas of crime prevention, youth justice, victims, the courts, and conditional sentencing. I believe that progress on our initiatives in these areas will have an impact on Canadians' confidence in our system of justice.

I will begin this afternoon with a very brief overview of the department's spending and resource management. You have seen from our report on plans and priorities that the department will spend approximately $637 million in 1998-99. This represents an overall increase of approximately $110.3 million in the department's planned spending. The new spending is primarily related to child support reform, aboriginal justice, firearms and crime prevention. We would be pleased to answer your questions on these programs.

I would highlight two aspects of the department's spending. First, 36% of the department's budget goes to the provinces, through our juvenile justice services program under the Young Offenders Act and through the criminal legal aid program. Second, I would also note that another 23% of the department's budget will be used for the provision of advisory, litigation and legislative services to the Government of Canada. In this area, the department has developed new ways of working with our clients, through our client-driven service initiative and through our dispute resolution program.

Finally, in terms of human resources, I would note that the Department of Justice is currently conducting a major review of its human resources policies, and its implementation of the La Relève program is well under way.

In the interest of leaving as much time as possible for questions, I will now turn to the department's policy agenda. Let me begin with crime prevention.

In the coming weeks I will be launching the next phase of our national strategy on community safety and crime prevention. As you know, the budget in February confirmed that we are increasing funding in this area, from $3 million per year to $32 million per year. Our strategy is to help communities address the root causes of crime. My sense is that one of the best ways of building Canadians' confidence in the justice system is to get Canadians involved in finding practical solutions in their communities.

• 1540

I had the pleasure of visiting the Waterloo region on Thursday evening last week and I had the opportunity to speak at the twentieth anniversary of the Community Crime Prevention Council. Andrew Telegdi, Karen Redman and Lynn Myers, the MPs who represent the area, were my hosts for that event.

I think if one wants to look at the value of crime prevention and the value of involving grassroots communities in taking ownership of at least some part of making sure our communities are safe and secure, one could do no better than look at the example of the Waterloo region, where over the past 20 years they have done so much, through the involvement of all community organizations and members, to ensure that theirs is a community of safety and security. So I thank the three members of Parliament—Mr. Telegdi is here today—for inviting me to that event.

The role of the Department of Justice in this next phase of the crime prevention strategy will be to help communities share information on best practices, to help federal government departments work in a coordinated fashion, and to build partnerships between governments, NGOs and the private sector.

However, at the end of the day the success of this program must depend on our ability to mobilize the commitment, ideas, expertise and contribution of Canadians at the grassroots level. If we succeed in that task, our strategy will have an impact on confidence in our justice system, both for those who are directly involved in this prevention work and for all Canadians who benefit from our crime prevention strategy.

Your role as members of Parliament is therefore very important to this effort, and I welcome your ideas and those you bring forward on behalf of your constituents to ensure this grassroots-driven program is as successful as it can possibly be.

Let me turn next to youth justice. There is no doubt in my mind that Canadians' confidence in the youth justice system has been shaken in recent years. However, it is wrong to assume that this lack of confidence represents simply a hardening of public attitudes toward young offenders. Canadians want assurance that young offenders, particularly violent young offenders, will face meaningful consequences for their crimes. But Canadians also have great hope for youth, and support new ways of approaching youth justice that give young people the opportunities to turn their lives around.

Perhaps most importantly, Canadians believe that changes to the law are not enough. Reforming our youth justice system to better reflect Canadians' concerns does not mean putting more kids in jail for longer periods. This is too simplistic an approach. Canadians rightly expect violent youth will face custody, but jail terms are often counterproductive for the vast majority of youth who are non-violent.

We need to look at alternative approaches that specifically aim to instil the values of responsibility and accountability. What we need, therefore, is a comprehensive renewal of our youth justice system, not just a simple toughening up of the Young Offenders Act.

I am convinced the most effective way to deal with youth crime is through broad, integrated approaches like the national children's agenda and the crime prevention initiative I described earlier.

I would also argue that a consensus has formed among my provincial and territorial colleagues on the need to deal strictly with young offenders who engage in serious and repeat crimes, while ensuring that alternatives exist for low-risk offenders. I very much hope this consensus will inform the work of this committee. Certainly your report on renewing youth justice has broken new ground in this area.

As you know, I plan to respond formally to that report in the near future and I hope all of us at this table will be able to work together to build Canadians' confidence in our youth justice system.

Turning to the area of victims, this issue is another priority for my department. I also understand you believe this to be a priority area. I know you have a well-developed plan to address this issue, including extensive hearings. I fully expect the work of the committee to inform any victims' initiative of my department, and I eagerly await your recommendations.

• 1545

All of us around this table will agree that victims of crime deserve to be treated with dignity and respect by the justice system. At a minimum, our system of justice must provide victims with two things: access to information and legal protections.

With respect to access to information, victims say they are frustrated by the lack of coordination and information sharing about victims' rights and services between jurisdictions. I am therefore exploring the possibility of establishing a central victims' office.

With respect to legal protections, we recently intervened to defend the constitutional validity of new Criminal Code provisions restricting public access to the medical records of complainants in sexual offence prosecutions. This case will soon go to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, we need to move beyond the basics. If we are to restore the confidence of Canadians in the way our justice system treats victims, I believe the federal government needs to move to a new level of activity while respecting the rightful role of other levels of government.

Indeed, the letter sent to the chair, which has been tabled, outlines my thoughts on some of the key issues I hope the committee will consider in its deliberations, including amendments to the Criminal Code, the broader use of victim impact statements, and the establishment of an office for victims of crime within or outside the Department of Justice.

Your feedback on these issues and on the other matters you consider will be instrumental to the department's work. The way victims are treated is a critical issue in building Canadians' confidence in our system of justice. I look forward to both your recommendations and your feedback on our proposals.

Another area that is very closely related to Canadians' confidence in our system of justice is the critical role of the courts. The proper functioning of a democratic society depends on a number of key players—Parliament, the executive, and the judiciary. This is a classic situation where the sum is greater or bigger than the parts. When each of these three parts respects the others, we enjoy a strong, democratic society.

The Constitution requires us to protect judicial independence through security of tenure, financial security, and institutional security. The amendments to the Judges Act in Bill C-37, which I tabled in the House of Commons, are part of our effort to protect judicial independence. We believe the salary increase in the bill is a reasonable response to the independent recommendations of the Scott commission.

Bill C-37 also provides for the enhancement of unified family courts. As you know, the federal government has begun to finance the creation and expansion of unified family courts. Particularly in the area of litigation involving families and children, it is critical to link our courts with other support services at the community level.

Again, this initiative is part of our approach to building the confidence of Canadians in our justice system by improving the links between the courts and other services to the public.

Before I conclude, I would like to turn to the issue of conditional sentencing. Judges have been able to grant conditional sentences since September 1996. Between September 1996 and December 31, 1997, over 18,000 such sentences were imposed. The vast majority of these orders were well-reasoned, appropriate dispositions. However, some decisions have caused concern and controversy. Courts of appeal across Canada are providing guidance to lower courts on these issues.

The department is also working closely with the provinces and territories to monitor conditional sentences. This monitoring work is important, because good law reform policy needs to be based on real facts. We are also considering the development of common guidelines that would assist prosecutors in deciding when to seek conditional sentences and assist prosecutors in deciding when to appeal conditional sentences.

You, as a committee, can help in this regard, and I have written to you, Madam Chair, on the subject of asking the committee to consider holding a review of conditional sentencing. Your recommendations would inform the Department of Justice's work in this area.

By way of conclusion, let me say that the Department of Justice's report on plans and priorities shows that we are moving forward with a balanced and focused policy agenda. The policy priorities described in the report have been carefully chosen to respond to the issues Canadians have identified as being important to them.

• 1550

In addition to the issues I have already addressed, our short-term legislative agenda will include the introduction of legislation permitting extradition to the International Tribunal on War Crimes, criminal law reform on such issues as the year-and-a-day rule, and the establishment of a court structure for the new territory of Nunavut.

I believe that the department is managing its resources responsibly and that the department's policy work will have an impact on Canadians' confidence in their justice system. My appearance before you today gives me an opportunity to ask for your assistance with our policy agenda.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention and your patience. I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you.

The Chair: I only have one name so far. If I let Mr. Telegdi go first, there won't be any time for anyone else. I'll let him go first anyway.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, I was trying to find in the estimates the section you were talking about—this is the commitment for the crime prevention moneys—but I couldn't quite find it.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Andrew, look on page 19, for example, at planned spending under law and policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, George, but under net expenditures, planned spending for 1998-99 is $457.5 million. That includes within it the $32 million for crime prevention.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to know which section to—

Ms. Anne McLellan: That's where it is, Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: —actually relate it to.

There's no question that moving in that direction is something really super positive, enabling communities to have the resources to start dealing with some of the root causes of crime.

I would draw your attention to recommendation 4 of the report of this committee on renewing youth justice. In that report, we recognize that of course this is just a start. The $32 million this year represents 1% of the funding for the whole justice system, which is for the Solicitor General and your ministry included. We are looking to get those moneys up to 5% over time.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Indeed, I have noted that recommendation. I think it's a very important one not only in terms of the renewal of our youth justice system, but also more generally for increasing Canadians' confidence in their justice system and increasing Canadians' confidence through local empowerment.

One of the things I already commented on was that I was so impressed in the Waterloo region by the fact that you had some 30 or more people around a table, all of whom represented a wide variety of stakeholder organizations—this included the police, John Howard Society, and others, such as local politicians—that came together to take ownership of how we create communities in which crime is less prevalent and where obviously ultimately our goal would be to prevent crime entirely.

It seems to me that at the end of the day, obviously, there are a host of strategies that will help Canadians renew their confidence in the justice system. But for me, I think greater resources in crime prevention and to empower local communities to work within those communities to create safety and security is a key to everything else we do. Therefore, I'm going to be working very hard with my colleagues and all of you to attempt to strike a better balance between that present disposition of resources.

Most of you probably know that federal and provincial governments together, if you include the courts, prosecutors and federal and provincial prison systems, spend $32 billion a year after someone has allegedly broken a law. Starting this year, we're going to spend $32 million on preventing someone from breaking the law.

• 1555

It does seem to me that we need to strike a much better balance. The savings for society, not only in terms of dollars and cents but in terms of lost productivity and the psychological costs of crime, must be reduced. We can do it, I think, by striking a better balance and putting more money into crime prevention.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi. Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): I would like to thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing and making your presentation to us and bringing your officials along with you to respond to our questions. I hope you can stay until we have exhausted all of them.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I don't know about that, sir. I guess that's up to the chair.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: My question has to do with the Young Offenders Act. The administration of the act is the responsibility of the provinces and there is a cost-sharing agreement between the federal government and the provinces. Why is it that you've allowed the relationship between your government and the Government of Manitoba to deteriorate to the point where Manitoba is taking the federal government to court to see whether or not they can opt out of the responsibility of administering the act, as a result of the federal government cutting back on their share of the cost of administration? Why is that happening?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, Mr. Ramsay, you are right that we believe the administration of the youth justice system in this country is a shared responsibility. We have worked and will continue to work very hard with the provinces to ensure that we have a youth justice system that meets the needs of Canadians. There is no question that the federal contribution to the administration of the youth justice system has decreased.

You will remember that the previous government, in 1988-89, placed a cap on federal contributions. It is also true that through program review—and the deputy will speak in more detail on this—we also imposed smaller reductions, but still reductions, on the amount of money we were able to provide to the provinces for the administration of the Young Offenders Act.

Manitoba is not alone in expressing concern. I am very sympathetic to the concern that the provinces have expressed in relation to our existing cost-shared arrangements. In the province of Quebec, my colleague Mr. Ménard and I have talked about this issue. It is a concern for both the federal and provincial governments. We continue to discuss and negotiate those arrangements with the provinces. I will certainly be making the argument with my colleagues, as our fiscal dividend becomes more stable and secure, that the youth justice system could benefit from greater funding as we move forward. You could all help me in this. Whether I am successful in that is a question of priority setting, and we all know what that involves.

Having said that, I look forward to continuing my discussions with the Attorney General of Manitoba and I hope we will be able to bring a successful conclusion to those discussions.

George, there may be something you want to add.

Mr. George Thomson (Deputy Minister of Justice): I can only say, Mr. Ramsay, that the reduction in the percentage— Until the recent program review cuts it was a percentage reduction, not a reduction in actual dollars. At the end of the 1980s there was a cap placed on the total amount of cost-sharing dollars that were available. So as the cost of the youth justice system went up, the percentage would then decline, because the federal contribution was a fixed sum.

The program review cuts were actually quite modest compared with cuts in other areas. They were 3.8% overall for the first stage and 3.5% for the second phase of program review. Those cuts have come into play, the first one about two years ago and the second one this year.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It seems, when a government of a province is going to court on this matter, that negotiations have broken down. Why is it that you've allowed this to happen with the Province of Manitoba?

Mr. George Thomson: I might say that negotiations have been ongoing in the renegotiation of the cost-sharing agreement. In fact, we have given some assurances that we will continue those and we won't move any dollars from one province to another, which was a concern of Manitoba, or try to control where the federal dollars went as we moved to the new youth justice system. We have indicated a willingness to address the funding issue as part of our move to a new Young Offenders Act or new youth justice legislation. Those discussions are ongoing.

• 1600

Manitoba has raised a broader question, one that we think is not valid in law, about whether or not there is an obligation on the part of the province to participate in the administration of this part of the justice system, and we have raised it to that level, but not to the point of our not continuing our discussions on cost sharing.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But isn't that based upon the fact that they feel you have not lived up to your cost-sharing agreement and responsibilities? As the cost escalates, you're moving the financial responsibility onto the backs of the provincial governments. It seems to me that when they start to move into a court action situation, your negotiations have failed. How is it that you've allowed this province to reach that state of desperation, I might say, where their only recourse is not negotiation but court action?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. Ramsay, that is a choice they have made. Other provinces have taken a different approach. In fact, Mr. Ramsay, as you are well aware, we and provincial governments in this country have had to get our fiscal houses in order; it has been at some cost and some sacrifice. There were very, very few programs, if any, either at the federal or provincial levels, that were saved from that cost-cutting exercise. But now that we have balanced the books of the nation and most provinces have balanced their books, I think it provides us with the opportunity to talk about what our priorities are from this point on, moving forward.

As I've already indicated, I will certainly be making the case with the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board and all my colleagues that the renewal of the youth justice system should be one of those priorities.

I find it passing strange, Mr. Ramsay, that as a representative of the Reform Party who has preached fiscal responsibility, if I may put it that way, you would apparently be oblivious to the very difficult fiscal circumstances in which all levels of government have found themselves over the past number of years. We've all struggled and Canadians have struggled, but now there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Then can you tell the committee whether or not you've made the Province of Manitoba an offer that they will reconsider? Is there an offer on the table?

Ms. Anne McLellan: George, do you want to comment specifically?

Mr. George Thomson: No. There are discussions at the moment on how to renegotiate the cost-sharing arrangements within the dollars we have available. The question of whether there will be additional resources is one that we will address as we move into the new reforms that will be coming out shortly. So they are aware of the fact that any new funding or additional funding that might be available would be available as part of that initiative.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So there is not a new proposal placed to them. They're going to court and there is no new proposal from the federal government on the table. Is that what you're telling the committee?

Mr. George Thompson: There is no proposal of new funds. We have had ongoing discussions about how we might give them more flexibility or adopt new approaches in the cost-sharing approaches to the money we already have, but there are no new proposals on the table at this point. However, there is an understanding that we will discuss that as part of the law reform and other changes that are coming.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, I'll come back to you.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you.

Madam Minister, I'm going to follow up on that a little bit, if I can. Thank you for coming today.

I began practising law when the last Young Offenders Act was introduced. I think you'll agree with me that part of the problem at that time was that many of the facilities that were promised—and we thought would be helpful—the provinces simply couldn't afford. Consequently, we ended up with a Young Offenders Act that couldn't be implemented. This may, in part, add to the perception problem that the public has today with this act.

In terms of cost sharing with the provinces, it has just been indicated that there's no new proposal for funds. Many of the changes in this committee's report on a new youth justice system will be costly for the provinces. So can you indicate to me, is there any agreement, not just with Manitoba but with the other provinces, on a funding formula? Do they know how much money they're going to get to implement a new program?

• 1605

Ms. Anne McLellan: They have been operating under an existing formula. These cost-shared agreements aren't new. But as we move forward with the renewal of the youth justice system, we are the first to acknowledge that if we are able to achieve that which we hope to achieve, it will require additional resources.

I cannot promise that those additional resources will be forthcoming, but as I have already indicated, I will certainly be making the argument very strongly that within the context of the national children's agenda in this country, which federal and provincial governments have all signed on to and supported so strongly, the renewal of the youth justice system is an important part of that agenda and, therefore, additional resources for the renewal of the youth justice system will be important. Certainly I make that pledge, if you like, to members of committee. I will be making that argument.

Everybody acknowledges that additional resources will be needed. And this isn't new, as—

Mr. Peter Mancini: No.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —I think you yourself have said. Probably you knew that additional resources were needed as of 1984 or thereabouts—

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —when the existing Young Offenders Act came into force.

Therefore, the concern surrounding resources isn't new, but in the context of the national children's agenda it is one that I believe we need to address honestly and openly.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you. I'm going to shift direction here a little bit, because I think you've rightly recognized that there's a tremendous balancing act here as we recognize things like the victim's place within the criminal justice system. At the same time, the federal government has a responsibility for funding the criminal legal aid plans in the provinces, which is what you've acknowledged, and part of the difficulty, I appreciate, in that balancing act is ensuring that there is a basic, fundamental protection of civil liberties by ensuring legal aid availability in the provinces.

Is there any anticipated increase in funding for the provinces through the criminal legal aid plan to ensure that it expands? I guess I'm asking you two questions: is there a recognition that this system is now crumbling, that it has real problems across the country, and are there any plans to increase funding for that specific purpose?

Ms. Anne McLellan: I think it should surprise no one that there have been discussions and concerns for some time in relation to legal aid and the state of legal aid in this country. Obviously legal aid, as you're well aware, has two components, criminal legal aid and civil legal aid, and there have been modest cuts at the federal level in our cost sharing of legal aid with the provinces.

I also believe, however, that the provincial cuts have, in most cases, far exceeded the modest cuts the federal government imposed on federal legal aid expenditures. I think there is a recognition between the federal government and the provincial governments that we must continue to monitor the existing legal aid system and that we must continue to work together to ensure that we have a system that provides and protects the rights of those who need legal representation, particularly of those who are at risk of losing their liberty.

That's why we have a federal-provincial-territorial working group on legal aid. And other stakeholders, such as the federation of law societies, the CBA and other groups, are invited to participate in that working group—because they are all key stakeholders—on how we work together, acknowledging the resource pressures, to meet the basic needs of Canadians who aren't able to provide for their own legal representation, especially in those cases where loss of liberty is at stake.

I wish I could say to you today that I have this big pot of money and our only task this afternoon is to decide how to divide it up so that we have exactly the youth justice system we want and exactly the crime prevention program we want and exactly the legal aid system we want. In fact, I can't promise that, but what I do promise is that we acknowledge the concerns and that federal and provincial governments are working on those concerns together, within our existing resources. As federal and provincial governments stabilize their fiscal dividends, I think it is possible to move forward and hope that some of the things we've been talking about become priorities for both federal and provincial governments.

• 1610

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): One of the many subjects that I would like to discuss with you is the Young Offenders Act.

The federal government drafted the Young Offenders Act which is administered by the provinces. To add to what my colleague, Mr. Mancini, said, Quebec's enforcement efforts have been deemed quite successful, at least according to previous federal justice ministers.

However, the federal government is amending the legislation, further complicating enforcement. The client load has increased. If Quebec is to continue successfully enforcing the legislation as it has done in the past, it must invest more money in this task. For several years now, and you yourself admitted as much, federal funding has been capped, or has even decreased compared to past years.

As you well know, Quebec has been calling for more funding to enforce the Young Offenders Act for many years now. Regardless of the funding calculation method used, whether based on the number of clients, on the target population—

By the way, Quebec is home to over 25 per cent of the countries youth, while federal funding represents slightly less than 18 per cent. Admittedly, the gap is not enormous. However, if we consider a period of several years, we find that the federal government owes Quebec millions of dollars for enforcement of the Young Offenders Act.

Your predecessor, Allan Rock, made two admissions at a federal-provincial meeting: firstly, that in terms of enforcing the Young Offenders Act, Quebec had done an exemplary job, and secondly, that funding for enforcement provisions has been inequitable given the enforcement efforts of Quebec.

Madam Minister, several weeks after you were appointed Minister of Justice, provincial Justice Minister Serge Ménard sent you a letter indicating that it was high time for the federal government to negotiate a new agreement with the province of Quebec.

So far—I didn't check into this during the two-week Easter break—you have not deigned to acknowledge this letter from your Quebec counterpart. Yet, the letter was more than justified, judging from what your predecessor himself admitted.

My question is quite simple. When is the federal government going to give Quebec its due with respect to the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act?

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

[English]

Let me say, first of all, that I received the letter from Minister Ménard approximately one month before our federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers of justice, and in fact the whole question of young offenders and cost sharing was on the agenda for that meeting, which was held in Montreal. Monsieur Ménard was our very gracious host. In fact he and I and our colleagues had the opportunity at that meeting to discuss the provinces' concerns with cost-shared arrangements.

Therefore, please, do not labour under the misapprehension that I have not spoken or Monsieur Ménard has not had the opportunity in the context of our federal-provincial-territorial meeting to express his views. In fact that was a specific agenda item at that meeting.

In relation to the comments made by my predecessor that Quebec should serve as an example, I think we would all agree with that. In fact I heard your honourable colleague, Mr. Ramsay, on a television show over the Easter break speaking in very eloquent terms about what Quebec has been able to achieve as it relates to the Young Offenders Act. I think we all acknowledge that. Quite truthfully, one of the things I would like to do with the renewal of the youth justice system in this country is encourage other provinces to take the more integrated or, if you like, holistic approach to the administration of youth justice as we see it in the province of Quebec.

• 1615

I am not going to quibble with the statistics you have used, that indeed Quebec has approximately 25% of the youth population of this country and they receive 18% of our cost-shared dollars for the administration of youth justice. I am not going to deny that as we move forward with the renewal of the youth justice system and as we continue our discussions on cost-shared arrangements with the provinces, I quite clearly would like to deal with that inequity that presently exists in the treatment of Quebec.

So as soon as we are able to move forward with the renewal of the youth justice system, I am hopeful that we will be able to deal with the inequity you've identified—and others, quite truthfully—that exists in the current administration of the youth justice system.

George wants to say one thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The various justice ministers met in November of 1997. If my memory serves me correctly, Minister Serge Ménard sent you a letter in December of last year—I don't have a copy of the letter with me—pointing out that you had not acknowledged receipt of his previous letter. I have the letter in my office, but I believe the dates—

Obviously, Madam Minister, Quebec wants an answer from you. It is equally obvious that the talks you had with your Quebec counterpart Mr. Ménard at the meeting I spoke of were not satisfactory to Quebec. In fact, I met with the Quebec Justice Minister after the holidays and this issue was one of the items on our agenda. The Minister conveyed to me his deep dissatisfaction with your attitude toward Quebec over the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act.

Furthermore, we are not talking about a difference of only one or two million dollars, but rather of several million dollars.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Thomson, did you want to respond to something? Then we'll go on to another question.

Mr. George Thomson: Mr. Ménard has written more than once on this matter. The letter we received that was then talked about in December was I think from October 24. The issue was raised in December. It was then referred to deputies, and we did also talk about it in March.

I might say that I think the major difficulty that's arisen goes back to the beginning of the Young Offenders Act. There were in fact a number of new resources made available at the time the new act was put into place 15 years ago. At that time it was done through cost-sharing dollars, which shared 50% the various costs the provinces had under the new legislation. Some provinces put a much greater emphasis on custody as part of the new resources they developed, much more than Quebec did. The custody part of the system is more expensive.

As a result of that, the percentage that went to other provinces was higher simply because of the decisions made about the kinds of services that would be developed. That really created the inequity that now exists as a result of the decisions made when there were 50% cost-sharing dollars. Now the issue is how to deal with that as we move forward with the youth justice reform strategy in a way that would not have that result.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam Chair, I want to thank the minister and her officials for being here with us. It's a great opportunity to have this exchange in this forum.

Madam Minister, I note first in your preamble your reference to the priority your government places on victims and the inclusion or expansion of victims in the process. I'm very happy to hear you say that, and I know you've said that publicly on a number of occasions.

• 1620

I guess the first question I would pose to you is, with that in mind, and with your ongoing commitment to victims, when might we expect to see even a draft form of what would be called a victims' bill of rights?

Further to that, do you intend to entrench this in the Criminal Code? Do you intend to have this as a separate piece of legislation that would operate within the various provinces?

I guess I'm a little concerned about the language that is being used. No longer are we hearing “victims' bill of rights” in some of your references.

With this as a priority, have you set a timeframe? I'm aware of the fact that there is going to be broad consultation and that all members of Parliament are going to be encouraged to participate in that. I know everyone around this table is very anxious to get on with that process. Have you set a timetable for this?

Ms. Anne McLellan: First of all, in relation to your last question, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I have written to the chair of this committee, because I knew this committee was going to undertake some work as it relates to victims. I applaud the committee for doing that.

In that letter—and I believe people have a copy of it now—I outlined where some of our thinking is at and some of the components that we would like to see in an enhanced approach to victims, always acknowledging, of course, that the provinces have primary jurisdiction as it relates to most victims' services. That is a factor we cannot forget in this.

Therefore, I am hoping that the letter I have tabled with the committee will help inform some of the work you do here, and especially your round table or public consultations, which I believe you'll be having in June. Therefore, building on that work, I would like to come forward in the fall, when we return from summer break, with a proposal on behalf of the government that outlines our position, and one that I hope will be endorsed by the provinces.

The reason that fall period is key is that in September we will have the next meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial justice ministers. I would not want to move forward with a package without having the opportunity to receive, if not the blessing, perhaps, then the views and impressions of those who are in many respects truly on the front lines of victims' issues—my colleagues in the provinces and the territories. So that's the timeframe in which we look forward to moving.

The other issue you raised was in relation to a victims' bill of rights. In fact, in December I took the opportunity to talk to my provincial and territorial colleagues about this issue. I have to say there was a general lack of support at this time for the entrenchment of a victims' bill of rights. However, there was very strong support from my provincial and territorial colleagues to enhance the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. That's an existing statement of principles. There was a very clear desire on the part of all of us to enhance that document and to ensure that this document, at both levels of government, is given the respect and the acknowledgement it deserves.

In fact, we have a federal-provincial-territorial working group that is, among other things, as it relates to victims, working on exactly that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So the entrenchment wouldn't happen within the Criminal Code. When you talk of involvement, you're talking about the use, or the expansion of use, of victims' statements in court, information exchange, or mandatory disclosure of information relevant to a victim's case. You're not envisioning that going in the Criminal Code.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Oh, there indeed may be, and there probably will be, although, again, I would want to discuss this with my provincial and territorial colleagues. As you know better than almost anyone around here, Mr. MacKay—other than the chair, perhaps—the implications of many of these amendments end up impacting the provinces most directly. Therefore, while there may well be recommendations the government will make surrounding possible amendments to the code, I would only do that as part of my ongoing consultation process with the provinces and the territories.

• 1625

I also want to hear what this committee will have to say about possible amendments to the Criminal Code as it relates to an acknowledgement of an enhancement of the rights of victims in our criminal justice system.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Minister, I thank you for your answer. I just want to shift gears slightly. You spoke again of the resource pressures on your department. I think that's true of all government departments, and we acknowledge that. There is also a great deal of human pressure when it comes to justice, and I acknowledge that as well.

In setting the priorities for your department, though, I do have to question the wisdom of the money that has been earmarked for the registration of firearms in this country. I want to ask you specifically about how much money has been spent thus far. What is the projected cost of a system that is anticipated to be up and running by the year 2000? I say this with a backdrop of putting quite firmly on the record that my party and I support gun control, the registration of handguns that we have had in this country, safe storage, and all of those things aimed at safety, but I question the amount of money involved. It is rumoured to already be in excess of the $48 million that was initially estimated to cost. Why has that amount of money been earmarked for gun registration when there are clearly other priorities, such as DNA data banking, such as changes to the Young Offenders Act? That money could be better spent.

Ms. Anne McLellan: First of all, I'm not sure where the number of $48 million came from. Perhaps we could pursue that in just a few minutes, but let me speak to the general principle.

I certainly thank you for your support in relation to the principle of creating a safer and more secure Canada through gun licensing and registration. I think it's quite clear that a growing number of Canadians see this as an important part of our Canadian culture, dare I say, and our efforts as a nation to ensure that we live in safe and secure communities.

I was struck by some recent polling that we did in the province of Ontario, because it showed that support for both licensing and registration have in fact grown significantly over the past number of years. Something like 77% of all Ontario residents support gun registration. That obviously goes beyond embracing simply the principles of gun control, so I think that speaks very much to where we are as a nation and what we value. That leads directly, of course, to the establishment of priorities and the justification of costs.

Any kind of new national system of licensing registration such as the one this government proposed in 1994, and which we will implement as of October 1, 1998, obviously has its costs—and dare I say that there are significant costs attached to it. I come back to the point that I think those costs are viewed as a priority by Canadians in terms of not only reflecting our commitment to safety and security, but also to the enhancement of safety and security.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you said “significant costs”. I guess I'm looking for those numbers, as well as—

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, I've asked Mr. Thomson to speak more directly about some of the specifics.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You also talk about the recent poll.

The Chair: Let the minister and Mr. Thomson finish, and we will get back to you.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. Thomson, perhaps you'd want to take Mr. MacKay through some of the specifics.

Mr. George Thomson: As stated on the broad level, there are really three areas of cost. One is the running of the existing program, the C-17 program. The second is the start-up costs relating to the new system, and that's the so-called $85 million figure that Mr. Rock has spoken about. Third, there are the costs of running the system on an ongoing basis. On getting ready or carrying out all three of those, the expenditures as of April 1 are approximately $66 million. That's the total amount spent to date.

The minister reported in February that as of the end of December, we were in the mid-$30 million range. This is the time when we're doing the major transition costs with the provinces, as well as the set-up, because this is the year when the program actually starts. They have therefore gone up to $66 million at this point.

Mr. Peter MacKay: As of today, $66 million has been spent.

Mr. George Thomson: As of the beginning of April.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And it's not up and running as of yet.

• 1630

Mr. George Thomson: It will be up and running as of October. There's a huge amount of work to get ready for it to be up and running, but the actual operation of the new system will be on October 1. Of course, the C-17 system is in place and running, and that's a portion of our costs.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. MacKay. Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. If my question was asked while I was out, I apologize; I had to go to another committee. But it has to do with the youth justice system.

It seems that very few offenders are causing the biggest problem—the most violent offenders. I was just wondering if any consideration has been given by the Department of Justice to the example with the female offenders and the concept of regional facilities to detain these violent offenders. Possibly with Corrections Canada there might be implications for the cost-sharing difficulties we're running into with the provinces, by having that concept. I just wonder whether there's been any consideration along those lines.

Ms. Anne McLellan: You raise a very important point. It's one we really need to try to make Canadians more aware of. Certainly this committee has played a role through its report on the renewal of youth justice. I think there's more you can do to help Canadians understand that the principles of the Young Offenders Act, as it presently exists, work reasonably well for a significant number of young offenders.

There's a small number of young offenders who are violent, serious repeat young offenders—repeat acts of violence and escalating acts of violence—and we need to be able to reassure Canadians that our system of youth justice protects them. We need to provide reassurance that our system of youth justice is able to protect Canadians from what is a relatively small number of serious and violent young offenders.

Certainly what we want to do in our renewal of the youth justice system is acknowledge the fact that in many cases that small group of young offenders will need different kinds of intervention, and quite truthfully, different kinds of therapeutic interventions and treatments. One of the things I have become aware of that is shocking and speaks to the importance of early intervention and prevention is the very large number of young offenders incarcerated in Canada who suffer from some degree of fetal alcohol syndrome. That is something we should all view as a tragedy.

It seems to me we have to acknowledge that one size doesn't fit all in terms of how we come to grips with the issue of the young offender. We have to acknowledge how different young offenders get to the point they're at in the system, why they're there, and the kinds of treatments, therapies and other kinds of interventions that will be needed to achieve all three of our objectives: protection of society, rehabilitation and reintegration, and prevention.

So you raise a very important point, and you will see with our renewal of the youth justice system that we hope to deal with it explicitly. We are looking at and discussing that very small group of young offenders you've identified with other key stakeholders, including my colleague, the Solicitor General.

The Chair: Thanks Mr. DeVillers. Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Minister and your officials for coming.

I would like you to address the issue of what we constantly face in this committee, namely, charter phobia. Some might call it charter constipation. It played out recently in the DNA legislation.

As you know, the legislation as presented contemplated that DNA would be banked at the point of conviction. There was a lot of discussion and a lot of witness representations with respect to banking at the point of charge. Ultimately the committee voted in favour of the bill as it was presented, on the basis of very strong representations from the justice department and the justice department's lawyers with respect to the charter sustainability of this particular piece of legislation. In other words, we were going to lose the bill if in fact we didn't go with the point of conviction rather than the point of charge.

• 1635

This weekend in the Globe and Mail, an article about the anniversary of the charter reads as follows:

A badly divided Supreme Court of Canada is producing a stream of barely comprehensible Charter of Rights decisions that have left lawyers in a state of confusion, several legal observers said.

And this is from a justice department lawyer named Robert Hubbard:

“Every time I go to the Supreme Court of Canada I haven't a clue what will happen”, said Robert Hubbard, a lawyer for the federal Department of Justice. “The only trend I have seen is no trend.”

And he continues:

Flipping a coin is not a bad way to proceed; at least you have a 50-per-cent chance of winning.

The article continues:

Osgoode Hall law professor Jamie Cameron said that the court is as likely to quietly defer to Parliament as to stampede into areas of law that have not even been placed before it in the case it is hearing. “There is a lack of any principle to explain patterns of activism or deference in the past year. I can't make heads nor tails of them from one case to another.”

This is a very live issue. It will be a live issue that will play out time and again before this committee and before this House. And I'm wondering, Madam Minister, what you now think in terms of the credibility of your department with respect to this particular piece of legislation.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I don't see any logical connection, quite truthfully, between the advice given by my department and what you have just read.

Let me say, in relation specifically to the DNA legislation, that it is obviously legislation on which my colleague the Solicitor General has the lead. However, we work very closely with him. And as the Department of Justice, we provided our best legal advice to the Solicitor General in terms of possible constitutional challenges to various approaches to the collection of DNA, including the time at which it is collected.

We stand by the opinion that we provided to the Solicitor General. In fact, I can inform the committee today that to help clarify the constitutional issues that you were dealing with specifically as it relates to the DNA legislation, we have asked three eminent and impartial former jurists, retired members of the Courts of Appeal of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, to give us their views. I will make those opinions available to this committee and to the public upon their receipt.

I want to reassure the committee that I take very seriously—as does my colleague Andy Scott—the concerns with which you are dealing at this time. I know you've heard much as it relates to the constitutionality of various kinds of approaches to DNA collection. I have every confidence in the legal advice provided by the Department of Justice, such confidence that I am quite happy to seek the impartial opinion of three eminent retired jurists. I will make that information and their opinions public and will share them with this committee.

In terms of your more general question, first of all, I do want to say that my deputy has had the opportunity to speak to the federal prosecutor in question and—Mr. Thomson can clarify his conversation—I do believe— as is the case so often, we find ourselves in a situation where the prosecutor in question believes that his comments were somewhat taken out of context, in that he was on a panel, as you've already noted, with a number of people, including academics, and was the last speaker. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the thrust of at least some of his comments were in defence of the court and the very difficult and challenging task the court has today.

• 1640

To conclude my response to your question on that point, we must all remember that the Supreme Court of Canada has been dealing with, since 1982 and the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some of the most complex and difficult, and in some cases socially divisive, questions we could anticipate as a society. Therefore, I think we have to understand the context in which the court operates.

I also think it has become perhaps a bit of a fad on the part of some. I do not suggest this in relation to you, because I know this is not the case. You and I have talked about this. But some, I think, delight in attempting to discredit the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts in this country.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I would suggest to those who choose that path that it is a very dangerous path, one that ultimately will call into question one of the foundation institutions of our democracy. I have every confidence that the Supreme Court of Canada goes about its job with the utmost integrity, impartiality, honesty, transparency, and fairness. I would ask people to remember that they are nine men and women dealing with some of the most difficult legal, social, and economic questions any group of people has to confront.

Therefore, I'm not here to apologize for the court or perhaps to defend the court but to remind people of the task in which they are involved. Just as we deserve and demand respect for what we do as parliamentarians, I think they have the right to demand and ask for respect for what they do.

Having said that, this does not mean it is not appropriate to criticize what they do. In my former life as an academic, I spent a lot of time doing exactly that.

Mr. John McKay: I'm sure none of these people are unknown to you.

The issue, though, is really the deference to Parliament and the concept of the evolving doctrine of the deference to Parliament. One of the criticisms, shall we say, is coming out of the Vriend decision, in which Mr. Justice Cory said that the charter is the means by which the court dialogues with Parliament. Well, in some respects, with great respect to Mr. Justice Cory, it sounds more like a monologue at times.

My question is, what is the manner by which this committee, and indeed Parliament, can express to the court a more forceful view with respect to legislation such as the DNA? This committee studied this legislation for a long time. This committee heard from a lot of witnesses. In some respects, I dare say it will be a more thorough analysis of the DNA pros and cons, if you will, than will be any lawsuit under any circumstances. Lawsuits by definition are very limited exercises in materiality and relevance.

I'm interested in your comments, because we will keep on hitting this wall. We will keep hitting this point. I'm interested in your view, as Minister of Justice, on how this committee and this Parliament can get past this point where we make, I would respectfully submit, undue deference to a charter challenge.

The Chair: That'll be the last comment, Mr. McKay.

Go ahead, Ms. McLellan.

Mr. John McKay: You mean it wasn't a question?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Let me say that as a committee, as a government, I think our obligation obviously is to pass legislation in the clearest terms possible, with the greatest precision possible, to express the intent of both the government and the Parliament of Canada.

It is, however, ultimately up to the Supreme Court to interpret that legislation. They are called upon to ensure that legislation we pass does not violate, among other things, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the distribution of powers found in sections 91 and 92. Courts were doing that for years, telling the federal Parliament or the provinces that they had exceeded their constitutional jurisdiction. It was the collective political will of Canadians to provide in 1982, with the proclamation of the charter, a new task for the court, which was to assess, in this case, federal legislation against the guaranteed rights and freedoms in the charter. I think the court does that in a considered way, as I have already said, with the greatest integrity and fairness.

• 1645

The charter was a document that had checks and balances within it. As we are all aware, the Supreme Court can determine that a piece of legislation or a section of a piece of legislation violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is not justified under section 1. But at the request of provincial premiers, such as then Premier Peter Lougheed and then Premier Allan Blakeney, the notwithstanding clause, section 33, was included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was an acknowledgement of the fact that there may well be circumstances in which those who are elected, the legislatures of the provinces or the Parliament of Canada, might choose to operate notwithstanding a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I think the charter reflects that system of checks and balances. Should there be a political price to pay if one uses the notwithstanding clause? Absolutely. That was the intent when it was included. Ultimately, the choice lies with elected officials, and elected officials who face the people every four to five years can defend what they have done and they will be held accountable. In my mind, that's what makes a democracy a democracy.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Myron Thompson, you said you had a question?

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): I'll make it short, and I will probably share some time with my colleague.

I've been attending quite a few trials in the last four years. I've attended these at the request of the victims.

Last weekend two violent sexual predators broke out of the Bowden penitentiary. The families of the victims were not notified by any authorities. They heard it on the news. I don't need to tell you what kind of terror they lived in over the weekend. They didn't know if they were coming after them. They didn't know where to hide. They didn't know what to do.

In the last session we had a victims' bill of rights—I know you'll remember—that hit the floor of the House of Commons. It was presented by one of my colleagues. It passed second reading and clearly indicated the responsibilities of certain powers to the victims: the police, the CSC, and the courts. It laid it out quite clearly, and Parliament at that time seemed to be quite enthused with that document. It passed second reading. However, it apparently died and it's no longer in our—

What I find really strange today coming from you is the fact that what you're offering is a victims' office. A victims' office to do what? A victims' office to provide more sympathy and pity? That's not what victims want. That's not what they want at all, and it's going to create another bureaucracy. Is that what you're interested in doing, creating another bureaucracy of a central victims' office?

My question is simply this. Of all the victims in all the trials I've been to, there has been absolutely nothing done for one of them. When is that going to start? Why haven't you done something about it before now?

The Chair: Before you answer, Minister, I think we should clear the record. Mr. Thompson wasn't always here last term.

What he's talking about is a motion that passed unanimously in the House at second reading with the support of the Minister of Justice and I think almost all members of the House. I remember everybody voting on it. It was then referred to this committee. The committee began work on it and then agreed that there should be a more complete study. An election intervened. When we came back we made it a priority of this committee, and in fact that work is planned to begin in the spring. I know that's what you were responding to, so I just want to make sure this record is clear in terms of the establishment of some study of the rights of victims of crime.

• 1650

Go ahead.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, let me say something in relation to the point you raised surrounding the situation at Bowden. I understand that my colleague the Solicitor General will be either here later this week or next week, and he will be able to respond directly to that question. I have raised the issue with him. He has talked to officials in charge at Bowden, and he will be able to more fully respond to your specific inquiries surrounding the circumstances of that particular situation and escape.

In terms of victims, as I think I've outlined in relation to a question from Mr. MacKay, let me say that we take the rights of victims very seriously. That's why we have in fact made them a priority within our government. I have made them a priority, and I understand that this committee has made them a priority. We just heard that from the chair of the committee.

I have taken the opportunity to meet with victims' groups in Edmonton and in Ottawa. I have met with individual victims. In fact, in my discussions with Priscilla De Villiers, the head of CAVEAT, who I'm sure some of you know very well, one of the suggestions we talked about was the creation of a national victims' office. Unless I'm very wrong, she supported that quite strongly. Such an office would not replace the work that is being done in the provinces, but would in fact provide a coordination function, a facilitative function and, to some degree, an educative and information function.

As you're probably aware, the United States has a national victims' office, just as it has state offices in some states. I have sent some people from my department to Washington to talk to those who run that office and its interrelationship with what is being done at the state level to ensure that there is integration.

What I would like to see, with the consent, agreement, support and partnership of the provinces, is a seamless set of policies, programs and initiatives that support the victims in this country regardless of jurisdiction. To some extent, those policies would be blind to the fact that the provinces have primary jurisdiction. They would not be blind in the sense of usurping provincial jurisdiction, but in terms of defining the appropriate federal piece of a national victims' strategy—a national strategy, not a federal strategy—that provides the federal piece through, for example, perhaps legislative changes in the code or perhaps the creation of a national office. That is melded with that which is going on in the provinces, and we would in fact be doing exactly what you're saying, Mr. Thompson: have the resources available to help those who are thrust into the criminal justice system through no fault of their own. The consequences are often terribly tragic for those people.

Presently, I think federal and provincial governments are trying their best, but we must do better. That “better” will involve things potentially like amendments to the code, potentially a national victims' office, potentially other strategies, because we need to listen to victims. That's what I have been doing, and that's what others have been doing. I know you've been doing that, too, Mr. Thompson. It involves listening to victims to determine what they need.

Do you know what the number one thing is that I keep hearing that they need, other than basic respect? It's information, and how to get the information about services.

Now, they need services. I have heard a great deal from many victims about the fact that after that knock comes on the door, they are often forgotten in terms of the healing process, the grieving process. They're often forgotten in terms of basic information, in terms of what happens now and what happens next in the criminal justice process. How quickly is it likely to happen? Can they go to court? What is their role in the court? Later on, when will this person be eligible for parole? Will they get notice of that, or must they keep checking with the National Parole Board? Do they have the right to appear? Do they have the right to say anything? Can they face this person who did this thing to them?

Those are all important questions. They're valid questions, and people deserve to know the answers to those questions. In many cases, they deserve to have the information without asking for it. In part, that is my goal, and I know it's shared by the provinces. That is our challenge.

• 1655

Mr. Myron Thompson: How many years do they have to ask those questions?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. We'll go to Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Minister, for appearing.

Mr. Thompson pretty well nailed the question I had. I'm very concerned about this national victims' office becoming just a huge bureaucracy. As you know, I've had to deal from that angle with the justice system. I'm very concerned about that aspect of it—that it's going to get bogged down. The intentions are good; I understand what the intent is. But I just get really concerned about the possibility of a massive bureaucracy and empire building and people getting caught up in the same old circle again.

Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit on how this would operate. Who would be involved? Are victims expected to be involved in actually running this office, or at least be on directorships or however you're going to set it up?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Those are all very valid questions.

First of all, let me reassure you, the last thing in the world I want is another bureaucracy. That's not what this is about. That's not what my provincial colleagues want either. In many cases they presently have perhaps not victims' offices per se but someone within the provincial justice structure who provides information and assistance to victims. So nobody wants to create a new bureaucracy here.

With that as our starting point, and I think with the shared goal of assisting victims and ensuring that they are treated with respect and are included in the system—as a number of us have talked about this afternoon—I would ask you and the members of this committee to help me. We have a model, one possible model, the victims' office in the United States. But in fact that may not be the right model for us.

As this committee does its work in the coming months in relation to victims, and when you hold your national round table, I believe in June, on victims with key stakeholders present, please ask that very question in terms of a victims' office: one, whether we need one, a national office; two, if we do, what its task should be, what it should look like, and how we ensure that this office is not an additional bureaucracy but one that provides needed services to victims in this country.

I would certainly take your advice on that. At this point our thinking is at early stages, and I don't pretend that I magically have all the answers. I've looked at the U.S. experience, and I've talked to people like Priscilla de Villiers and others, including you in relation to some of your reactions to the system. But I have much much more learning to do before I make any decision about a recommendation as to whether there should be such an office. That's why I see the work of this committee as helping me a great deal, and why I think what you recommend will help me in terms of then sharing with my provincial colleagues an orientation we might like to pursue. Then we will move on from there.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: How far would you be prepared to go as a federal government to really hold a hammer over some of the provinces so that victims across this country are treated the same?

I'm sure you're aware that Quebec has a very good youth justice program in intervening; we know that. We know that in B.C. we have a very good crown victim services program. But there are other provinces that have no criminal injuries compensation act, dismal victims' rights legislation. How far are you prepared to go as a federal government to even it out right across the land so everybody is equal?

Ms. Anne McLellan: You raise a very important point, and it's one that Priscilla de Villiers and others I've talked to raise. People like Priscilla spend a great deal of their time answering the questions of people from various provinces—although Priscilla lives in Ontario, as do you—in terms of finding out what's available in their province. Sometimes they find out that unlike B.C., they don't have very much.

Within the constitutional framework, we can't dictate to the provinces or intrude on their legislative jurisdiction. But there are ways we can together develop a national victims program and set of policies that will move everybody to a higher level. We don't want people moving to the lowest common denominator; we want people moving to a level of victims' services that one sees in provinces like British Columbia or Quebec.

• 1700

Certainly I will do what I can. I think part of the federal role in this federation is to work with the provinces and bring them together, facilitate learning from each other and moving to that higher level. Perhaps a national office and some other strategies that we could develop together might help move some distance to ensuring that when something terrible happens to you in Nova Scotia or Alberta, victims have the opportunity to access comparable services, the way we expect with the health care system, for example.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cadman. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. George Thomson: I would like to add a couple of points here.

First of all, we have an inventory of the victims' services available in each province that we can make available to this committee. We can also give you the material we have gathered on what that office does in the United States, to see whether you think it would be the right kind of role for us to perform here.

The kinds of things that become really important are first of all just learning about what other jurisdictions are doing and knowing what the best practice is in one jurisdiction so that as you are deciding to address that issue you know what is out there, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

The issue of information sharing is enormously important, because victims and offenders aren't all from one place or don't stay in one place. The issue of information moving across boundary lines is important.

Specific Criminal Code changes in some areas, the victim impact statement, and other kinds of areas are ones where we can potentially make changes. On the victim fine surcharge, the federal surcharge, one of the issues is whether we should be amending that in a way that would generate more resources for the provinces to build up their victims' services.

Then of course, and you have given an example, there are a number of federal services that victims have an interest in ensuring are sensitive to victims issues. Having an office where a victim can come and say this issue is not being dealt with at a federal level is a place where one can assure that a problem such as maybe the ones you have raised could be addressed. That's the idea behind such a model.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney is next. We're going to try to keep questions short now, because we're coming to the end of our time.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Minister, recently your department retained the services of American lawyer Mr. Neil Sher to assist with your war crimes unit. What services is this gentleman going to perform, and how long is he going to be with us? Why did you have to go outside your department, indeed outside the country, to obtain an individual?

In a related area, do you anticipate any changes to the Extradition Act?

Ms. Anne McLellan: There are a number of questions there. I will answer some of those, and then Mr. Sims, who works with our war crimes unit, will deal with some of the specific issues surrounding Mr. Sher's contractual relationships with the department.

First let me say that it comes as no surprise to anyone around this table that the war crimes unit within the Department of Justice has gone through some difficult times. But let me say that it is with a great deal of pride, building on the work of my predecessor, Allan Rock, that I think we have been able to turn that situation around. Now we see a war crimes unit that is focused on both historic and modern war crimes. I work very closely with my colleague Madame Robillard as it relates to modern war criminals. We are achieving some quite notable success in terms of our war crimes actions.

Mr. Sher, as some will know, headed up the special investigations unit for the United States government in Washington. Mr. Sher is a person of unique background and experience. There are very few countries in the world today—ourselves, the United States, and Australia are three of the most notable—who have active war crimes units. Because of the fact that our war crimes unit had gone through some difficult times and had been subject to some very public criticism, I felt we could benefit from an experienced outside perspective from someone who ran a unit that is viewed by most, although not without its problems as well—but let me underscore that this is a controversial area—as the most successful unit of its kind.

• 1705

I think the OSI is viewed by most around the world who deal with war crimes and war criminals as the most successful unit of its kind and probably having the most experience in terms of these kinds of activities. Therefore, I felt our department could benefit from that outside approach, especially from someone with a wealth of experience who was not involved in any way in the past with the Department of Justice or with the concerns that had been raised by those, both inside and outside the Department of Justice, in relation to our war crimes strategy and approach.

That is why I chose, after full investigation, to ask Mr. Sher whether he would serve as an adviser to our war crimes unit. Mr. Sims will explain more fully what he is doing and what he's not doing, but I want to underscore for people around this table that he is not involved in identifying specific individuals for investigation. He is not involved in specific cases. He is to help us, as a department and a government, to gain from his experience from having run the OSI in the United States, quite a unique special investigations branch globally.

Before I ask John to fill in some of the blanks surrounding his specific activities and duties, you also talked about the Extradition Act. In fact, at the end of this month I will be introducing into the House a new Extradition Act.

To put it kindly, our Extradition Act is out of date, so my colleague Lloyd Axworthy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I have taken up this issue. We believe it is time to bring our extradition laws into line with those of most other developed western democracies. The proposed new Extradition Act, as you might imagine, is a massive piece of legislation and will therefore keep your committee quite busy for some time.

It does address many of the omissions, if you like, that exist in our present extradition legislation. We are modernizing extradition in this country and it is time it was done. For example, under our existing legislation we do not have the means to extradite to an international war crimes tribunal. We simply don't have that power. Is that right, Mr. Deputy?

Mr. George Thomson: Yes.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It seems to me that is a bit of a shocking thing, especially when you think that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and this government are so committed to the creation of international criminal tribunals. We must bring our extradition laws into the next century as the next century approaches.

I'm very proud of the fact that we will be introducing this legislation. It is something that obviously you're going to be studying, but it is part— The Extradition Act speaks to extradition generally, but it is obviously part of our ongoing effort to ensure that we have a successful war crimes strategy in this country.

John.

The Chair: Let's just get this straight. You're doing this by the end of this month, is that right?

Ms. Anne McLellan: We're introducing it.

The Chair: Then all your legislation is going to stop—is that what's going to happen—so we can get caught up, or what?

Ms. Anne McLellan: But you guys won't work all summer, will you?

The Chair: You guys should take some valium over the summer.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

• 1710

Mr. George Thomson: Perhaps I may add two things before turning it over to Mr. Sims. One is that Mr. Sher will be appearing next week before our committee, where he can be questioned about his role and experience.

Secondly, I would just reinforce the fact that he's not been retained to in any way be part of the management structure of our war crimes unit, only to be a consultant to assist us on how to manage these cases.

Thirdly, the focus of the war crimes program on deportation and denaturalization and the revocation of citizenship is not totally brand new. In fact, our first success, the Luitjens case, was where we adopted that very approach. Some of the successes we're having now are built on the work that's been done over the whole period of the war crimes program and it's very much the result of that.

With respect to the particulars with Mr. Sher, I can turn that over to John Sims.

The Chair: Mr. Sims.

Mr. John Sims (Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Chair, after the complete answers of the minister and the deputy, I'm not sure how much is left to say.

Mr. Maloney, has your whole question been answered? As I listened to the answers, I think it has been, but if you'd like me to fill in any more gaps I'd be pleased to do so.

Mr. John Maloney: I would agree with your assessment. I think my questions have been answered, both my questions, and I'll be anxious to see Mr. Sher before the committee.

The Chair: Ms. Finestone.

Ms. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Minister, I'm very pleased to hear about the new Extradition Act in light of the fact that I believe we desperately need to be able to use the international war crimes tribunal. So, chapeau to you, and I think we should name three more members to this committee, three more committees, so they can handle all the business you're so busy doing.

I was going to ask you to build on the war crimes unit. If you don't have that information, I'd like the committee eventually to have the number of person-years and the budget attached to the war crimes unit. I've looked through your entire budget and the budget proposal and cannot find a line that even alludes to it. Perhaps it's an oversight on my part in the reading at the late hour of the night, but I would have appreciated some information. If you have it—

Ms. Anne McLellan: If it's acceptable to you, Madam Finestone, we will provide that information to the committee.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you. I'd appreciate that very much.

Secondly, with respect to budget estimates, I wonder what's happening, as a result of the Bell Canada case, to all the tribunal case back-ups and the waiting list that would be now found within the human rights structure. I'm very concerned about the place and the role that was outlined with respect to the Human Rights Tribunal and the Human Rights Commission.

That would lead to my second question essentially, which is where are you with respect to the Human Rights Commission's revisions, what are you anticipating doing about the Human Rights Tribunal, and are you planning to take a look at what is perceived by one of the judges to be a conflict of roles and directions between the commission and the tribunal?

My last question would relate specifically to the Privacy Act. I would remind you, Madam Minister, that I asked you about the Privacy Act and where we draw the line, and you indicated that you will bring in a human rights perspective, given the fact that Industry Canada is looking at, particularly, the role of the public sector. I don't know if I've said it right to myself, but I think it's the federally regulated public service sector that is going to fall under the privacy regulations.

I would suggest to you that individual Canadians have a right to privacy and that their privacy is being contravened every day in actions by both the insurance companies and the bank companies as well as the health serving industry. I think it's a very serious matter and I want to know if it's being dealt with in relation to the Canadian Human Rights Act or if it's going to be dealt with separately.

Last but not least, Madam Minister, as you did indicate that you would be bringing in the revisions, would it be helpful to you—and I'm sure the chair is going to be just delighted when I ask this question—for this committee to study the questions that are relevant to amendments on the human rights code before or after you table the bill? Perhaps it would do so after first reading tabling rather than after second reading.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you, Madam Finestone. That's a lot of questions.

• 1715

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I just figured I'd get them all in before the chair rapped me out.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The Bell Canada case, as I'm sure everyone is aware, has created a certain amount of, dare I say, consternation in the system and among tribunal members and counsel who appear before them and, obviously, the applicants who are before those tribunals.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: And along the way, Madam Minister.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes. We are reviewing that decision very carefully, and the subsequent decision that followed very quickly on the heels of Mr. Justice Muldoon's case, Madam Justice McGillis' decision, because I think it's fair to say that they should be read together. Madam Justice McGillis' judgment, perhaps, to some extent compounds the consternation that flowed from Mr. Justice Muldoon's judgment.

We are in the process of reviewing those decisions very carefully and reviewing them with my colleague Marcel Massé, President of the Treasury Board, as it relates specifically to issues surrounding pay equity, but reviewing them more generally as to what those two judgments may or may not say about the future of our Human Rights Tribunal system.

I think Bill S-5, the bill I appeared before you on just a few weeks ago, goes a long way to meeting the basic concern, as it relates to the tribunal and any questions about independence. I think our proposed amendments do go a long way to meeting the concerns as outlined in particular in the case, I think, by Madam Justice McGillis.

I think at this point it is fair to say we are reviewing those cases very carefully so that we understand both the specific implication as it relates to pay equity and the more general implications, so we are able to provide what we believe to be informed legal advice to, first of all, our clients, if you like, such as the Treasury Board, and more generally, I think, to those who use the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal system.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Is there a timetable attached to this, Madam Minister? There is quite a waiting list.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Second, it would relate as well to the time line you might have for the human rights amendments.

Ms. Anne McLellan: We are doing this review as quickly as possible and trying to analyse all the possible implications of those two judgments. I take your point that we do not want a federal human rights tribunal system that is frozen for a significant period of time.

Perhaps my deputy or someone else would be able to share with you what in fact is happening on the ground, if you like, right now, before some of these tribunals that are in the midst of hearings.

Let me say that I think our amendments in Bill S-5 go some substantial way to meeting the basic concerns surrounding independence, and there may well be further issues. There probably will be other issues that we want to address in our broader review of the Human Rights Act.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Would that include Bill S-11? If the minister will recall, I spoke to the minister about Bill S-11, which deals with social conditions, and I can give the minister, because I'm sure she already has—

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: She knows that eight of the provinces have social condition in their human rights bills, and I wondered if that would be part and parcel of the whole review that's being done, and when.

Ms. Anne McLellan: When we do the broader review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, I have no doubt that one of the issues that will be discussed and reviewed will be grounds. It is quite clear to me. If it was in any doubt, I'm sure it has been put beyond all doubt after Madam Falardeau-Ramsay's report on behalf of the commission and what she says about the issues surrounding poverty and lack of equality because of poverty. That issue will be firmly before us and before this committee as we move forward together with the review of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

• 1720

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: You know that Senator Erminie Cohen's bill relates precisely to Bill S-11. It's in the process of going through the Senate at this given moment.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I am aware of that. I thank you in fact for some time ago having talked to me about this.

I believe it would be beneficial to look at the whole question of social disadvantage or poverty or other possible changes in grounds in the context of the broader review of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mrs. Finestone.

Mr. Mancini has a quick question, then Mr. Bellehumeur, and then Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'll be very quick, Madam Chair, because I'm supposed to be on House duty. I'm going to take my leave after this.

Ms. Anne McLellan: You and me both, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: We're paired then, I guess.

I have a quick question. It's the old trial lawyer in me, I guess, that picked up on something you said some time ago in response to a question from Mr. MacKay.

You indicated that the department did polling in Ontario on firearms. I just have a quick question, as this takes me by surprise: is the department doing polling on other issues across the country? If so, what issues are these, and how much is this costing?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, as a department, like I think almost all other federal government departments and provincial governments, we do polling. Of course we do.

Let me clarify that we are not a government that governs by poll, but I do think that polls can provide another avenue of information in terms of what the public, either nationally or in a given locale, is thinking on a certain issue. Therefore, we do poll.

Mr. Thomson can probably provide you with more details.

Mr. George Thomson: I can't do that at this point, but I could look at what kind of expenditure overall is made in this area and get back to you, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you for coming.

Minister, forgive me if I leave.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I won't ask you if you have done any surveys regarding the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, Madam Minister, I want to be certain that I understood clearly your Deputy Minister's response to my last question about compensation for Quebec in connection with the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act. I will be brief and then move on to another subject.

Was the Deputy Minister implying that Quebec would have received more money if it had invested less in measures designed to ensure anonymity for young offenders following their stay in Quebec treatment centers and if it had made the political choice to invest more in facilities to house a larger number of young offenders?

[English]

Mr. George Thomson: The approach taken on cost sharing with past governments, particularly going back to the 1960s and 1970s, tended to be one that was simply 50% cost sharing for expenditures made in whatever areas were covered by the legislation.

So if a province made a decision in one area to spend on resources quite wisely in terms of good programming that happened to be less expensive than that of other programs, then the result was that fewer federal dollars went because the overall expenditure was less.

With the Young Offenders Act, Quebec implemented a program, which, as the minister said, is a quite impressive program. There's no desire to suggest that this was the wrong thing to do. I'm simply saying that the way they then approached cost sharing was such that it was just a simple 50% cost sharing of whatever the costs were.

So there was in essence, I guess, no direction of those resources into areas that were seen by the government to be more or less beneficial. It was simply a 50% cost sharing. That's what created the different results.

You can pick other kinds of programming. Under the Canada Assistance Plan, as for civil legal aid, some provinces invested heavily in that, while others didn't. So the amount of money that went was different from one province to another. It was simply a result of the decisions that were for the provinces to make that produced that result. It was not intended to be an incentive to move to custody, but in actual fact, it ended up producing different results.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Unless I'm mistaken, Quebec estimates that it has spent $618 million between 1996 and 1998 on enforcement of the Young Offenders Act. This is $82 million more than the federal government has awarded to the province for enforcement under the cost-sharing agreement. The accuracy of these figures was acknowledged at meetings with Ms. McLellan's predecessor.

• 1725

Again, since you've not answered my earlier question, when will the federal government be ready to negotiate on the compensation it owes to Quebec?

Do you agree with me that the aim of the Young Offenders Act is not to incarcerate young offenders, but rather to rehabilitate them so that they can become productive members of society when they reach adulthood and above all, so that they can become anonymous citizens? Are you saying that Quebec should be penalized for pursuing the aims of the federal Young Offenders Act?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, not at all. If you are suggesting the objective is to penalize Quebec in some way, nothing could be further from the truth. Let me be very clear about that.

I have also said that as we move forward with the renewal of the youth justice system in this country, we will do our very best to ensure greater equity and fairness in terms of expenditure of youth justice dollars. There's no question there's much to be said, although keep in mind—and Monsieur Bellehumeur, you would be the first, I think, to raise this issue in other contexts—this is a shared jurisdiction and different provinces will choose different approaches. We respect that in the context of Quebec, and I know Quebec will respect that in the context of other provinces.

However, I think we should all acknowledge that as they relate to youth justice, we have three key objectives. First is protection of society from a small number of the most serious and violent young offenders to whom we've already referred. Second, some form of incarceration is necessary, and this is done in Quebec as it is in other provinces. Third, there is a large number of young offenders for whom rehabilitative and reintegrative strategies, programs, therapeutic interventions and prevention are important.

What is key for us as a federal government and for me as Minister of Justice is to strike the right balance among those three objectives. That is our goal in a renewed youth justice system.

If you're suggesting to me that we as a country have put too much emphasis on incarceration of young people, I would agree with you in terms of incarcerating the less serious young offenders. We have a system—and nobody intended to create this; it was unwitting—with the Young Offenders Act, which came about in 1984. But it has created a system where we incarcerate too many young offenders who are not violent or high risk. They should not be incarcerated, but should be subject to other kinds of programming. Therefore, my goal with the renewal of the youth justice system is to achieve the right balance, and Quebec can help us show the way in terms of striking that right balance.

I look forward to working with Monsieur Ménard and others who work with the youth justice system in Quebec, to ensure Quebec is an example and is in no way unfairly treated in the distribution of resources as we renegotiate new cost-shared agreements.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur has one very short question.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My question will be very brief indeed, but the answer could be a long one. I can understand that you don't have the money to compensate Quebec. However, you did manage to find the money for the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. Furthermore, during the Easter break, we discovered it had cost $1 million in fees alone to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court.

Can you tell me exactly how many lawyers worked on the Supreme Court reference, along with the number of experts, researchers, writers and advisers who were involved? Exactly how much did it cost to involve all of these persons, including people from other departments as well as the Council for Canadian Unity which also worked on the reference?

By the way, there are several translation errors in the document you submitted to us on the Supreme Court of Canada. The French version refers to thousands of dollars, whereas the English version refers to millions of dollars. There are three extra zeros in the English text.

• 1730

Out of a total budget of $14 million for the Supreme Court reference, a single lawyer working on a single point cost one million dollars. I'm curious as to the number of lawyers involved and the overall cost of this Supreme Court reference. Could you enlighten me?

An hon. member: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: All in due time.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Our department has nothing to do with any costs in relation to the amicus because, of course, we represented the Government of Canada on the reference. Therefore, those numbers are dealt with by the Department of Finance. The bills, as I understand it, are sent directly to the Department of Finance. We don't see them and we don't pay them. Therefore Mr. Martin, at some point when he's made aware of those bills, will be able to answer your question in terms of what the costs of the amicus were.

In terms of the Department of Justice costs, between September 26, 1996 and March 13, 1998 the Department of Justice spent approximately $543,000 to retain outside counsel. That in particular is in relation to Mr. Fortier and Mr. Bienvenu, international law experts for the reference, and to translate and print the written submissions to the court.

At this time we have not received all the invoices and operating costs, but if you want a breakdown, our legal agents cost $353,000; outside experts cost $120,000; and operating, printing and translation costs were $70,000.

Does that answer your question?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Not at all. You would have me believe that the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada cost less than $1 million. Isn't that so? What I would like is for you to provide me with the names of all of the people who worked on this reference, along with the total cost of this undertaking. Are you prepared to give us that information?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Sure. We can give you the names of the people who worked on the file within my department. If you are looking for the costs—keep in mind, they are full-time salaried employees of the Department of Justice—we can provide you, Mr. Bellehumeur, with their names and some of the costs that would be incurred as a matter of course in their employment with the Government of Canada, if that's what you're looking for.

But the costs I gave you related to expenditures over and above those the full-time salaried employees of our department incurred. Agents, experts and operating costs are $543,000 to this point.

Mr. George Thomson: I would only add two things. As the minister has pointed out, we are not involved in any way with the costs associated with the amicus. Those are dealt with elsewhere.

Secondly, we can provide that information. I would stress at this time a number of the people whose names we would give are people who do a lot of things in the Department of Justice, and one part of their time might have been spent on this reference. But as long as that's understood, we'd be glad to identify those who have worked on this reference within the unity office, which is, I think, what's being asked.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Thomson. Peter MacKay gets the last word.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You are prepared to give us that information, but when, Madam Minister?

[English]

The Chair: When? As soon as possible.

Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to take a page out of Madam Finestone's book and pose a number of questions.

Madam Minister, with respect to expenditures, you've disclosed to us today that there was an outside legal opinion given with respect to the DNA data banking. That's something that comes as new information.

The Chair: She said she's asked for three, not that it's been provided.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's pending.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So there's an outside legal opinion pending on the DNA.

Ms. Anne McLellan: There are three.

Mr. Peter MacKay: There are three outside legal opinions. How many more are there? As well, I would like to know the cost of all outside legal opinions obtained by the department in the previous year, along with the costs associated with the Airbus debacle and—

• 1735

A voice: What's that?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm talking about costs above and beyond the $2 million in compensation that was paid. With respect to outside legal opinions, I want to ask you why costs—

The Chair: Costs?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Numerous costs. And the projected future costs of that investigation.

I'd like to know as well why your department chose not to have an outside legal opinion on the long-gun registration, since that legal opinion is now going to be rendered by the Province of Alberta in its Supreme Court? And I'd like to know whether there is going to be any correction or qualification of the statistics before the Alberta Supreme Court.

Finally, I would like to ask you if you and your departmental officials are willing to appear before the committee again, seeing as we're scratching the surface on a lot of these legal issues. I would like to ask you if, at the end of these main estimates, we might hear from you again.

Ms. Anne McLellan: As you're probably aware, Mr. MacKay, I think you will have the pleasure of my company fairly soon in relation to the Judges Act, so I will be back, in whatever guise.

The Chair: May I just clarify that it's not up to the minister as to whether she comes back? She's always willing to come here. It's up to us as a committee whether we have her here or not.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Probably Mr. Mosley or Mr. Thomson can talk about costs related to Airbus, for example. We may not have exactly what you want today, but as we said in relation to other requests, we will provide you with that information.

I think the chair has clarified for you that with the DNA it appeared as if there was this— what was happening was “duly legal opinions”, if you like: “Here's our opinion”, and then someone else says, “No, take this, here's ours”. So we felt we wanted to request the three retired jurists I have indicated to provide opinions to us, which we will share, and the costs—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just for clarification, are we getting three separate decisions?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

Ms. Anne McLellan: We wanted to put this issue beyond doubt, if you like, to the greatest extent possible, always acknowledging the fact that the ultimate decision in relation to the constitutionality of DNA legislation will rest with the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Mosley may be able to share with you, probably not now but at some later date, the costs of those three opinions, if you want that.

Mr. Mosley, do you want to say anything about the costs of the Airbus—or Mr. Thomson?

Mr. George Thomson: Perhaps I can do that. I'm unable to give you costs relating to the Airbus investigation because those aren't our costs, but I think we have disclosed all our legal costs relating to the Airbus “case”, as it's called, the civil suit.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is that in here?

Mr. George Thomson: Yes, and if they're not there, I can certainly send them to you. I think we've covered all the ground in relation to Airbus costs and the civil suit.

With respect to the costs associated with an ongoing police investigation, I'm not aware of those, and I don't think we're able to divulge them.

Ms. Anne McLellan: But it might be more useful to ask the commissioner of the RCMP when he appears before your committee on estimates.

Mr. George Thomson: Do you want to speak to the firearms question, Mr. Mosley?

Mr. Richard G. Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Policy, Department of Justice): With regard to the firearms question, we did retain outside counsel to argue the matter before the Alberta Court of Appeal. That counsel has not yet tendered a bill for services of his firm, but I'm expecting that in the coming weeks and would be happy to share it with the committee at that time.

A voice: Did counsel change?

Mr. Richard Mosley: Counsel did not change. In terms of the argument, counsel was always the same. It was Peter Martin, of the firm Evans, Martin, Wilson, in Calgary. I gather there was some issue raised as to whether counsel within the department was taken off the file, but the counsel appointed to actually argue the case was always Mr. Martin.

Perhaps just to close off on that issue, the issue of constitutionality of firearms registration insofar as the question of the division of powers that was before the Court of Appeal was really not a highly contentious issue when the legislation was going through Parliament. It was only subsequently, when it was raised by the prairie provinces, that the issue took on that dimension.

• 1740

With regard to DNA opinions, again, the three counsel involved in that matter have yet to tender their invoices to us.

The Chair: All right.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Merci. Thank you.

The Chair: Minister and entourage, thank you very much for coming here today. It's been a long session, but we appreciate your time.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It's our pleasure to be here. Thank you.

The Chair: We'll rise.