Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 17 - Evidence - December 9, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 3:32 p.m. to monitor the implementation of recommendations contained in the Committee's report entitled Children: The Silenced Citizens: Effective Implementation of Canada's International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children, tabled in the Senate on April 25, 2007.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We are here to monitor the implementation of recommendations contained in the committee's report entitled Children: The Silenced Citizens: Effective Implementation of Canada's International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children, tabled in the Senate on April 25, 2007.
We have been eagerly awaiting a dialogue with a minister. Minister Nicholson, I think you have some opening statements, which will be fine. However, one of our concerns and difficulties in getting to this point is that our report covered so many ministries and the government indicated to us that the Department of Justice is the lead agency and the minister is the lead agent. I know you want to talk about the justice issues, and we would like to hear from you, but we also need an indication of how to manage from here: Do we need to call all the other ministers, or is there some way we can draw this together in a coherent fashion?
With those opening comments, we welcome you. The floor is yours.
Hon. Robert Nicholson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Thank you very much and good afternoon, senators. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the implementation of Canada's international obligations with respect to the rights of children and this government's response to the committee's report, Children: The Silenced Citizens, as well as our work to protect Canada's children from harm.
I would like to thank the committee for its in-depth report on the human rights of children in Canada. It has and will continue to serve as an important reference document for future policy development.
As you know, we tabled our response to the committee on November 14, 2007. The recommendations in the committee's report cut across many different federal departments and agencies and also include the responsibilities of the provinces and the territories.
Our response addressed the responsibilities of the Government of Canada when it comes to children, not only in terms of our commitment to meeting Canada's international human rights obligations with regard to children, but also in terms of protecting vulnerable children, combating exploitation and violence against children and supporting healthy child development.
Children are a priority of the Government of Canada. Through a wide range of significant investments, the Government of Canada continues to help ensure that all children receive the best possible start in life.
Promoting and protecting the rights of our children is necessarily a collective effort. The Government of Canada works directly with provincial and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations and various other groups to help meet our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I would like to assure you that Canada takes the implementation of its international human rights obligations very seriously.
Given that Canada is a federal state, and that jurisdiction on many issues relating to children falls to the provinces and territories, or is shared with them, the federal government recognizes the importance of working with those provinces and territories both before we ratify an international treaty and afterwards to ensure that Canada continues to meet its international obligations.
As with other international human rights treaties, before ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its two optional protocols, federal, provincial and territorial laws, policies and practices were assessed to determine whether they complied with the convention and the protocols. Where necessary, laws were amended or policies put in place.
Canada did not agree to be bound to these treaties until satisfied that it was in compliance.
Canada gives effect to the obligations in the convention through a variety of legislation, policies and programs by all levels of government.
At the federal level, a large number of federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Public Health Agency of Canada, play an important role in implementing and ensuring compliance with the convention. Given that the implementation of the convention is a matter of shared responsibility, I may not be in a position to answer some of the questions you may have.
Ongoing coordination with the provinces and territories also occurs through the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights, which is chaired by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The government is working to increase awareness of children's rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child among federal officials.
The federal government reviews its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols when preparing Canada's periodic reports to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The government gives serious consideration to the committee's concluding observations, which are discussed amongst federal, provincial and territorial officials.
The Interdepartmental Working Group on Children's Rights plays an important role in reviewing the UN committee's recommendations and follow-up as appropriate. The group was created in 2007 in response to one of the recommendations made by this committee. Its role is to coordinate activities, policies and laws relating to children at the federal level. Co-chaired by the Department of Justice, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the interdepartmental working group, it promotes a whole-of-government approach to children's rights and fosters linkages among departments with policies affecting children.
Since 2007 the group has met on a regular basis to exchange information on developments and practices relating to children's rights and to coordinate initiatives and activities. For example, the interdepartmental working group organized the first government conference on children's rights on November 18, 2009. I believe Senator Andreychuk was the keynote speaker at that conference. The objective of the conference was to increase awareness and understanding of Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child amongst federal officials and provincial agencies.
Over the last 20 years, criminal law reforms addressing child sexual exploitation have focused on four key areas. The 1988 reforms in Bill C-15 modernized all child sexual abuse offences and facilitated the testimony of child victims and witnesses. That was a big step forward.
We have also focused on new or changing forms of child sexual exploitation, including, for example, child pornography and child sex tourism. We have addressed that as well on a number of occasions on the federal level with respect to laws on child pornography.
As you may be aware, within the last couple of weeks I have added another bill that helps in that fight. Predatory conduct has led to strengthening provisions to protect children against known or suspect child sex offenders and the use of new technologies to facilitate the commission of child sexual exploitation offences, including through the Internet, such as Internet luring and child pornography offences.
As a result, children are protected by the general offences that protect all Canadians — for example, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, kidnapping and human trafficking — and also under child-specific provisions prohibiting sexual contact with a child or invitation to engage in sexual conduct with a child, child sex tourism, and offering up or procuring a child for illicit sexual activity.
In any discussion on the rights of children, it is important to note that the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in its preamble, specifically references that Canada is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Youth Criminal Justice Act also recognizes that young persons have rights and freedoms, including those stated in the Charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
In Canada, young persons who commit offences have a system of justice that is separate from adults, that has in place protections suitable to their age at all stages of the process, and that is guided by principles that recognize their level of development.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act provides for a range of responses that relate to the seriousness of the crime. Those sentences also address the needs and circumstances of the youth and promote rehabilitation. We are committed to ensuring that the Youth Criminal Justice Act promotes fairness and effectiveness in the application of the criminal law to young people.
In 2008, I conducted a comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, listening to the views of Canadians about youth justice through round table discussions in all provinces and territories. Stakeholders consulted raised concerns about the adequacy of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to deal with the most violent crimes.
Amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act would ensure accountability and fairness and that effective measures are applied to all youth in the youth justice system, particularly those committing the most violence offences.
While a sound legislative base is an essential part of ensuring that Canada has a fair and effective youth justice system, it is also essential to address the conditions that underlie criminal behaviour if we are to achieve any long-term or meaningful solution to the problem. Conditions such as addiction, difficult childhoods, mental health, fetal alcohol syndrome or longer-term marginalization will continue to pose challenges to solving the problems of youth offending.
The government has implemented various programs. With two of my colleagues, I was part of the announcement for the National Anti-Drug Strategy in October 2007. This strategy has a significant youth focus. On the prevention front, we have launched a national public awareness campaign to discourage our youth from using illicit drugs. We have made money available under the Youth Justice Fund to pilot treatment programs that will assist with the rehabilitation of youth who have drug problems and who are in the justice system. This government is also working towards preventing youth from becoming involved with guns, gangs and drugs. By partnering with health, education, employment and other service providers beyond the traditional system, we can all work together.
I would now like to talk briefly about a specific recommendation you have made regarding section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Section 43, which this committee's report addresses, provides that a parent, teacher, or person acting in the place of a parent is justified in using force to correct a child under his or her care, provided that the force used is reasonable in all of the circumstances.
Parents have the primary responsibility for providing care, guidance and support to their children. It is the role of the government to support parents in this important endeavour. Section 43 is an important protection for parents from criminal liability and flows from the parental duty to protect and educate their children. It is a defence to any non- consensual application of force to a child as long as it is reasonable. Without this section, parents who physically hold onto a struggling child to put on their coat or carry a child to their bedroom for a time-out could risk being convicted or charged with an assault. While the government continues to inform parents on effective forms of non-physical discipline, responsible parents who use reasonable force to correct a child's behaviour should not face the full force of the criminal law.
In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of section 43 on the basis that it reflects a reasonable balance of the interests of children, parents and Canadian society and found it to be consistent with Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The court also provided guidelines that limit the application of the section to minor corrective force.
You will know that my government and my department have undertaken a number of initiatives to improve the lives of Aboriginal children. The government has responded to one of this committee's key recommendations with the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. As a result of the repeal of section 67, First Nation individuals, including women and children, will be able to access remedies available under the Canadian Human Rights Act to respond to discriminatory decisions or actions taken by the federal government pursuant to the Indian Act. At the end of a transition period, they will be able to do the same vis-à-vis First Nations governments or agencies.
The Department of Justice is also taking concrete measures to reduce the involvement of Aboriginal children in the youth criminal justice system and child protection systems. The Aboriginal Justice Strategy is a successful Department of Justice program, cost-shared with provinces and territories, that funds communities to develop their own mediation services for youth and families at risk of becoming involved in the mainstream justice and/or child welfare system.
The government has renewed and expanded the Aboriginal Justice Strategy by providing an additional $40 million in enhanced funds over a five-year period. This enhancement has extended the reach of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy into areas of high need, including northern and remote communities.
I am pleased to report that we have also taken concrete steps, as recommended in your report, to improve cooperation among all levels of government as well as Aboriginal leadership with respect to Aboriginal justice issues generally.
In 2008, I and other federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice signed a declaration agreeing that greater interdepartmental cooperation is necessary to ensure the justice system responds appropriately to the needs of Aboriginal Canadians. To that end, a federal-provincial-territorial working group has been created to address the issue of victimization in Aboriginal communities as a result of interpersonal and family violence. One of the areas the group is focused on is child abuse.
I want to thank the members of this committee for the chance to address the pressing issues regarding the protection of Canada's children. The Department of Justice considers the needs of children to be important, whether as individuals, as members of families or as members of society at large.
The work done at all levels of government, as well as by non-governmental organizations, to protect children helps to ensure a stronger and safer society not only for children but also for everyone.
I am pleased to be joined here with three officials from the Department of Justice Canada: Paula Kingston, Elisabeth Eid, and Gillian Blackell. If there are any questions, we will take them at this time. I am pleased to be assisted by my colleagues at the Department of Justice.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for drawing to our attention some of the initiatives that you have taken and some that have been in response to our report. No doubt, you know I have a long list of senators who wish to ask questions. We have about 20 to 25 minutes. If the questions as well as the answers are reasonably succinct, perhaps we can get through the list in time.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for coming here today. I found your comments useful.
You spoke about the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights, which is chaired by the Department of Canadian Heritage. One of our recommendations was that it should be under your supervision — nothing to do with the minister, though.
Mr. Nicholson: You figure I do not have enough to do, senator?
Senator Jaffer: We feel that your department looks after international obligations and that your department is a better place to house this. I could go on, but with the limited time, I will put it as briefly as I can.
Mr. Nicholson: Thank you very much. I think the important part, senator, is that we are working together and responding to those recommendations that you made and that there is better coordination between government departments.
I gave you one example, the National Anti-Drug Strategy. I work in conjunction with my colleagues, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Health, because these issues are not limited to one department, or indeed my department. There is recognition that there is obviously a very important health component involved with that. I think it makes these programs more effective; I have one slice of the pie here in terms of my legislative responsibilities, but working with my other colleagues I think works better.
I mentioned the National Anti-Drug Strategy. You have probably seen commercials on television asking parents to engage with their children on the whole subject of drugs, getting the message out, explaining to people that this is not a good way to lead their lives. This kind of coordination is good.
I can tell you I have taken this matter up again with my provincial and territorial counterparts. We have a federal- provincial-territorial working group on that. I can tell you that it pays results. Just take the area of Aboriginal Canadians who get involved with the criminal justice system at whatever age. The Aboriginal Courtwork Program, where the federal and provincial governments cost share and work together to help Aboriginal Canadians who get involved with the system, is a very positive development.
I am with you in the sense of working together, because we cannot be in silos on this. We all have a responsibility to do whatever we can to improve the lives of these Canadians.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Minister, I will ask you to reconsider, because our committee recommended that it would be better under your department.
I have another question, and I will ask it quickly. We have had a challenge with the issue of Jordan's Principle. You covered quite a bit on Aboriginal children. I have many questions, and I have prepared them in writing because of the shortness of time. I will hand them to you and hopefully we can get responses.
The one question I would like to ask you is about the Government of Canada's position on the recent challenge brought by the Assembly of First Nations under the Canadian Human Rights Act alleging that the government is discriminating against thousands of Aboriginal children with the country's child welfare system. We all know that one third less money is spent on Aboriginal children than is spent on non-Aboriginal children. This discrimination is not acceptable.
I have observed the way you have worked, especially around Aboriginal issues, and I know you do not find this acceptable. I am hoping that this challenge is something you and the Aboriginal nations can work together on rather than proceeding through the system.
Mr. Nicholson: Again, of course, I never comment specifically on any case that is before the courts or before a tribunal, for obvious reasons. Senator, I will tell you that I feel very strongly about the whole question of the rights of Aboriginal Canadians. Even though I did not have the lead on this, I was among those who worked for the repeal of the sections in the Canadian human rights code that did not apply to Aboriginal Canadians. The idea that a piece of legislation like that, or any human rights legislation, could contain an exception for Aboriginal Canadians I find very difficult to accept. Any of my cabinet colleagues will tell you I was among those who vociferously pushed to have that happen.
I am disappointed that they have to wait for the full implementation of that. I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of having to wait for human rights.
I have told the story before of one of my teachers telling us, when I was a young boy, that Mr. Diefenbaker had changed the law to allow Aboriginal Canadians to vote in this country. She made a very important point. She said they have waited a long time. It must have been around 1960. They waited a long time for those rights. When I look at the Canadian Human Rights Commission or any human rights legislation, I have a problem with the idea that they must continue to wait.
That being said, that section has been repealed and there is this transition period. Again, I look forward to the day when those provisions apply to every single Canadian in this country, including all Aboriginal Canadians and Aboriginal women and children.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Minister, we waited a long time to hear from you as well. I have some written questions I will give to the chair, because my colleagues want to ask you questions.
Mr. Nicholson: Please do. That is a very good point. Madam Chair, if there are any questions like that I would be pleased to address them. I know we are all tied up with the scheduling in both the House of Commons and the Senate today, which makes it a challenge.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you, Minister Nicholson, for being with us this afternoon. I will not repeat everything you have said on section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I did a lot of work to repeal that as well.
You are quite right that it is unfortunate that First Nations people still have to wait another three years before they can file complaints with their own band councils if they feel they have been discriminated against.
We have been waiting, as First Nations people, for this repeal for 30 years, and it passed in June of 2008. I would like to get more insight from you about why our current government decided to go ahead with the repeal, because it could have been done by successive governments in a 30-year period.
Mr. Nicholson: It is a very good question. Thank you for your work and support for the repeal of that, senator.
Again, as with any of these issues, no one person or one group of individuals can take credit for anything that happens. You need a team; you need good people to support you, and you need support outside of government circles. I appreciate that.
Why was it not done earlier? That is a very good question. There was a certain amount of resistance from various places. You are well aware of the history. When it was first introduced in Parliament, it was to repeal it immediately. Again, there are challenges, as you know, with a minority parliament trying to get these things through. This was the arrangement worked out. As you say, it applies immediately with respect to the Government of Canada and transition periods.
Other than that, I very much look forward to the day when we can say that all human rights legislation in Canada applies to everyone without exception. That day, I guess, will soon be upon us.
Senator Brazeau: As a First Nations Aboriginal Canadian I was certainly proud when the repeal took place, because, as you just mentioned, it was passed through a minority parliament. If you look back at the 30-year history, there were successive majority governments that could have done the same but failed to do so.
Mr. Nicholson: It is like Mr. Diefenbaker; you are right. It could have been done 100 years before that, but I was glad to see it done in my lifetime. As my teacher concluded, Aboriginal Canadians had waited a long time for that, and indeed they had.
Senator Brazeau: Absolutely. I want to take this opportunity to commend you on the tough stance that you and the rest of your government colleagues have taken on getting tougher on crime. I have been speaking with many victims' families across the country that have been touched by this, in particular many young people and Aboriginal youth. They see this as a good step in the right direction to tackling those perpetrators out there who unfortunately prey upon the most vulnerable of our citizens.
As I see it, getting tough on crime is just one important component of tackling the entire issue. Therefore, I view prevention as also being an important component. Having said that, I would like to know what steps the government is taking on the prevention side for those children at risk of getting in conflict with the law, in particular Aboriginal children. Without getting into the details of overrepresentation in our prisons, it is obviously an important component that we need to tackle.
Mr. Nicholson: Thank you for that question. I did touch on it briefly among the initiatives we have had. One that I am particularly supportive of is the Aboriginal Justice Strategy. It is a program by which the government commits funds, cost-shared with the provinces, and it involves alternatives and interventions for young people and, in particular, Aboriginal people, to assist them in finding ways other than getting involved with the criminal justice system.
I have seen a number of reports. I can give you a list of the types of programs we have. They include the School Mediation Program in Prince Albert, the Tan Sakwathan First Nation Youth Diversion Program in Whitehorse and a restorative justice program in British Columbia. All these different programs are developing innovative ways to assist people to not become involved with the criminal justice system, to find alternatives or, if they do become involved in the system, to develop ways to limit the damage done and to ensure they have the opportunity to be productive citizens. I mentioned briefly the Aboriginal Courtwork Program. Individuals actually go to Aboriginal communities to help organize and get information to people. All of these things are steps in the right direction.
The Minister of Public Safety administers national crime prevention programs on guns, gangs and drug strategy. All of these are programs through which non-governmental organizations and indeed sometimes provincial governments make application for programs to assist young people and others who may or who have come into conflict with the law.
It is not only a question of passing different laws with respect to these programs. Thank you for your comments regarding our criminal justice agenda. I am very proud of the initiatives we have been a part of.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, is it correct that you now have a vote?
Mr. Nicholson: My vote in the house is not for a little while yet. We can continue for a while.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Nevertheless, it is interesting to see a desire to be more rigorous in terms of enforcing laws and to see greater emphasis placed on enforcement and prevention, even though, proportionally speaking, there are so many aboriginals who are already incarcerated. The focus within the system continues to be on sending more people to jail rather than on practising prevention. In any event, where this matter is concerned, my views are different from yours.
[English]
My question relates to the government's document Third and Fourth Reports of Canada on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has recently been tabled. On page 23, it says:
An application to export small arms and light weapons to a country where they might be utilized by child soldiers, regardless of whether these children take a direct part in hostilities as members of their armed forces or armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State, would be closely examined. Any available information in this regard would be among the most important considerations of the Minister in reaching a decision on the disposal of such an application.
However, we have recently received a different definition of child soldiers, pronounced by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which says young persons can be considered child soldiers only when they are part of a regular army. All these conventions are quite clear on what a child soldier is. I described it as your report has described it. Yet, there seems to be a different definition. Could you clarify that, please?
Mr. Nicholson: I will be glad to forward to you in writing what our definition is. We are careful to be in compliance with all United Nations conventions. We have a long history of support for other countries in peace-making processes and also standing up for what is right around the world. In fact, no one has a better record than Canada. We step in to protect children at home and abroad. We have an excellent record on this.
We talked about sex tourism. This is a concern for people. We have narrowed the availability for sex tourism in Canada in the Tackling Violent Crime Act. You will remember that we raised the age of consent from 14 to 16. This is in response to law enforcement agencies telling me stories. For example, the Toronto police told me about a 40-year- old from Texas who hooked up online with a 14-year-old girl in Toronto. He came to Toronto and there was nothing the police or the parents could do. This child was vulnerable to adult sexual predators.
I am proud to say that the law has now changed. These sex tourists will not find Canada an available place to go after children of that age. We try to protect our children at home.
We are very interested in protecting children abroad. This is why we are in places like Afghanistan. You would know that. Hundreds of thousands of children are going to school and girls are going to school for the first time. This was unavailable and impossible to do prior to the intervention of NATO and countries like Canada.
At home and abroad, we are standing up for the rights of children. I would be pleased to provide information to you on this or any other matters, Madam Chair.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you, Mr. Minister, but I want to come back to the question. You have a recent report that has taken forever to get. It has a definition of child soldiers. It is not unrelated to a significant dimension of the disposal of surplus weapons and to whom we sell them. This is also a contributing factor to why we have child soldiers. Our light weapons are not being destroyed, but are being sold off.
In this document that we are here to discuss today in your presence, you have a definition of child soldier. However, in recent times and on repeated occasions, we have been told that that definition is erroneous and that a child soldier is something else. Can you clarify the disconnect that exists between what the report says and what you say is the definition?
Mr. Nicholson: Again, I will tell you that there is no disconnect. You said that the Prime Minister changed the definition. I do not agree with that. Inasmuch as this falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I will be happy to contact his department and provide you with something in writing on that.
The Chair: Thank you. We would appreciate something in writing.
Senator Munson: Mr. Minister, you said you do not like term "wait.'' We do not like it either.
Mr. Nicholson: No, I do not like waiting.
Senator Munson: We do not like waiting either. However, we are waiting for a federal commissioner for children. That has been our recommendation, which seems a reasonable recommendation. Nine out of 10 provinces have legislative offices to advocate for children. Will this government create a federal commissioner for children and youth?
Mr. Nicholson: That would be the decision of the Minister of Health. I will pass on those comments.
With respect to the question of waiting, I know all about that with all the legislation I have put before Parliament. We will work through it.
Senator Munson: How do you feel personally about a federal commissioner for children and youth?
Mr. Nicholson: I appreciate that suggestion, but I feel very good about the areas we have moved on. I talked about changing the age of consent. Senator, you know how difficult that was and how much backlash the government and I received on that. I feel wonderful that we are moving ahead on these things — the National Anti-Drug Strategy and the Aboriginal Justice Strategy. All of those things make me feel very good about what we are doing for children.
In answer to your question, I feel quite good about this government's record. It is a record we can all be very proud of.
Senator Munson: If you feel that good, there was a parliamentary secretary for children from 1997 to 2003. From 2003 to 2004, the position became one of a minister of state with the incumbent serving as a full member of cabinet. Would your government consider reinstating that post?
Mr. Nicholson: That would be a decision of the Prime Minister's Office, of course. As I indicated in answer to the initial question, there is great cooperation in working amongst myself, other ministers of the Crown and our provincial counterparts. Children's issues are a priority for the government. I am very pleased with the initiatives we have taken, the cooperation we have received and the importance my colleagues have placed on it.
Thank you for the suggestion, but it would not be my call.
Senator Munson: We are counting on you, Mr. Minister.
The Chair: We will be pleased to receive that in writing if you would pass that to the minister.
Mr. Nicholson: We will work with your office on any of these questions.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Minister, you have made quite a bit of your initiative to increase the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years because at the age of 14, a child does not have the maturity to make the kinds of decisions that consent invokes. Yet you have talked about, and it was an election initiative, a plan to lower the age at which a child could be treated as an adult and put in jail for the rest of their lives.
Mr. Nicholson: That is completely untrue, senator. I would like to have in writing from you where you heard such a thing. That was not part of our platform and has never been. If you know where that is, Madam Chair, I would ask you to send that to my office. I would be fascinated to see it.
Senator Mitchell: You are saying absolutely that you are not doing that.
Mr. Nicholson: I am pleased with the system we have. We have young children as part of the child welfare system. We have a youth criminal justice system. Certainly, there are challenges within that and I heard about it on my cross- country consultations, senator. However, I did not hear people say that they wanted to change the age. You did not hear about it from this government. You will get that information for me, will you, senator? I will give you as much as I can in writing, and I would love to have that from you.
Senator Mitchell: You mentioned that you brought out a number of initiatives, such as pilot drug programs, a program to reduce the use of guns and drugs by gangs. I know that you have cut funding to the National Crime Prevention Centre by two thirds, which is interesting. Has the money gone somewhere else? Have you increased net money to assist youth in preventing crimes?
Mr. Nicholson: Senator, we are putting more money than has ever been put in this country toward assisting children. I will be glad to give you information on all of these: the National Anti-Drug Strategy, National Crime Prevention, and the guns, gangs and drugs strategy. I would be glad to do that. I indicated that these programs are important to me. I do not have to tell you how many young people get involved in and benefit from the Aboriginal Justice Strategy with its extra $40 million. I will be glad to give you all of those statistics, Madam Chair. It is an impressive record and makes me so proud to be a part of this government.
Senator Mitchell: Could you show us the programs that you have cut on the other side, too?
Mr. Nicholson: Senator, I will give you all of these. I bet you will send me a card saying, "Nicholson, you got it right. You are putting a lot of money in there and I am really pleased.''
Senator Mitchell: If not, will you send me a card saying that you will get it right?
Back to Senator Dallaire's question, you have spoken eloquently about your support for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but it still catches in my mind and in the minds of many people that Omar Khadr was 15 years old when he did what it is alleged that he did. How can you be 15 years old and purportedly doing that kind of thing and not be considered a child soldier? If he is a child soldier, then why would we not bring him back to Canada and deal with him in a way that is consistent with Canadian values and with some sense of compassion and justice, which he simply is not getting from this government?
Mr. Nicholson: Thank you for the question, senator. The individual in question faces serious charges in the United States. You have probably heard many times from the government that we are awaiting what is happening in the United States on those charges.
Madam Chair, I have to slip away soon. I can take one more question.
Senator Demers: Mr. Nicholson, you answered the question so I have a comment. I came to the Senate a few months ago. I want to congratulate you. It is always easy to criticize, but I like your hard-nosed approach. I can say what I want because it is my time to talk. There is nothing perfect. I can see your sincerity with your group that you want to continue. I talked to Senator Nancy Ruth on the way. Every Monday people get emotional in here, or whenever Senator Andreychuk wants us here, as long as we are listened to. I believe today that you listened to us. Do not change.
Mr. Nicholson: I believe the approach we are taking is very reasonable to updating our laws, whether with respect to auto theft or identity theft or requiring Internet service providers to notify authorities when child pornography sites are used. Getting rid of two-for-one credit is something that provincial attorneys general have been applauding me for. They are still telling me how pleased they are because their courts are not clogged up by people who think and know they got a benefit, if they were guilty of a crime. By delaying the disposition of their case, they got a reduced sentence because of double credit for time served. All of these initiatives are very reasonable. They are steps in the right direction and consistent with what law-abiding Canadians want. Everyone recognizes that these are just what the country needs.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, thank you.
Mr. Nicholson: If there are additional questions, by all means, forward them to me.
The Chair: We will have additional questions. We will continue to pursue our report and find ways that we can assist the government in delivering the services that we believe children need. Thank you for starting the dialogue, which we hope to continue.
(The committee adjourned.)