Introduction

Thank you, Sanda, for that kind introduction.

I am very pleased to be here with you today. Law school is where so much of my own personal and professional development has taken place. It is where I have encountered professors and students who have shown outstanding leadership and a strong commitment to public service.

A. The Faculty of Law and the Department of Justice

The University of Ottawa has often been called "the government's law school," and many of its law faculty have made reputations for their work as activists and scholars. Professor Martha Jackman, noted for her work on how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects and promotes health and social welfare rights, is one example.

Professor Aline Grenon and Professor Louise Bélanger-Hardy are two others. Their study of Common and Civil Law has made an important contribution to the federal government's efforts to harmonize federal law with Quebec's Civil Code.

And among the many projects that Professor Donald McRae has taken on, his work to promote links between scholars, government officials, and private lawyers exemplifies this University's commitment to public service.

This commitment to public service is the basis of the relationship between the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa and the Department of Justice.

For instance, forty-six of the Department's lawyers have attended the University of Ottawa to take Common Law in French. Your faculty is one of only two places in the country where this is available. The bilingual and bijural programs offered at this law school proudly reflect our country's legal system.

B. The Context of "Hot Button" Issues

As law students so closely tied to government and public service, you are no doubt attuned to the kinds of issues and challenges facing government and the legal system today. The justice portfolio never lacks for controversial topics, but so many of them — euthanasia, the medicinal use of marijuana, foetal rights, or access to the medical records of complainants, for example — usually involve high-profile cases before some level of court, thus restricting considerably what I can say on these topics.

One thing you learn quickly as Minister of Justice and Attorney General is that the sub judice rule is one that can sometimes be a muzzle or a relief, depending on the issue and circumstances.

Therefore, what I've decided to do today is speak more broadly about the context in which "hot button" issues emerge. In particular, why is it that our justice system has become, over the past 20 years, an arena for increasing controversy?

Nine months ago, when I became Justice Minister, I decided a top priority would be to address why Canadians were losing confidence in important parts of our justice system. I have identified three priority areas: crime prevention, youth justice and the concerns of victims, where I hope concentrated work can help alleviate some of Canadians' concerns about our system of justice.

I will discuss my plans for these three areas briefly with you today, but first I'll explore some thoughts about the discontent of our time, and how it informs my approach to policy initiatives.

I will be interested to hear your opinions on these issues. Part of what the justice system needs is greater transparency, openness and opportunities for dialogue with the citizens it serves. Hearing from law students and members of law faculties, studying and analysing the important legal and social issues of the day, is important for my work.

Declining Confidence in the Justice System

In my first speech as Justice Minister to the Canadian Bar Association last August, I spoke about the decline of Canadians' confidence in the justice system. Canadians' fear of crime is increasing — this, despite the fact that crime rates have been declining for the past five years. Too many Canadians do not believe that their key legal institutions reflect their values. Too many believe that some of our laws, such as the Young Offenders Act, do not adequately deal with crime or respond to feelings of insecurity and fear.

To counter this mood and to increase confidence in our justice system, the first thing we have to do is understand the basis for these feelings. Why, today, do Canadians feel less secure? What is it that we can't get right today that a generation ago it seemed that we could? There is no single explanation for this, but let me suggest a few reasons.

First, in the past, communities were smaller and in many ways more homogeneous than they are today. Today, our country is increasingly pluralistic and diverse. Newer generations of immigrants have brought with them new perspectives. Voices that were once silenced — the voices of Aboriginal people and women, to name but two — are now heard in the public sphere. Many old certainties are being called into question. These social changes bring with them challenges for public policy makers everywhere — and especially Ministers of Justice, who deal with some of the most fundamental and controversial issues in our society.

Secondly, opportunities for Canadians to become involved in public affairs have increased. New technologies like the Internet make public input easier, while ever-increasing numbers of non-governmental organizations and lobby groups of all sizes speak out strongly for their constituencies. Politics is no longer the exclusive domain of the elite.

These factors can cause what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor has termed a "fragmentation of society," where people identify with their own niches, and consensus for a given course of action becomes harder to achieve. At the same time, people are becoming more conscious of their multiple and interwoven identities, and thus their complex attachment to a number of different social groups. These developments make it more challenging for the justice system to respond to people's needs and concerns.

This "fragmentation" contributes to growing public suspicion of elites and experts, including the courts, lawyers, academics and politicians. People more willingly question whether their governments, institutions and community leaders adequately represent them.

These feelings are exacerbated as public debate is channelled through, and shaped by, the media. Some voices are amplified and others lost. Nuance gives way to the dictates of the ten-second sound bite. The many shades of grey we experience in daily life, with their possibilities for healing and compromise, can be overshadowed by stark representations of good and evil. The constant presentation of dramatic violent crime drowns out the fact that it is decreasing in most of the communities in which we live.

Some contend that this fragmentation has been accentuated by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has fostered a culture of individual rights. It has changed the perceptions, and expectations, of citizens about what the justice system and legislators are capable of accomplishing in a given situation.

There are sharp questions raised in public debate about collective versus individual rights, and about the role of our judiciary in relation to our elected legislators. These questions, and others, create the context in which the public considers the positions taken by government on socially, morally and legally contentious issues on the justice agenda.

These factors make it more difficult for all Canadians to believe that the system is working in their interests and that it reflects their values. Governing on the eve of the 21st century requires both sensitivity to public perception and attention to hard fact.

For example, Canadians are calling for a toughening of the Young Offenders Act. They perceive a youth justice system that fails to reflect values they hold important: accountability, responsibility and respect for the law. At the same time, we know and have a responsibility to tell Canadians that the vast majority — 85 per cent — of young offenders are accused of non-violent crimes and never re-offend. For these youth, the system works.

However, Canadians will only feel that their justice system is working for them if it is accessible, relevant and inclusive. Canadians want a greater sense of ownership of the justice system. This may mean changing its institutions, the power they wield, and that of those who run them. It will also change the way these institutions relate to people. The challenge is to be prepared not just to accept, but promote, this kind of change.

As Minister of Justice, I would like to contribute to the kind of change I have just discussed and I want to mention briefly the three areas that will be the focus of my attention over the next 18 months: the needs of victims in the justice system, the prevention of crime, and youth justice.

Victims

Victims and their families do not ask to be part of the justice system. Their participation is thrust upon them. Victims tell us that dignified involvement in the justice system can offer the greatest hope for healing. The most common frustration I hear from victims is their sense of exclusion. They are made to feel like bystanders — like third parties — to events that have changed their lives, often tragically, forever.

At a minimum, we need a justice system that does a better job of giving victims the information they want and the support they need: a system that recognizes the diverse concerns and needs of women, children, and other vulnerable groups.

A number of provinces across Canada have now passed legislation recognizing the needs of victims. But the provinces' programs differ from each other, and victims are frustrated by the lack of coordination and information sharing that takes place between jurisdictions about victims' rights and services. To improve this situation, I am considering, among various options, the establishment of a central victims' office to help achieve these goals.

In many instances, what victims are looking for is something that can be provided without new laws or programs. It's called respect. We can improve the way the system treats victims by being sensitive to their needs, without detracting from the rights of the accused.

Crime Prevention

Crime prevention is another important initiative for our government.

Once a crime has been committed, dealing with the offender, the victims, and the community in need of healing is difficult and expensive. We must focus our efforts on preventing crime in the first place.

How can we help divert a young child from a life of crime? What can communities do to help citizens feel safe and secure? In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the federal government's new crime prevention initiative, in which we will invest $32 million each year.

To implement this initiative, we will build partnerships with provinces and cities across Canada, which understand their needs and resources far better than we do. The problems in Ottawa are different from those in Edmonton, Montreal, or Halifax.

Community-based and community-driven projects are the future of crime prevention in Canada. We will therefore be flexible as we work to complement local efforts — and we want the help of those who are deeply involved with their communities to make sure that these projects run effectively.

We already know that the formative years — the early years — of a child's life hold the key to crime prevention. This is why youth crime prevention is best accomplished through a multidisciplinary approach, involving everyone who works with children: teachers, social workers, the police, nurses and doctors, community leaders and, most importantly, parents. With these principles to guide us, we will focus on children and youth, women's safety, and the needs of Aboriginal people, encouraging communities to mobilize to prevent crime and victimization.

Youth Justice

I am also committed to a broad, multifaceted approach that involves communities, families, and youth in a renewal of our youth justice system.

When we think of controversial issues in the justice system, few come more quickly to the minds of Canadians that the Young Offenders Act — and few pose more of a challenge to policy makers and Ministers of Justice.

A full 90 per cent of Canadians believe dealing with youth crime is an important issue for governments today. Canadians perceive that the youth justice system is too lenient, and that youth are primarily responsible for a perceived rise in violent crime in Canada. For the public, the youth justice system has come to symbolize our justice system's inability to adequately reflect the values of those it was meant to serve.

At the same time, it is wrong to assume that this lack of confidence reflects a hardening of public attitudes toward young offenders. Canadians believe that young offenders, particularly violent and repeat young offenders, should face meaningful consequences for their crimes. But they also have great hope for youth, and support new ways of approaching youth justice that give young people the opportunity to turn their lives around.

Perhaps most importantly, Canadians believe that changes to the law are not enough. Early intervention for children at risk, prevention programs, and other broad, integrated approaches — involving families, communities, teachers, social workers and many others — are the most effective way to deal with youth crime.

Both federal and provincial governments have recently completed very thorough reviews of the youth justice system. Now is the time for renewal. I am convinced we can build a system that both responds to the concerns of Canadians and works effectively to prevent and address youth crime. In the next couple of weeks, I will bring forward specific proposals on how we can do just that.

Conclusion

The key to success in the areas I have discussed, and to increasing public confidence in the justice system and its institutions, is to increase opportunities for real participation in our system of justice. That means participation by victims who want and deserve to be kept informed and to have their say, and participation by communities in crime prevention and youth justice initiatives. It means taking a hard look at policies and laws, and seeing to what extent they are at odds with the concerns of Canadians.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, it is my job to address controversial issues involving conflicting values and points of view. Unfortunately, there are few simple answers or strategies.

It's my job, and that of others who work in the justice system, to earn the confidence of Canadians. This is a long-term project, and can only be accomplished when all partners in the justice system are engaged. This includes you, who represent the justice system's future.

You inherit the best justice system in the world, renowned for its impartiality, independence and respect for the rule of law. Countries from around the world send their experts to Canada to study our system to identify ways of improving their own. However, as great as our system may be, it is wise to recall the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Law is nothing unless behind it stands a warm, living public opinion."

This is our challenge. Where there are problems, let us shape solutions. Where there is doubt, let us inspire trust. Where there is insecurity and fear, let us build confidence.

Your thoughts, ideas and insights will be especially helpful in my deliberations in the coming weeks and months as I assess and formalize new federal initiatives on victims, crime prevention, youth justice and other important priorities. Thank you.