:
I call the meeting to order.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk, and to all of the wonderful support staff who make sure these meetings go as smoothly as possible.
Thank you, committee members, for logging in on time, and for your patience.
I know, Mr. Garrison, you're in a time zone where I wouldn't be awake, so I appreciate your tenacity in making sure that we're doing the things that Canadians expect us to do.
Welcome to the third meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of September 23, 2020. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person who is speaking, instead of the whole room.
I understand that Mr. Zuberi is in person today, so welcome to the committee room, Mr. Zuberi.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is there. Just keep in mind to take precautions with health protocols and masking.
Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. I cannot enough stress the importance of unmuting yourself before you start speaking, because if you don't unmute yourself, we won't be able to hear you. I know that's something we often forget to do, myself included. Those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.
I remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly to allow time for interpretation. When you are not speaking, please make sure that you are on mute.
With regard to the speaking list and the order of questions, we have canvassed all of the parties, so I know in advance who is speaking at what time, but I will do my best, and the clerk will do his best, and together we'll make sure that everybody gets the equitable time we've agreed to beforehand.
There are a number of things I want to clarify before we get going, and I introduce our witnesses who are here today.
At our last meeting we had talked about the supplementary estimates. I hadn't realized that it would be very short notice for the agencies that are directly involved with the supplementary estimates, and that they would not be able to appear. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not able to appear today.
We know that the minister is not able to speak to the supplementaries, whereas he is able to speak to the main estimates. I will leave it to the committee to decide if we would like to defer the supplementary estimates to a later time, so that we can hear from the relevant agencies before voting on them, or we can go ahead and vote on them today as a committee.
Just give me a thumbs up or a thumbs down for either way. If you're okay with voting on the supplementaries today, without hearing from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, give me a thumbs up. If you would like to hear from the Human Rights Commission, give me a thumbs down. I see there is consensus to vote on the supplementaries today, without hearing from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Today we are joined by the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
We also have with us Nathalie Drouin, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada; François Daigle, associate deputy minister; and Bill Kroll, chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister.
Welcome to the 2020 justice committee to speak about the main estimates.
Mr. Lametti, you have seven and a half minutes.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to speak to the committee as it studies the 2020-21 main estimates for the Department of Justice.
I would first like to acknowledge that I am joining you today from my office in the Department of Justice, which sits on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
As the chair has mentioned, I am joined today by Nathalie Drouin, deputy minister; François Daigle, associate deputy minister; and Bill Kroll, chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister. I would be remiss if I didn't also salute the presence of my very able parliamentary secretary, Arif Virani. I have so much confidence in Arif that if a mistake is made, it is actually his fault. I want you all to know that for the record.
[Translation]
As we deal with both a global pandemic and calls for major social changes, the Department of Justice Canada's work to promote and maintain a fair, transparent and accessible justice system becomes even more critical.
I'm proud to note that the department has shown great resilience and determination in the face of obstacles and delays during the pandemic, finding ways to work together and push ahead on key policy and legislative files.
We have moved rapidly to reintroduce important legislation regarding medical assistance in dying, banning conversion therapy and ensuring that judges hearing sexual assault matters will have the necessary training in sexual assault law and social context.
We also intend to fulfill our pledge to introduce legislation this year to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
[English]
In many respects, the pandemic has served to highlight what we already knew. For millions of people in our country and around the globe, the pandemic has added overwhelming obstacles to those who must already deal with barriers. Those facing low incomes, underemployment, intimate partner violence, discrimination and other challenges have felt the full brunt of the crisis. This trauma echoes in every region of the country, particularly in remote and indigenous communities.
It is very important to me that we work to ensure that all Canadians can have confidence in our justice system. This work has begun, but I acknowledge there is much more work to do.
Our government has brought forward a variety of important measures to blunt the effects of the pandemic, to address social inequalities and to support our most vulnerable citizens.
[Translation]
As one example, I was pleased to announce recently that our government is providing funding of almost $364,000 to support five child advocacy centres and child and youth advocacy centres in Ontario, to help ensure delivery of services during the pandemic.
The centres play an essential role in this province's victim services. They provide immeasurable support and comfort for children, youth and their families who are dealing with abuse or violence. It is no surprise that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on the ability of these centres to help young victims and their families, this at a time when the centres are needed more than ever.
The announced funding will provide urgently needed resources to ensure these centres can provide services that meet public health guidelines and restrictions.
[English]
This is just one of the many ways we are helping vulnerable Canadians in this time of social, economic and health crisis. We are hearing ever-louder calls to make our justice system better serve indigenous, Black, racialized, LGBTQ2 and other communities, and to promote fair access to justice for all. Committee members will hear these voices and these priorities echoed within financial details of the 2020-21 main estimates.
I will now turn to the overview. The Department of Justice has a total budgetary authority of $769.02 million through the 2020-21 main estimates, an increase of $24.5 million from the previous fiscal year. This funding will go towards key priorities that help to strengthen our justice system and ensure it is fair and accessible for everyone. Allow me to highlight a couple of key areas.
One example of how we are helping to protect Canadians' rights and increase access to justice is by providing legal support and awareness on sexual harassment in the workplace. In budget 2018 our government committed $50.4 million over five years towards actions to eliminate gender-based violence and harassment. The 2020-21 main estimates include $10.58 million to help ensure that workers are able to work in an environment free from harassment and fear.
Through the department's legal aid program and the justice partnership and innovation program, JPIP, we will boost legal aid and support for workers who experience sexual harassment in the workplace, and support the ongoing development of a pan-Canadian outreach program to make sure workers understand what their rights are and how they can find help.
Access to a fair and equitable justice system is a core part of reconciliation and our work to build a strong, respectful relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous people in our country. Budget 2019 included $10 million over five years to implement call to action 50 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to support indigenous law initiatives across Canada. This is a vital part of building stronger indigenous governance and healthy communities. The 2020-21 main estimates include $2 million for Justice Canada to support the development, use and understanding of indigenous laws and access to justice in accordance with the unique cultures of indigenous peoples in Canada.
[Translation]
That concludes my remarks.
Thank you for the opportunity to talk about how we are working to make our justice system stronger, more resilient and more people-centred for a better Canada. I am now happy to take any questions.
[English]
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for appearing today at our committee. It's good to see you again, even if it is virtually.
Minister, an issue that I've been raising and have raised with you for some time has been that, obviously, the impact of COVID-19 has altered significantly the financial estimates for the government. One issue that we've been raising is the concern with the growing backlog in the courts, both related to the COVID shutdown but also to vacancies within the judiciary.
Through you, Chair, can the minister inform the committee how the government is going to respond to this and what conversations the minister has had with the provinces over the past number of months? I want to reference specifically Ches Crosbie, the leader of the opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador, who has raised concerns in his province. There are four vacancies on the bench and that is delaying justice in that province. I'd like to get the minister's comments on that, the delay in the justice system.
Thank you.
:
Thanks very much, Mr. Moore, for your question—“Rob”, if I may. It's a great question and an important one.
Throughout the pandemic I've pretty much been in constant touch with my provincial and territorial counterparts. We've had a number of FPT calls as a reaction to COVID-19. I have also, with the Chief Justice of Canada, co-chaired an action committee with a number of chief magistrates across Canada to discuss, implement and suggest best practices for courts in reacting to the pandemic, both in hearing cases and parts of cases at a distance, but also in doing so safely when it's done physically.
We have, I think, done a very good job of filling court vacancies and continue to do so expeditiously. I think we're at a pretty good point.
The Newfoundland and Labrador question is a particular one. We have just re-composed the judicial appointments committee, and they are now evaluating files. We should be able to move to fill those four vacancies in short order. The delay was caused by the transition in the judicial appointments committee. Now that it's up and doing its work again evaluating files, there will be a pool of candidates who can then move on to the next stage.
We hope that will be done very shortly. You're correct to raise the issue, as was Ches Crosbie. Believe me, it was on my radar screen as well as on the radar screen of our team. I think we now have the JAC up and functioning again.
:
This is a highly relevant and good question, Rob, under the circumstances.
The Jordan decision itself is something we're watching closely with my provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as with the administrators—in particular the chief justices—of the justice system across Canada.
There is a safety valve mechanism within the Jordan decision itself, because the Jordan decision makes an exception for exceptional circumstances. I think that by anyone's definition, these are exceptional circumstances. We're pretty confident that judges will still rule.
That said, we are presently considering amendments to the Criminal Code that have been suggested by my provincial and territorial counterparts to help accelerate parts of the system. We're watching carefully to see whether we need to intervene with a legislative solution or perhaps with an intervention in front of the courts. For the time being we don't feel that is necessary, but this is a situation that we're monitoring very closely.
:
Colleagues, staff and minister, it's great to see you here this morning and this afternoon, depending upon where you're doing the Zoom.
Madam Chair, in Cape Breton—Canso I proudly work with six first nations communities. I'm in regular communication with the chiefs and have been throughout the pandemic. Actually, over the past 23 years I've been working with first nations communities. In particular, what I've been hearing is that indigenous communities are happy with the support from the federal government to help them tame the spread of COVID-19.
This minister and many colleagues have been committed to walking the path of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. There has definitely been a focus on implementing commitments made in 2019. The indigenous communities in my riding are extremely grateful for this.
I am hoping to hear what the minister has to say about his commitment to introduce the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and when we can expect that legislation. I believe the minister spoke a little to this in his opening statement, but I'm wondering whether we could unpack it a little more.
:
I'd like to thank you, honourable member, for your question.
As you know, we're committed to advancing the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people across Canada and to really, as you have said, walk the path of reconciliation together. Part of that commitment is a commitment I mentioned, which you've just repeated, that by the end of 2020 we will introduce legislation on implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, or I prefer to call it just “the declaration”. That commitment was reiterated in the throne speech.
We're working very hard right now with national indigenous organizations, the national leadership as well as other levels of leadership across Canada, to best map a path forward and to see what we can do. We're using the old Bill as a base and seeing what we can improve now before implementing it. We're going to continue to work closely in partnership. We're also reaching out to other industry stakeholders just to reassure them that this is something that will help with resource development moving forward.
:
Again, Mike, thanks for that very important question.
We're doing a great deal to help victims of crime. Particularly vulnerable are children, but in particular children who are in remote rural areas of Canada. We have a particular focus on human trafficking and intimate partner violence or family violence.
Through our strategic aid fund for victims, which is a federal initiative, we're trying to encourage new approaches through organizations on the ground in order to provide service, increased capacity and help in the establishment of help and aid networks.
One of the things I would point to is the support for child advocacy centres across Canada, CACs. In my remarks, I mentioned ones in Ontario, but we have been doing this across Canada. I visited a number of CACs across Canada. They're 360-degree wraparound services that are multidisciplinary, in which a child isn't retraumatized, his or her family is supported throughout, and police officers who interview do so in a non-confrontational setting, not in uniform, and it's taped so that the kids never have to be interviewed twice and their testimony can be used further down the road.
We're trying to support a number of these types of initiatives that represent best practices, but also to really help victims a great deal.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Minister. I'm glad to see you this morning.
I'm especially interested in the estimates as they relate to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. Two of the office's core responsibilities caught my eye, first, safeguarding the independence of the judiciary and, second, delivering the judges' language training program.
I'll start by asking about the judiciary's independence. As far as the appointment process goes, can you tell me what portion of the estimates is actually for the judge selection process? To be clear, I'm referring to federal courts.
:
Thank you for the question, Mr. Fortin. It's always a pleasure to have these kinds of conversations with you.
As far as the appointment process is concerned, costs are associated with the judicial advisory committees, or JACs. The expenses incurred by JAC members represent a cost.
In terms of selection, my ministerial office, here, on Parliament Hill, is responsible. The costs aren't associated with the departmental budget; rather, they cover salaries for my team, my staff, to support the process.
My next question is along the same lines.
In response to questions from the opposition—mine in particular—the told the House, a few times, that he used the so-called Liberalist database, the infamous list of Liberal Party members and donors, but only after the candidates had made it through the other steps in the selection process. As far as he is concerned, it's an acceptable practice.
Obviously, I won't try today to determine whether it was acceptable to do things that way or not. What I'm interested in is how much that part of the process costs.
Can you tell me what the cost of conducting Liberalist checks on candidates is?
:
We introduced the system in 2016, and I sincerely believe it's working well right now. Every once in a while, delays arise related to the composition of the JACs, as I mentioned to Mr. Moore, but overall, the system is fairly effective and transparent. Lawyers across the country are now much more comfortable with the criteria and effort required, given the amount of work involved in putting together an application.
As far as the calibre and diversity of appointees is concerned, we have a terrific record. Since 2016, nearly 55% of appointees have been women. Under the Conservative government, less than a third of appointed judges were women.
Diversity-wise, we are working to improve the makeup of the judiciary around the country, so it looks more like Canada.
I would say the system is doing a very good job in terms of producing high-calibre appointees that reflect Canada's diversity.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Certainly I want to thank you, Minister, for being here with us today. I also want to thank you for the spirit of collaboration and co-operation that you've always exhibited toward me when it comes to justice issues and the justice file.
I was very pleased to hear you mention domestic violence, or intimate partner violence, in your opening statement. I want to focus a little bit on this question.
When I first did a phone round of the many police forces and detachments in my riding in March because of COVID, every one of them raised the problem of a spike in family violence, domestic violence or intimate partner violence at the outset of COVID. I believe this is a continuing trend, and one that we will see exacerbated as many families struggle with loss of income and other challenges posed by COVID.
One thing the police said to me was that they often lack tools to deal with this question of violence before it becomes overt physical violence. I introduced a private member’s bill, Bill , that tries to deal with the phenomenon of coercive and controlling behaviour, which quite often is a precursor to that violence. This would provide police with another tool that they could use to intervene earlier in intimate partner violence.
Minister, is the government interested in pursuing such an initiative, one that would help police to have additional tools to deal with intimate partner violence?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
In your opening statement, you also mentioned the victims fund. One of the other phenomena we've seen during COVID is that a lot of the services to victims are provided by non-profits, by charities. Of course, because families are facing increasing financial stress, this results in fewer donations to charities, and so there are fewer resources in the communities to help provide services to victims.
I know that some of these funds the federal government has aren't in your purview, but the victims fund is. In the main estimates, it shows a 41% cut to the victims fund, from $25 million down to $15 million. This is a fund that has programs within it that provide grants to support families of missing and murdered indigenous women. It provides support to families appearing at parole hearings.
While I don't doubt your commitment to victims, the budget shows a very large cut in that fund. There may be a very good reason for this, but could you explain why this is happening and how you'll make up for that cut?
:
Thank you for that question. I'll give the high-level answers. If there is any more detail, I may ask my officials to back me up.
There are two main reasons for the over $10-million drop in that fund. The first is the sunsetting of the FILUs, the Family Information Liaison Units that were associated with MMIWG. I have since managed to secure another three years of funding for the FILUs. That will come up, so $7.2 million will come back in, but it will come up in supplementaries later on down the road. That's part of the decrease.
The other is the sunsetting of a $3.8-million fund for temporary measures to support and address prostitution. That fund has sunset, but we have invested a greater amount of money, again, through and WAGE, in an anti-trafficking strategy. I think the figure is almost $30 million for that, but I can confirm that for you. We feel that the money is better being deployed elsewhere.
That certainly is the high-level answer. If any of my officials want to add any detail, I will let them, but I will leave it up to you, Randall, to decide.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning, honourable minister. It's good to see you back at the Justice committee.
I want to pick up where Mr. Garrison left off with respect to the main estimates and the victims fund.
In your reply to Mr. Garrison, you noted that a part of that has to do with the sunsetting of funding under the measures to address prostitution initiative, or MAPI. Minister, you noted that there is funding under the national strategy, but when the MAPI funding was sunsetted, organizations on the front lines to help women and girls who are at risk of sexual exploitation and human trafficking were literally left in the dark and forced to scramble.
Megan Walker, who is the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, said, “We never received anything from the government officially—no thank you for serving women on behalf of MAPI, no official notice MAPI was ending, no notice that we weren't funded through Victims of Crime, just no correspondence.”
How do you justify that?
:
As always, it's good to see you and to respond to your concerns.
As I mentioned in my previous answer to Randall Garrison, that program was sunsetting. I thank the MAPI centre in London, Ontario. I was well aware, as you can assume, that the funding would have an impact on them. I thank them for the work that they have done. As I said, the figure is actually $19 million in a program to reduce human trafficking and to support those most impacted by human trafficking. That's through WAGE, Women and Gender Equality Canada, under Minister 's purview. My understanding is that she has established a relationship with MAPI in London, Ontario, and my understanding is that they got COVID emergency funding through Minister Monsef. I guess that on the one hand, the program came to an end, while on the other hand, other opportunities opened up to help MAPI in London.
:
Thank you very much, Ramesh, for your question.
Indeed, legal aid and immigration funding is critically important to our government. Legal aid funding, generally, is critical for access to justice. There have been funding shortfalls in Ontario and elsewhere for a variety of different reasons. Some have been caused by COVID; some have been caused by government policy.
In budget 2019, we announced an additional $49.6 million over three years for immigration and refugee legal aid, because that part comes directly under our jurisdiction, and that funding will increase the 2020-21 federal contribution from $11.5 million to $28.2 million. That, again, helps support shortfalls in Ontario and across Canada.
:
Again, thank you. It is an important question.
Certainly COVID has put pressures on the system across Canada, and not just on immigration and refugee legal aid. Given the questions we have had previously, there will be recourse to legal aid in family law settings, and maybe even in aspects of intimate partner violence and whatnot. There may be increased bankruptcies that force people to use legal aid as well. There are also funding questions, particularly in a place like Ontario, where a great deal of the funding comes from the foundation and whose revenues will have been impacted by the market impact on foundation funding.
It's a complex problem, and I'm working with my provincial and territorial counterparts. I'm always doing my best to seek resources for additional support. Is it enough? It is probably never enough, but we do our best under the circumstances to get as many resources as possible.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
My main concern, of course, is the safety of sex workers and their ability to support their families during COVID.
Can I turn quickly, in the very little time we have left, to the rise of online hate and in particular to the rise of anti-Semitism during COVID? It's is a very unfortunate sidebar that we have to deal with.
In a previous Parliament, this committee tabled a report called “Taking Action to End Online Hate”, which I don't believe the government ever officially responded to. That report called for reinstating section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would allow people to file complaints about online hate with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I wonder if the minister has a response to that specific part of the justice committee's recommendation.
Arif Virani, who's with us, is part of that response. It was in my mandate letter to look at that, so there was, in effect, a government response during the election as part of our platform and then during my mandate letter. It's important to me, but I can't do everything, so I have in turn given that to Parliamentary Secretary Virani as part of his mandate. I know that he is looking at it very carefully.
In addition to section 13 revisions within our shop, he's working very closely with in Canadian Heritage and to look at a wider response to online hate as well.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, minister, for being here with us today.
It is much earlier in B.C., as you can imagine, but I'm glad to see you just the same.
I have some questions regarding commissions and tribunals and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I noted that in the 2020-21 departmental plan for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, there's a note that the commission will “continue to advocate for improved access to human rights justice by...raising awareness and understanding of the barriers to equality and access to justice that individuals in vulnerable circumstances are facing”.
My question, Minister, is this: How much of the $32-million main estimate for 2020-21 will be spent on raising awareness and understanding of the barriers to equality and access to justice? What are some concrete examples of such programs?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.
Minister, thank you for taking time out of what we all know is a very busy schedule in order to answer our questions.
I have a couple of questions. My first question relates to access to justice and to judges in particular. As everybody knows, we just completed our discussion on Bill earlier this week. One takeaway from it is that I believe we are all united in our view that we have the greatest court system in the world, and nobody questions the integrity of our court system.
As an aside, I was glad to hear your answer with respect to the process for appointing judges, because I believe the same applies with respect to our appointment process. Everybody believes in the integrity of the process, and when people do question it publicly, it is likely done only as a political jab meant to get some headlines and it's not a genuinely held belief. That's just my perspective.
In any event, on the access to justice front, which is important to all of us, we need access to a fair and equitable justice system, as has been mentioned today, and you've mentioned it in your opening remarks. In my view, one of the greatest barriers to access to justice is the number of judges we have available. Access to justice has different challenges in different parts of the country, but in Ontario, where I'm from, and in Toronto in particular, the wait time to get a case heard is extraordinary.
We're familiar with the Jordan case and the impact it has had. Family law matters are delayed. Civil matters are a third cousin in this issue. In Toronto or other jurisdictions nearby, you could be waiting up to two years to get a trial date, after you've listed it for trial and the case was already a few years old, and then you'd get close to the date only to find out that we don't have enough judges or enough courtrooms.
Has there been consideration given to increasing the complement of superior court judges across the country? I realize there's a coinciding cost to that, which is partially a provincial responsibility because court services and courthouses are matters that the province deals with.
I have a follow-up question related to that too. Sorry for the long introduction.
:
James, thank you for your question, and thank you for your work on Bill and for your committee work.
The short answer to the question is “Yes, continually”. There's always back-and-forth between the federal government and the provincial governments with respect to the number of judges. These are the federally appointed judges at the superior court level across Canada. You're right to say that there is a shared cost with the provinces, because provinces have the responsibility for the administration of justice. Requests come and get evaluated, and that's pretty much a continual process, year over year.
However, I agree that we need to address delays in the justice system and I share your observation that because of Jordan, the criminal stuff goes first and the civil stuff gets relegated. We've worked hard in my ministry, as did Minister before me, to try to address the Jordan decision and make the system more efficient and effective through Bill and other provisions.
You're right that it would mainly be for the provinces to try to figure out a way to make sure that civil cases move forward more quickly. That falls within their jurisdiction, but we need to continue looking at solutions on all fronts, because you're right to identify the waiting times as being too long.
:
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your short response to that.
I'm going to stop here for a second. I note that we have one round of questions left, with about 15 minutes on the clock, because we have committee business that we need to discuss with respect to the next meetings. Obviously we need to vote on the main estimates as well.
What I'm going to do is to give one round to Mr. Lewis for five minutes, Mr. Zuberi for five minutes, Monsieur Fortin for two and half minutes and Mr. Garrison for two and a half minutes. Then we will thank the minister for his attendance here today.
Mr. Lewis, you have the floor for five minutes. Please go ahead, sir.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We certainly appreciate the minister's coming to committee today
Thank you so much, Minister.
I'm going to build on the line of questioning by Mr. Sangha with regard to legal aid. As you may or not may be aware, I'm the Ontario Conservative on the justice committee, and so I would be remiss not to bring this up.
Minister, community legal clinics across the country, particularly in Ontario, have been asking the federal government for support from the federal government. They say that COVID-19 has impacted their financial model and that without support they risk severe consequences.
For example, the Durham Region Law Association recently wrote to raise significant concerns over the shortfall that has developed. What dialogue has the minister had with his department or provincial stakeholders on this question to date?
[English]
My next question will touch upon the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. I'll highlight that this is something we're seized with as a country, and have been over the last several months. Prior to COVID, there was a very robust #MeToo movement, and we'd like to have some responses about that to know what the government is doing.
Everybody, regardless of their gender or gender identity, has a right to work in a harassment-free workplace.
[Translation]
Can you tell us what the Department of Justice is doing to combat sexual harassment in the workplace?
[English]
I'd like you to elaborate on that, please.
:
Thank you very much for that important question, Sameer.
There is systemic racism in our justice system. We have to admit that first and foremost. There is overrepresentation of Black and indigenous peoples in our justice system. That falls directly within my mandate. The Speech from the Throne has admitted that....
And I signed that letter, by the way, in my qualities as a member of Parliament.
I believe we need to address this. It's in the Speech from the Throne. There will be measures from a wide variety of ministers and ministries and departments trying to address the overrepresentation and other issues raised by Black and indigenous and other visible minority leadership across Canada.
I look forward to being able to announce soon what's being done by the Minister of Justice.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Since I don't have much time, I am just going to revisit some of your answers to my previous questions, if you don't mind, Minister. I want to be sure I understood you correctly.
I asked you about the effectiveness of the judicial appointment process, and from what I understood, the new system, in place since 2016, is working well. No reviews are under way to change or improve the system in any way.
Another issue I asked you about was language training for judges to ensure they are bilingual. Correct me if I'm wrong, but such training is available only to Supreme Court justices, not to other court judges.
What kind of training is available to judges to ensure they are bilingual? You told me earlier that 32% of federally appointed judges are able to hear cases in French and that 12% understand written materials in French. You did say, though, that there was no test to evaluate those skills.
If you don't do any testing to evaluate judges' ability to communicate in French with lawyers and parties to the case, how did you come up with those numbers?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to start by thanking the minister for his frank acknowledgement that there is systemic racism in the Canadian justice system and for acknowledging the overrepresentation of indigenous people and racialized Canadians in it.
While the statements of the government are very positive, they're sometimes frustratingly vague. So as to not commit the same offence myself, let me ask very specifically about one measure that would make the biggest difference in the everyday situation of those people who are differentially treated in our justice system: mandatory minimums.
Can we expect any initiative from this government to reduce or eliminate mandatory minimums except for the most serious crimes, and if there's not going to be initiative from the government, will the government support the bill on mandatory minimums that's making its way through the Senate, , which gives discretion back to judges to not impose them?
:
Absolutely, Ms. Findlay.
I thought I had made it clear in my remarks earlier. I should have made it clearer, though, that the minister would not be able to respond to questions on the supplementary estimates.
To deal with this issue, I would like to put it to a vote. We have two options before us. We can have another meeting to vote on the supplementary estimates at a later time. Obviously, there are specific deadlines that we have to keep in mind, which may throw off our schedule for other things.
The alternative is that we can put your questions, Madam Findlay, and any other questions that we have with respect to the supplementary estimates on the record today and get written responses. Then at a later time during committee business, we can vote on the supplementary estimates once we have those written responses.
Is that something we can all agree to do?
Do I have the unanimous consent of the committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS SUPPORT SERVICE OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$61,610,764
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$29,037,902
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$85,028,677
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$262,288,103
ç
Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$430,219,581
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL AFFAIRS
ç
Vote 1—Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs—Operating expenditures..........$9,452,925
ç
Vote 5—Canadian Judicial Council—Operating expenditures..........$2,079,634
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$181,447,273
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$26,438,911
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Shall I report the main estimates 2020-21 to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
We're moving on to the supplementary estimates (B) of 2020-21.
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
ç
Vote 1b—Program expenditures..........$650,000
(Vote 1b agreed to on division)
COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE
ç
Vote 1b—Program expenditures..........$4,647,968
(Vote 1b agreed to on division)
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
ç
Vote 1b—Program expenditures..........$2,569,491
(Vote 1b agreed to on division)
REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1b—Program expenditures..........$79,237
(Vote 1b agreed to on division)
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall I report the supplementary estimates (B) 2020-21 to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
:
Absolutely, and their officials, yes. Are we good?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. That's that.
With respect to the witness list, I have, I believe, 99 to 100 names on the list. At our last steering committee meeting, we decided that we would have four meetings for witnesses and then two meetings for clause-by-clause. Four meetings would have two panels per meeting, which would be eight panels of three witnesses per panel. That would come to a total of 24 witnesses.
If I have the consent of the committee to just make things more equitable for everybody, in the instance of the 24 witnesses that we have given ourselves allowance for, we'd divide it so that 10 of those witnesses are proposed by the Liberals, 10 by the Conservatives, two by the Bloc and two by the NDP; and we'd allow for an unlimited number of written submissions to be made by any witnesses and be received by the clerk. Is that okay?
Hon. Rob Moore: Madam Chair.
The Chair: Yes?
You're on mute, sir.
There we go.
:
Thank you, Mr. Maloney.
With that, what I will ask each party to do is to submit, for the Liberals and Conservatives, please, your top 10 witnesses that you must have or would really like to have appear. For the Bloc and the NDP, I would ask that you each submit your top three witnesses. I'm sure there will be a lot of overlap in which witnesses are proposed.
Let's start from there, and then, obviously, we can revisit and readjust as witnesses are able to attend to testify or not able to attend to testify.
Do I have agreement on that from everybody?
:
I'd like to start by saying hello to all the members. I work with some of you on the Standing Committee on Health.
I'm not sure I know exactly where the committee is headed. The Bloc Québécois could put forward more than three witnesses, but we will keep it to three. I heard someone say that having four was a problem because it didn't leave enough time for questions. I think we have to be able to ask questions. We receive briefs, we read them and we listen to people's presentations. They can keep their presentations short since we get their briefs beforehand. That way, we can have a back and forth with them. That back and forth is the important part.
If there does turn out to be overlap in the witnesses proposed, I imagine it will be necessary to put forward more names afterwards. We can propose three witnesses, but if they have all been chosen by another party, I am going to suggest others. I could put forward eight or 10. It's important to have a balance, to hear from as many people as possible with a wide range of backgrounds, to talk to them, to have time to ask them questions and to gain a clear understanding of their views. That's all I wanted to say.
I believe that we have a consensus as this time for 12, 12, four and four per party. For clarity, it's 12 for the Conservatives, 12 for the Liberals, four for the Bloc and four for the NDP. Can I please ask you to submit your top 12 or four, depending on your party, to the clerk and me at your earliest convenience, maybe by the end of day tomorrow, so that we can get the invitations out over the next couple of weeks to the witnesses?
I believe M.O.G., our clerk, has a quick question for clarity for November 3.
Mr. Clerk.
:
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I appreciate that.
My next and last question for you guys today is with respect to the time slot for the ministers. Given that we've now agreed to have only one panel with the three ministers, I was saying four minutes per minister would be reasonable. Is that okay?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll instruct accordingly.
Could I please have everybody submit their prioritized witness lists at their earliest opportunity so we can send the invitation?
I believe Mr. Clerk wants to make a quick intervention here.
Mr. Clerk, please go ahead.