Finance Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome back, colleagues. I know it's been quite a bit of time since we last saw each other, but we will continue to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 10, 2025, and the motion adopted on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, the committee shall resume consideration of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.

I would like to take a moment to welcome the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Sean Fraser. He is joined by a number of officials. I won't go through and read them all.

With that, Minister, you have five minutes. Thank you.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Excellent. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, everyone. I'm pleased to be here to discuss Bill C‑15.

There are a couple of different aspects that are specific to the Department of Justice that I'll draw your attention to in a moment. Suffice it to say, the budget implementation act does the work of giving the effect of law to many of the spending commitments that have now been approved by the House and, indeed, were campaigned on by the current government.

There are two issues that I will draw your attention to, and I'll endeavour to leave a little time on the clock for questions.

The first is certain changes to the allotment of judges within the province of Ontario. Previously, there was a pool of 10 superior court judges allocated, but not yet used, within the particular jurisdiction. The change contemplated by Bill C-15 would repurpose those appointments through extensive conversation with the Superior Court of Justice and Court of Appeal for Ontario, as well as the provincial government. This would see eight of those judges repurposed to serve in a unified family court in Brampton, and the remaining two of the 10 that are already allocated for Ontario given to the Court of Appeal to help keep up with the inner workings of that particular court.

I'll just say a word on unified family courts. Though they are not in every jurisdiction within Canada, jurisdictions that have embraced this strategy have seen positive outcomes in terms of the user experience when those going through difficult family situations require family courts. Having access to one-stop shopping and the expertise those courts provide has been well received on a near unanimous basis.

The second piece in the budget implementation act that I'll draw your attention to is really an administrative change involving the Administrative Tribunals Support Services of Canada. This is an organization that provides administrative support to a range of different federal tribunals. Historically, they've been providing support to two tribunals in the Yukon. The changes contemplated by Bill C-15 would formalize that long-standing relationship, but also create the possibility for additional tribunals within the territories that choose to access these services—if the territorial governments deem it to be in their interest to use the pre-existing body.

Just while I have the floor, because I'm looking around at some of my friends who tend to ask questions about my portfolio more broadly, which I'm happy to deal with, just know that the various criminal reforms that we put in place and have debated in Parliament are taking place within the context of a broader strategy on public safety. This rests on three pillars. The first is indeed stronger criminal laws. You will have seen new laws introduced on bail and sentencing, on combatting hate, on gender-based violence and on protecting kids against exploitation.

In addition to these three bills, there's a range of other public safety bills, but the second pillar of the public safety strategy is really about making investments in the front line. This includes the 1,000 new RCMP officers, 1,000 new border officers and more support for community organizations that support victims and women fleeing violence, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Minister, I'm sorry. Could you just slow down a little bit? The interpreters are having a bit of a challenge.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Sorry. As usual, I'm talking quite fast.

Very quickly to I will wrap up, and I will endeavour to speak more slowly throughout.

The final pillar is very important to me.

To invest in violence prevention and improve public safety over the long term, we need to invest in affordable housing and health care, including in addiction and mental health care services.

We also need to be taking the long view in terms of how policy supports people by building healthier people, which translates into safer communities, including programs specifically targeting at-risk youth. My own view is that over and above these very specific measures, we also need to recognize the value of investing in public infrastructure—whether that's recreational infrastructure, public transit, cultural infrastructure—to help build communities where people can become healthy and full participants in society.

Madam Chair, I will leave my comments there. I expect there are many questions committee members have, and I'm happy to yield whatever time remains to the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Great. Thank you, Minister.

We will now begin with six minutes from Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister.

Good afternoon, officials. Thank you for your attendance.

As usual, Minister, thank you for your frankness by slowly opening up that door to a broader discussion on justice issues. I didn't want to turn this into another detailed examination of Bill C-9 and Bill C-16, but there may be some tangential questions that I may be asking you on Bill C-16 issues.

I want to focus on one particular key area. You talked about the broader issue regarding community safety. One of the concerns that I have had for a number of years is the erosion of public trust in the federal institutions that we have here in Ottawa, but more importantly, a lack of trust in our criminal justice system. A lot of victims don't see it as a justice system, but rather a legal system.

One of the issues at play is obviously the Jordan timelines and the consequences that flow, such as the rising number of sex assaults that have been stayed over the last 10 years.

That's a broader area that I wanted you to focus in on, but let's focus in on judicial vacancies, because part of the problem is a lack of resources, whether they be vacancies at the federal level or vacancies with respect to administrative positions at the province. I think it's an opportunity for both the feds and the provinces to work together to ensure we have a responsive, functioning criminal justice system.

On the issue of vacancies, in 2023 we reached a high of 92, meaning that over 10% of federal judges' chairs across Canada sat empty, blocking the justice process across the country. Former justice minister Arif Virani said that he would fill vacancies and keep pushing all the way to get to 100%. To his credit, he did make substantial improvements in that number, in fact dropping it from 92 to the mid to high teens. However, that was two years ago, and right now we're seeing another rise in judicial vacancies.

Given that every year since the Liberals took office in 2015.... Would you agree with me, sir, that there have been hundreds and hundreds of applications per year for every judicial vacancy right across this country?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, how long do I have to answer? Is there a custom that we reflect the length of the question in the answer? Okay.

I'll try to be brief, but out of respect to your questions, Larry, there are a few different elements I'd like to answer.

First of all, I agree with you that public trust is an issue within the justice system that we need to manage. The different bills we've put forward try to address this specifically, even going so far as looking at the tertiary grounds to deny bail by changing the test, which is specifically on the public confidence in the system, by considering both the number and the seriousness of the offences. You're right to point out trust, particularly for victims of sexual assault, who sometimes need to tell and retell their story to people who may or may not believe them.

Part of that story could be judicial vacancies. I think we need to do a better job on the pace than that was taking place if you go back to the timeline you began with. The pace we are now dealing with, as we've reduced that number, is more or less keeping up with the pace that judges are coming in at. The last update I got was that there were 37 at the beginning of this month. We may, on any given day, have half a dozen that could be filled in a batch, and you may have two or three who retire or take their leave from the bench.

In addition to that particular piece, we need to look at other systemic challenges. It's not just filling judicial vacancies, but the timeline that it takes to actually induce evidence in a sexual assault trial: whether there are enough provincial Crowns, where the bulk of these criminal prosecutions—as you would know very well—are going to take place, and whether there are enough resources in the system.

It would be a mistake to identify any one factor as contributing to overall delays. We want to address those, both by taking off the table the systemic delays in the long term by funding the system, putting judges in place, etc., and also by directly attacking the consequences of the Jordan decision by revamping the way the rules operate.

In the time I've been allotted, I'll cut my answer there.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

You're quite correct. Thank you for that response.

As of February 1, there were 37 vacancies at the federal level. Two years ago, in 2024, vacancies were at 39. Have you appointed only two judicial appointments since you were appointed justice minister?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I can assure you that I have appointed significantly more than two.

That's a factor of judges who are stepping down from the bench. Some may retire. One has left to serve in government. There are many reasons that the number can fluctuate from week to week.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Okay.

I'd like to go back to my earlier question. Would you agree with me that for every given position that's vacant across this country, there are generally hundreds of applicants who make application for those positions, and the judicial advisory committee then pares them down and makes recommendations to you? Can you answer the question that there are generally hundreds of applicants who are making application for vacancies every single year, as there have been since the Liberals took power in 2015?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that there are hundreds for each vacancy that comes up. I don't have the specific number, but only because the number that gets filtered to me is the number of those who have been recommended or highly recommended through the judicial advisory committee process.

Typically speaking, when we're contemplating making one of maybe two or three appointments for vacancies that may be available, we'll be looking at somewhere between four and six, or maybe eight, names that have come through the process. It's not the same number each time. I have not seen hundreds of names, myself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

We'll continue with Mr. Fragiskatos for six minutes, please.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister and officials for being here.

Minister, at the outset you mentioned changes that are being brought into force as a result of the reforms you want to introduce on vacancies in Ontario and with respect to the unified family courts. Could you expand on what exactly will be achieved as a result?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos, for the question.

For those who may not be aware, there is a division of responsibilities within family law where some areas are the responsibility of the federal government and others the provincial government There are some corresponding elements where superior courts versus provincial courts will hear different aspects of family law disputes, based on which court has the specific jurisdiction. The unified family court has created a single court, regardless of what kind of family law dispute you may be dealing with, where you can arrive and have a single court adjudicate between the parties.

The stories that I heard long before I was in this position, including in my own community, were that it's a game-changer for families who are going through some of the most difficult periods of their lives. When you're dealing with the breakdown of a relationship, potential custody challenges or the division of assets, you're going to the same place to have a range of different elements of your dispute heard rather than breaking it up through different appointments on different days at different locations.

We've seen the somewhat rapid expansion of unified family courts across Canada. I'm yet to find a jurisdiction that has embraced this and has been of the view that it's a mistake. It's quite the contrary. In jurisdictions that have embraced this approach, you see the expansion of these services. The eight judges who are being repurposed for unified family courts would be one example of that expansion—in this case, establishing a new unified family court in Brampton. This would allow individuals who are having their cases heard there to have streamlined access to services in a way that is more centred around the user of the legal system rather than the administrators.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Can you speak more about unified family courts in terms of the structure? Most Canadians won't know exactly what that refers to. I know that you've put points on the table here, but can you go into this more? Specifically, can you touch on how this would help kids in broken homes? We know, and the evidence continues to show, that the experience in the court system often exacerbates the challenges faced by kids as a result of the family situations they're a part of.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

One thing we have to appreciate, as parliamentarians, even with a perfect suite of policies on a given issue, is that challenging things still happen to people. Sometimes there are economic consequences if a person loses their job. Sometimes it's criminal behaviour, or sometimes it's the breakdown of a family relationship.

When we're dealing with the very difficult experiences that families have, we should be mindful that it's not for the federal government to stop every negative thing from happening that might play out in a romantic relationship or in a family dynamic. Instead, we should recognize the reality that families live through, including the kids at the centre of those broken relationships. We do what we can to offer professional services in a streamlined way to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the quality of life that people get to enjoy.

You can imagine the set of circumstances, particularly for low-income families who might be going through a family breakdown. They may not have access to public transit and can't afford a car. They are told that the provincial court on one side of town is where they need to go for certain appointments, but the superior court on the other side of town is where they need to go for other appointments. This all stems from the same life event of the breakdown of a relationship. The impact that can have on kids can be profound.

These cases are not monolithic in nature. You're going to see that each relationship is very different. Sometimes the missed appointment at a court can have dire consequences for a person's ability, in an extreme set of circumstances, to maintain custody of their children. You don't want a person's ability to afford a bus ticket to a particular courthouse to determine whether they get to see their children. This may be a rather extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

If we do everything we can to simplify the proceedings and the process—not for the lawyers who administer the system or for the judges who hear the cases, though that's good too, but for the actual user of the court system—to the extent that we can streamline that experience and reduce the cost of that experience, we'll be doing a better job at serving the interests of justice.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I'll ask you a very general but, I think, important question about an update on bail reform.

You said that you're happy to take questions that are general in nature. That issue is important to all of us, as MPs, and obviously to our constituents.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Despite the political debates around bail that we have in the House of Commons, I actually get the sense, through private and public conversations, that it's a priority for everybody who has been elected in this particular Parliament.

I spent months consulting with law enforcement, with provincial governments, with public interest organizations, with municipalities and with the people who work in and administer the justice system to understand what they think the federal government can and should do. The policies we put forward in the bail and sentencing reform act were not written behind closed doors on Parliament Hill. They were informed directly through the expertise and lived experiences of people who have lived through, worked in and managed the justice system. This includes major efforts to reform the bail system insofar as it impacts violent and repeat offenders and criminal organizations, among other things.

We want to ensure that people have faith that when someone who presents a public safety threat comes before the court, that person will not be released to then reoffend and cause harm to someone, when it could have been prevented.

I get the sense that I am coming up on time, so I'll cut my answer there. Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister Fraser, welcome to the committee.

I would also like to welcome all the other witnesses.

Today, we're looking at the federal budget. I must say that I'm interested in a number of aspects of it.

When we look at the situation, we realize that everyone wants to fight crime and ensure safety, for example. You talked about various measures, such as the government strategy, to make our streets safer.

Correct me if I'm wrong—I'm not a lawyer—but the administration of justice is a shared jurisdiction. For example, in Quebec, Quebec taxpayers cover a significant portion of the costs associated with the administration of justice. I believe that my colleague, Rhéal Fortin, the Bloc Québécois justice critic, has already proposed the idea of a transfer to the provinces, along the lines of the Canada social transfer. This would help the provinces cover certain costs, for example when we tighten legislation in order to incarcerate more people. This requires judges, clerks, crown attorneys and so on.

Since Ottawa writes the Criminal Code and the provinces pay for its enforcement, there should be a transfer to that effect. What do you think of this idea, in general?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Indeed, the administration of justice involves provincial jurisdiction. As you know, the federal government is responsible for amending the Criminal Code. In my opinion, when a province asks me to change legislation in order to improve public safety, the province understands that it's responsible for making the system work. When we work together, we have the opportunity to determine appropriate changes to the legislation. However, the province is responsible for investing in making the system work.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

You're basically saying that, if the provinces make requests and we change the Criminal Code because of a consensus in the country, the funding must be shared and we don't need a transfer to cover this. Can you comment quickly?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It isn't automatic. In the case of shared priorities, it's possible to have funding for data collection or for the costs associated with Superior Court judges and their responsibilities, for example. It isn't fair to the provinces. However, if the provinces have concerns and they request changes to federal government legislation, I think that it's reasonable for them to take part in conversations about costs as well—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I must manage my time a bit, so I'm not interrupting out of rudeness. I understand that you don't quite agree.

I would like to talk about the vote that took place on today's opposition day. First, I want to thank you and all my colleagues for your vote to request an apology for the Mirabel expropriations. It's long overdue. I think that the people in my constituency will be grateful.

This brings us to the Alto project. The budget implementation bill suspends sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Expropriation Act for this specific project. I think that we all understand that the goal is to speed up the project. I think that this will happen. It will also mean that the expropriation process for the Alto project will result in the loss of certain rights for expropriated residents, including the interim right to be heard by a commissioner.

I asked the Minister of Transport the following. If expropriation legislation in Canada is so detrimental to projects, why not change the Expropriation Act for all projects across the board, instead of just for Alto, so that everyone is equal before the law? The Minister of Transport told me verbatim that this wouldn't make sense.

Why does the government consider that suspending sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Expropriation Act wouldn't make sense for all projects in Canada, but that it would make sense for the Alto project?

I'm trying to understand the logic. I thought that the Minister of Justice would be a good candidate to explain it to me.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Sorry, but this question should be addressed to the Minister of Transport. You asked him this question in a committee, so I accept the Minister of Transport's response.