Evidence of meeting #117 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-78.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
[Inaudible—Editor] characterization that Mr. Fraser actually said about terrorism and genocide.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm happy to respond to that. I'll respond to it in a different way than I responded to the hybridization of offences.
I completely disagree with your characterization of the signal that I am seeking to send with Bill C-75 and Bill C-78.
The signal that I am trying to send with Bill C-75 is to ensure that we do everything we can to address the delays in the criminal justice system. I am not sending the signal that there are offences that are less serious offences that warrant a less punitive measure. With respect, that is the signal that you are trying to send. You are mis-characterizing the hybridization of offences in Bill C-75. I think it does a disservice. What we are trying to do is to ensure that prosecutors are provided with the necessary tools.
With respect, again, to my honourable colleague, you are mis-characterizing the hybridization of offences. I believe it does a disservice to Canadians, and you are working very diligently to create fear in Canadians where fear should not exist, because we are not reducing sentences in Bill C-75.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Clement.
The last question is for three minutes.
Madam Sansoucy.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you.
Before I get to my question, I would like to pick up on something my colleague Mr. Fraser said, namely, that the term “custody order” is replaced by “parenting order”. In its brief, the Barreau du Québec asks us to identify the cases covered by this provision in order to resolve any clarity issues and reduce the potential for unnecessary litigation.
Now to my question. You talked earlier about the reality of indigenous children. The risk of serious domestic violence with fatal consequences is apparently much higher among indigenous Canadians than the rest of the population in Canada. In your opinion, to what extent will Bill C-78 help indigenous Canadians who face domestic violence?
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Again, this is a more fulsome question that I would be very happy to respond to with the member, but in terms of family violence with respect to the indigenous family or indigenous community, again, in terms of the Divorce Act, what is proposed is to introduce a definition around family violence and a list of considerations or examples of what family violence means.
This applies not only to indigenous communities but to other communities. I'm not 100% familiar with the recommendation from the Barreau du Québec, but I'm happy to consider that and, again, to respond in a fulsome way to your six issues. I'm not sure if that was one of your six issues; maybe there are seven. I'm happy to respond to seven.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Indeed, I think a program to address family violence would help all Canadians. As you pointed out, however, if we can offer such programs, they should be tailored to indigenous culture and communities right across Canada.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I couldn't agree with you more. We do have programs at the Department of Justice that specifically look to providing indigenous.... The indigenous justice program is a program through which we provide dollars to indigenous communities and organizations across the country to address specific issues that seem to befall indigenous communities, through various measures of restorative justice initiatives and looking at addressing and collecting data in individual communities.
There are measures within the Department of Justice and its programs that assist in community-specific challenges, but also provide resources to come up with solutions to address them.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
As you said, there is a lot of work to be done with the provinces, especially if a child is going into a foster home or cannot live with one of the parents in the case of divorce. We have to make sure that, if the parents are having difficulties, the children are not uprooted too much from their community and their culture.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
The great thing about having amazing public servants is that mine wrote me a note about the victims fund that the Department of Justice also administers, which releases significant dollars every year to assist with addressing the rights of victims and ensuring we're responsive to those rights. I'd be happy to talk with you further.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Minister. Your testimony was very helpful to the work of the committee. We really appreciate it.
Thank you also, Ms. Drouin.
Ms. Wright, thank you very much. I really appreciate all of you being here today.
We'll take a short pause while the Minister leaves, and we'll resume in four minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We will resume.
Basically, as we've agreed, there are two motions by Mr. Clement. We'll let him do them successively. We'll vote on the first one and then we'll move to the other one.
Mr. Clement.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Thanks, Chair.
I'll start with the more mundane one. I move:
That, pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, October 24, 2018, the Committee consider the Supplementary Estimates (A) before the reporting deadline set out in Standing Order 81(5); and that the Committee invite the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to appear in view of this study.
It's a fairly standard motion to get the minister before us for supplementary estimates (A). This is done all the time and, hopefully, not controversial.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Is there any discussion or debate on that motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
I move:
That the Committee invite the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to appear to answer questions with respect to any rules, precedents, or procedures related to the invocation of cabinet confidence to prevent the disclosure of information as requested by counsel in a trial process.
This obviously relates to the Vice-Admiral Norman issue, where there's been considerable debate over what documents are made available. I know there has been a submission of documents to the team of the vice-admiral, but there are still outstanding issues that deserve clarification. It's a matter that the justice committee should look into, in a sense, to find out on a general level—this is not specific to Vice-Admiral Norman—what procedures are in place that prevent disclosure.
November 5th, 2018 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
With regard to this motion, I will not be supporting it. There are problems with it for a few reasons.
First of all, basically, it's asking the committee to invite the minister to seek what amounts to a legal opinion on the procedures, practices and precedents dealing with cabinet confidences. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to have the minister come here and give us her opinion on this. If the members want to get a legal opinion on such things, of course, they're entitled to do so, but it wouldn't be appropriate for our committee to undertake that type of work, in my view.
With regard to the Norman matter, it's obviously the subtext here for the rationale of this motion. I appreciate what my friend has said, that this would be in general terms and wouldn't be specific. It could easily stray into that type of discussion. The sub judice principle applies, that if there is a matter currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate for any member of cabinet to discuss this matter, or to make any types of submissions on that basis outside of the court process.
In addition to both of those excellent reasons, I would submit, we also have a lot of important work that this committee is doing. We started Bill C-78 today. We have Bill C-84 coming to this committee, an animal cruelty bill. It will be important for Canadians to see justice done to that bill. We have a human trafficking report that we're currently putting together to send back to the House. We have, in our agenda, a new study on the criminalization of HIV. We have lots of other important work to do.
For all of those reasons, it would be best to not support this motion. That's why I will be voting against it.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
I understand where the member is coming from, but these matters are before the public. I believe they have a right to know the rules, precedents and procedures. I believe it's the highest person in the land, in terms of justice issues. The Minister of Justice is responsible for articulating those rules, precedents and procedures. It is a matter of public concern.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Ms. Sansoucy, is the interpretation working properly?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay, perfect.
Is there any further discussion? If not, we will move to a vote on the motion proposed by Mr. Clement. All those in favour of that motion?
(Motion negatived)
Now we will be moving to an in camera session to discuss our agenda for Bill C-78. I will have a brief pause of 30 seconds to allow the room to rejig for an in camera meeting.
[Proceedings continue in camera]