Justice Committee on Oct. 27th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I will go back to—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Chair, I had a discussion this morning with my Liberal colleague, Mr. Virani, and I would like to submit some amendments. I believe Mr. Virani has circulated the document, but I'm not sure. If he hasn't, I could forward it to you right away. Mr. Virani could tell us whether or not this document has been circulated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Monsieur Fortin, I will ask that you circulate them to all members of the committee, as well as the analysts and the clerk. We will have them ready, then, so that when we come to that specific section in the bill we will turn to you to make sure that everybody has them in front of them when you speak.

Are these amendments starting from clause 1? I don't think so. I think the first one comes from clause 2. Is that right?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes, it relates to clause 2 of the bill and is intended to amend proposed subclause 60(3) to be added to the Judges Act.

Do you want me to distribute it to everyone? I don't necessarily have everyone's address. Can I send it to the clerk?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes, perhaps you can send it to the clerk.

Mr. Clerk, if you could circulate that to everybody, that would be great.

Monsieur Fortin, we'll come to you, but right now we're on the first clause. We have to go clause by clause. My understanding is that none of your amendments seek to amend any part of clause 1. We will come to you once we come to your specific amendment. Is that okay?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

One moment, please. There are too many people at the same time and it's becoming complicated to manage. I'm looking for the clerk's address, but I can't find it. If someone has it, they could give it to me, otherwise I will keep looking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Clerk, can I please ask you to send an email to Monsieur Fortin's P9 so that in reply to it he can just attach whatever documents he needs to send to you?

[The Clerk]

Yes, I will do that, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

Monsieur Fortin, the clerk will send you an email very shortly.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Is there anything else, Monsieur Fortin, that you're having challenges with at this time?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

No. I will send you the document. It's just that I'm trying to work with the interpretation, which is excellent—well, I think it is, but since I don't hear both versions, it's hard to judge—but there is always a lag. It's nobody's fault. I have to get used to it.

Thank you and I apologize for the inconvenience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

(On clause 1)

We'll go back to Mr. Fergus to speak to LIB-1, which amends clause 1.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fortin, French is never an inconvenience.

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for giving me the opportunity to present amendments. As you know, I am not an official member of the Standing Committee on Justice.

The purpose of Bill C-3 is of great concern to me, not only as a member of Parliament, but also as chair of the Caucus of Black Parliamentarians.

The work you are doing to make our justice system aware of the reality of the status of women is very important. It's commendable, it's essential. I support this bill in its entirety. Having said that, there is a great opportunity for us to include other groups in the objectives of the bill. That is why I am proposing small amendments to indicate that the social context includes not only the issue of the status of women and sexual assault, but also systemic racism and discrimination.

I hope you will support this change, which is broad enough to include groups that experience discrimination, but specific enough to be clear.

A little later, I will present another amendment that is very similar to the one I just proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Just for clarity, LIB-1 will be amending the bill on page 2, at line 22, by adding the following language after “social”: “context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination, including by attending seminars established”.

I will now go to the speakers list for those members who would like to speak to it.

I see you, Mr. Virani. You're next on the speakers list.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to speak in support of Mr. Fergus's suggested amendment. I think this amendment reflects the importance of tackling these issues as part of the judicial training that is being recommended to the judges by this bill. I think it reflects where we are as a nation and as a continent, and I think you can see the importance of it, given that similar amendments were proposed by three different parties that are participating in today's session. Clearly, parliamentarians are fixated on ensuring there's no ambiguity in terms of the necessity of addressing racism and discrimination and its systemic aspects in the context of looking at what social context is meant to mean in terms of the way it is used in this bill.

I wanted to echo my support for what Mr. Fergus is suggesting here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

Does anybody else want to speak?

Monsieur Fortin, I see that your hand is raised.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

First, I also welcome Mr. Fergus' amendment to indicate, in addition to the issue of sexual assault, that the social context includes racism and discrimination. On the other hand, I have major reservations regarding the word "systemic”. I know that the word has been trending in recent months or years. However, I realize that not everyone necessarily agrees on the nature of systemic discrimination and racism.

I'm wondering if it might be better to keep the words “racism” and “discrimination” without adding the word “systemic” because of the potential interpretations of that word. I don't want to get into the debate again because it could be a long one. As you know, it's being talked about in the House, in committees, in the media, and in the provinces, particularly in Quebec.

I suggest that we avoid this trap by removing the ambiguity of the word “systemic”, while keeping the words “racism” and “discrimination”. In any case, discrimination is already defined in charters and various laws. In my opinion, that is sufficient.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

Mr. Fergus, I see your hand is raised. Go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I would like to thank Mr. Fortin for supporting at least the objective of this amendment.

I don't want to go into detail here, but it seems to me that there is a broad consensus on the use of the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination”. This gives a slightly broader meaning to the words “racism” and “discrimination”, since we are talking about the systems or institutions that are involved in all of this.

As I said, although it is not unanimous, I think that a consensus is building regarding the use of the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination”. So I'm very reluctant to change the wording to give it a narrower meaning.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Am I to understand that the word “systemic” would be removed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Sorry, Monsieur Fortin, I have a speakers list here. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I just wanted a clarification from Mr. Fergus, but I can wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Just raise your hand and we'll come back to you.

I have Mr. Moore, and then Mr. MacGregor.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The “raise hand” function will serve us all well, so we don't have a free-for-all.

This discussion brings me to a point. I am questioning...and maybe some members from the other parties can answer this. This is our third try at this bill. The bill passed through the House and is now in our committee. It has the support of all parties, I believe, but then we saw this flurry of amendments on Friday. There are some questions being raised about the amendments. I'm sure there are questions about each one of those amendments, and it would be interesting to hear from experts on the impact of each amendment.

We've studied Bill C-3 in its current format a couple of times, but these amendments.... It was the wish of the other parties not to have any more witnesses, so there is no expert to speak to the amendments that are being proposed. That is a shame. As a committee, we're proposing amendments but we haven't heard testimony on the specifics of the amendments. That's not how, in my view, we do our jobs as legislators. We want to get the bill right, so to propose a flurry of amendments without having heard testimony that's relevant and could speak to the specifics is leading us, I think, down the wrong path.

This is an interesting discussion, but it would have been nice to hear some witnesses who could speak to these amendments.