Justice Committee on March 11th, 2021

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I'm going to give you a general answer and then turn things over to the deputy minister.

We are working hand in hand with the provinces, including on criminal law. We are working to clarify the numbers, but also the needs of the provinces. Depending on the formulas and the systems, in each province, we determine the needs of the provinces and the figures for our budget.

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

How do you explain that there is a $2 million reduction this year, when last year it was an $11 million increase?

Are you aware of this?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Yes, I am aware of the trend. I'll give you the example of the money set aside for immigration. In the end, $20 million of the $26 million was spent. That's because the provinces didn't need it. There was a slowdown in some services during the pandemic. There are also very specific reasons, specific to each province, for this.

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

What was the situation in Quebec?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I'll turn it over to one of the deputy ministers. If you want more information, we'll get you the specific answers.

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

Thank you, Mr. Minister, but if I may, I'll reserve my questions for the deputy ministers for the other part of the meeting, because you're only here for the first hour. I'll continue with them in the second hour.

Thank you for the clarification.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Okay.

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

My other question pertains to the victims fund, which also received less funding.

In 2019-20, the fund had $26.3 million, but only $14.8 million in 2021. In 2021-22, the fund is supposed to receive $22 million. Can you explain the variations?

I think the victims fund is important. More and more stories are emerging about victims of crime who file complaints but do not feel supported by the justice system. Clearly, it is a major problem in our society, and I'm sure you are just as concerned about it as I am.

Nevertheless, the funding was reduced, and that makes me wonder. Can you explain why the funding was reduced?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I'm going to provide more or less the same answer. The deputy ministers will be able to provide details when they appear during the second half of the meeting or they can follow up with the figures in writing.

We are working with the provinces. Throughout the pandemic, we've continued to fund programming and support services across the country. Occasionally, there is a slowdown, but we are working to keep up our support. I'll share with you—

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

You reduced that support, though. Is it possible you don't know why? I don't mean to nag you, but I want to know whether you know why the funding was reduced. I would also like to know whether you are aware of the impact those funding reductions have had on the ground.

Have you talked to your Quebec counterpart or others about the impact the funding cuts have had?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

We are always in touch with our provincial counterparts.

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

Have you spoken about this?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Yes, among other issues.

The programming rotates, of course, and our work continues accordingly. Other programs are being developed as well. It has a bit to do with the pandemic.

I'll leave it to the deputy ministers to provide you with the figures in writing or the details as to the specific reasons during the second half of the meeting.

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

Thank you, Minister.

I see I'm out of time, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

We'll now go to Mr. Garrison for six minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I too want to thank the minister for being here today. I also want to thank him for maintaining open communication with me as long as he has been minister, both through his office and also through the parliamentary secretary.

There are a lot of things I'd like to ask about the budget, but since officials will be here for the second half and the minister won't, I'm going to focus on two bills to start with.

The minister will not be surprised that the first thing I'm going to ask about is Bill C-6, the ban on conversion therapy. I'm not going to ask him again—I've asked him personally and publicly—when this bill is going to get to the House so we can actually vote on it. I'm going to ask him a different question about it.

When we pass Bill C-6, as I'm sure we will, there are things that will need to happen as a follow-up to that. One of those is support for victims of previous conversion therapy. Another is efforts to work on the prevention of conversion therapy, rather than just leaving it as a matter for criminal law. I suspect those aren't going to be the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice, but if they are not, how is that being communicated to other ministers? Have there been requests for them to start preparing programs that will help implement the ban on conversion therapy?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison, for your collaboration on this bill and a variety of others.

You have my personal commitment to working with my colleagues around the table and with other parliamentarians to make sure we have those supports in place. One thing I can already cite is that in Bill C-3, part of the training of judges is precisely aimed at the kinds of questions we need to rectify in working with victims of conversion therapy. That will be part of the training that is part of that bill.

I'll continue to work with you and I'll continue to work with my colleagues to make sure we have the support. I agree with you that the criminal law power is a heavy-handed power, and we need to work on the other levers that we have in society in order to make sure conversion therapy doesn't happen.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much, Minister. I look forward to working with you on that. I take you at your word.

Now I'm going to talk about a bill that's going to come to us fairly soon, and that's Bill C-22. The exchange, perhaps, will be a little less cordial.

I know you are committed to tackling the opioid crisis and also to tackling racial injustice within the Canadian justice system. I'm very disappointed with Bill C-22. I know it's consistent with your mandate letter, but it really misses the opportunity to decriminalize the personal possession of small amounts of drugs. Instead, it keeps those who have addiction issues in the criminal justice system. Instead of diversions and instead of taking away mandatory minimums—which I support—you had the opportunity here to decriminalize personal possession. We've had broad calls from the health field, from municipal officials and even from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, to consider more dramatic action to make sure addiction is a health issue, as you mentioned at the beginning.

Why is the bill such a timid one?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I wouldn't characterize it as timid. I think I'm the first minister of justice to propose taking away minimum mandatory penalties, ever. I wouldn't say that's timid.

I was attacking sentencing and the question of sentencing reform in this bill. It's within my mandate letter, but it's also the overall scope of the bill. I am open to those other conversations. I think they are necessary conversations. I'm aware of the chiefs of police call, the calls particularly from elected leaders in British Columbia at all levels, municipal and provincial. I have spoken to David Eby and others about it. I'm open to that discussion. I know my colleague Patty Hajdu is open to that discussion as well, particularly with respect to the health response to the opioid crisis.

While I'm open to that, that wasn't what I was trying to attack in this particular bill. However, I'd like to think this bill, in the criminal justice and sentencing sphere, is a step towards opening up that other discussion, which has a wider variety of issues that go well beyond the criminal law or the health response with the criminal law intact. I'm open to that discussion, but that wasn't what I was trying to accomplish here.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Given the narrow scope of the bill, it's going to be difficult to have that discussion. I will keep trying to have it during the debate on this bill, but the urgency of the opioid crisis and of tackling racial injustice in the system, I think, demands that we take broader action than what you've suggested in this bill.

How do you suggest we pursue these larger issues, if it's not through this bill?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

My colleague Patty Hajdu has publicly expressed an openness to discussing with elected officials in British Columbia a geographical response under her powers under the Health Act, and the potential powers she might have with respect to decriminalization. That's an open discussion, and I know she has responded in writing to those overtures from British Columbia.

As a society we need to move forward with a larger discussion, in the same way we did with cannabis. It might not be legalization, but decriminalization of small amounts, looking at what has been done in other countries. There are many sorts of empirical data points and evidence points that we need to look at if we're going to undertake that discussion.

I would encourage you to push, and I would encourage others to think about that publicly so we can move Canadian society to think about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison and Mr. Lametti.

We'll now go to our second round of questioning, starting with Mr. Cooper for five minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here. It's always good to see you come before our committee.

I want to ask you about Bill C-7, medical assistance in dying, which I think everyone concedes is a very complex topic. On November 3 you stated, on the question of medical assistance in dying where mental illness is the sole underlying condition, not only that “[e]xperts disagree on whether medical assistance in dying can ever be safely made available in such cases”, but also that “there is always the possibility of improvement and recovery”, that it is “especially difficult to tell whether a desire to die is a symptom of the illness, or a rational response to it”, and that it is “fraught with serious risks”.

What changed between November 3 of last year and February 23 of this year, when you accepted what I would submit is a radical sentiment that makes medical assistance in dying where mental illness is the sole underlying cause a fait accompli?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

That's a very good question, and obviously a very important one. I think what has changed is the time frame.

I stand by those comments I made. I still believe they are true, and I still believe that the senators who proposed the amendment believe they are true as well.

We have a parliamentary process. We finally, after 150 years, have a Senate that is perhaps fulfilling its mandate for the first time in Canadian history in providing sober second thought, expertise and thoughtful opinions—often expert opinions— both latent in the Senate itself, in the appointments that we've made, but also in the witnesses they hear. Notwithstanding the challenging nature of it, as I had stated in the House and as you've repeated, notwithstanding those challenges and understanding those challenges and the complexity of this, they feel there is a way to move forward and that, in their view, we need to move forward within a time frame.

It was always our intention to look at mental illness carefully in the parliamentary review. We're still going to do that. The only thing that has changed is the time frame. We were always going to have to study this very complex question very carefully, and we will do that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Minister. What has changed, though, in accepting these Senate amendments, is that it's no longer a question of “if”—it's a question of “how”.

In light of the lack of medical consensus and in light of the very serious questions that you've specifically acknowledged in terms of risks and in terms of some of the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society, wouldn't it be appropriate to first ask whether it is appropriate to proceed down this road, rather than setting up an independent review mandated to establish protocols, guidance and safeguards, therefore making it a fait accompli?