Justice Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, welcome to the committee, and thank you for being here to discuss Bill S-13.

A large part of my riding's population is indigenous. In fact, two out of three names in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are anglicized names of first nations. Any time I'm here as a member of Parliament discussing anything to do with indigenous rights, it's not merely a national issue for me; it's also very local. I have a lot of constituents who are very interested any time we're discussing this, either in the House of Commons or at committee.

You and I have both been here since 2015. In the previous Parliament, the 43rd Parliament, we passed Bill C-15, which is the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. As you know, my province of B.C. has similar legislation as well.

The Province of British Columbia, however, also has an Interpretation Act. Its Interpretation Act makes specific reference to its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We don't see that in the current federal version of the Interpretation Act, nor do we see an amendment being made in Bill S-13.

The Senate report on this bill did make reference to the fact that this could be a pathway in the future. If you read Bill C-15, which is now part of the statutes of Canada, section 5 does state that “The Government of Canada must...take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

I can appreciate what this bill does. It, of course, has our support. I think it's an important bit of federal housecleaning to make sure that we have consistency.

Perhaps I could ask you this, Minister. Why not follow the example of the Province of British Columbia? Why not have, in our federal Interpretation Act, maybe through Bill S-13 or through another measure in the future, a specific reference to that very important federal UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?

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

Thank you for the question, Mr. MacGregor.

The key rationale for us came down to, effectively, the consultations that were undertaken. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there were about two years of consultation just on this very bill, which may seem to some people like a lot for what is a fairly short bill and what some might consider to be an administrative or housekeeping amendment. It was really important to get it right and to do right by the rights holders whom we consulted with around the country.

On the issue of how we reconcile UNDRIP with the non-derogation clause that is being proposed, we didn't have wide consultation on that piece. We felt it would not be appropriate to go ahead with that without doing the necessary consultation.

I would also underscore that there would be a bit of an internal inconsistency, as well, were we just to do an amendment through the parliamentary process on that very issue. UNDRIP itself, under section 5—and you're probably aware of this—calls for consultation on any legislation that may impact upon indigenous people's rights. Even pursuant to the UNDRIP document that we passed—the UN declaration act at the federal level—to comply with that statute, we would have to do that consultation by necessity.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

The UNDRIP Act that we did pass does call to make sure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. If we're trying to look for a way of making sure that Canada's laws are consistent with the declaration, I think a starting point would actually be through the Interpretation Act.

Now, I can appreciate that maybe it's a little bit too late to put that in the current version of Bill S-13, but do you see a possibility in the future of using the Interpretation Act to make sure that Canada's federal laws are consistent with the declaration, as is called for in the act?

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

The answer to that is that I do, absolutely.

What I've heard from indigenous rights holders is that they are very willing to embark upon that kind of consultative exercise. At this point, Bill S-13, as it's currently stipulated and articulated, is what we achieved consensus on, and that's what we're moving forward with.

Going forward, looking at whether further amendments may be necessary to the Interpretation Act to reconcile it with UNDRIP would make a lot of sense. I think that is work that we should actively pursue.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

In the consultations that you had, I understand that there was a very clear majority of stakeholders who were happy with the direction that this bill took.

Could you provide this committee with a little more detail on the nature of the minority views? Were they over the language selection in this amending bill, Bill S-13, or were they a bit broader? I'd like to be informed on the nature of those minority views.

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

It was a minority of views. As I indicated, it was basically three different rights holders who indicated they wanted to preserve the language that was in their own non-derogation clauses, and that came out in the context of the consultations. The wide majority of all the interventions that we had right across first nations, Inuit and Métis was that they were comfortable with the language as proposed.

I'll ask Ms. Sargent to reflect on the nature of the three groups and what motivated their concerns.

[Laurie Sargent]

As the minister said, there were three nations—shíshálh and a couple of others—that already had implementation legislation for self-government agreements or other key legislation. They had very valid reasons for retaining the non-derogation clauses there. Otherwise, there was broad support for the proposed change.

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

I'll just add, Madam Chair, the citation for Monsieur Fortin: 2023 BCSC 1680. That's the Gitxaala case.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

That's fabulous. You're right on time. Thank you.

We now start our second round with five minutes for Ms. Ferreri, please.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, indigenous women and girls are killed at a rate six times higher than non-indigenous. More than half of the cases involving non-indigenous women and girls between 2009 and 2021 resulted in charges of first-degree murder, but when the victim was indigenous, police laid or recommended that charge half as often. The less serious offences of secondary murder and manslaughter were more common.

In my community of Curve Lake, Cileana Taylor was a beautiful girl. She loved animals. In the words of her sister, “She will forever be missed and celebrated. Cileana is now another Indigenous woman who didn't make it home after her intimate partner violently assaulted her. Rest in Power my love.” That's her sister, Sage Castel.

When he was arrested for attacking Taylor, Jordan Morin was out on bail for a separate 2019 attack. When he was out on bail in the Cileana Taylor case, he was arrested in January 2021 for the alleged assault of another woman in November 2020. As a final sickening coda, Morin was sprung on bail again in February 2021, just three weeks before Taylor died. Over the years, he also did 10 months in the slammer for assaulting a good Samaritan, who suffered life-changing facial injuries.

Today in the House, your response to my colleague about diminishing crime in this country was “We delivered bail reform.” What would you like to say to Cileana Taylor's family about the bail reform that you've delivered?

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

To Ms. Taylor's family, I would express deep sorrow and sympathy in terms of the fact that Cileana is no longer with us. I think that's a horrific crime, and it's a tragedy that shouldn't be happening in our society.

What I would also say is that we've been working very hard to try to address violence against women, particularly indigenous women. That's why we launched the MMIWG inquiry, and that's why we have the calls for justice that we're working to implement.

Some of the bail matters that you mentioned have actually been dealt with in Bill C-75 and in Bill C-48, where we implemented reverse onus on bail for people who commit intimate partner violence. We accentuated that in Bill C-48.

What I would say to you is the same thing that I've been saying repeatedly to many different provincial actors. What I want to know—and I'm sure you want to know as well, Ms. Ferreri—are the circumstances in which that individual was released on bail—at least twice, by your account. What were those circumstances? Did the Crown contest the bail? I would like to know that. If the bail was granted above the Crown's objections, did they appeal the bail through what's called a bail review? Was bail granted because there was no detention facility ready to take that person?

What Canadians need to understand is that—

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you. It's my time. I've given you a lot of time. Usually the time is the same.

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

The likelihood of reoffending is one of the basis grounds for denying bail, and clearly that wasn't accurately applied.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I see you wanting to try to talk over this. It's just beyond insulting, what you just said. You blame everyone else. We saw this with then minister Marco Mendicino. It wasn't his fault that Paul Bernardo was transferred in the dead of night. He's just the minister.

Minister, this is ridiculous. You are the minister. To blame the provinces is just absurd. The murdered and missing indigenous women.... AFN president Cindy Woodhouse said, “This failure is not acceptable to our people”. You have failed everyone, and you don't take any accountability. You have no humility at all.

This is an email I sent you on December 5, almost a year ago. It's a letter from Hayley Schultz. You were asked directly and repeatedly. It has been brought up multiple times. Her son Bradley Pogue was murdered. You have never acknowledged this letter. It is a public letter. I have all the correspondence.

You said to my colleague today that you are not going to enforce the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Please show some humility. Please read Hayley's letter. I will walk it over to you right now, if you want, Minister Virani.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

That's not an accurate reflection of what the minister said. If she's going to repeat what the minister said, at least have enough respect to be accurate.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Would you like me to read the email?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Do you have a question? You have 35 seconds left.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

The question is, will you acknowledge Hayley Schultz's letter on the murder of her son Bradley Pogue, which I sent you on December 5? Will you read this if I walk it over to you, and will you acknowledge her?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Virani, you have time to respond.

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

I'll make multiple responses.

The circumstances of the death of Bradley, Hayley's son, are well known to me. I have your letter right in front of me, and I've read the letter. I've read her handwritten note.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Why wouldn't you answer her?

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

What I can say to you is that I feel desperately sympathetic over her loss, as a parent—as anyone would—in terms of the fact that her son is no longer with us.

What I can also say to you, Ms. Ferreri, is that there are certain things that confine my role. That matter is actually—

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

You can't pick up the phone, can you?

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

Can I finish, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Ms. Ferreri, your time is up, but the minister will have time to respond.