Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Your time is up. Thank you.

Now we'll have MP Mendicino for five minutes.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the officials for appearing this afternoon.

I would like to focus my questions on Bill C-63. The context for this legislation is the Government of Canada's concern about the alarming rise of online harm and crime.

I will begin by pointing out that the prevalence of online harm has continued to increase over the last number of years. In 2022, a Canadian Internet youth survey revealed that 71% of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 had been exposed over the previous 12 months to online content inciting hatred or violence. In that same year, the uniform crime reporting survey reported 219 cyber-related hate crimes, which was up from 92 reported incidents in 2018.

I will highlight a few other important statistics. Between 2014 and 2022, police reported 15,630 incidents of online sexual offences against children and 45,816 instances of child pornography. In 2022, police in Canada received 2,524 reports of non-consensual distribution of intimate images online. A 2020 study by the U.K.-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that Canadians were sharing white supremacist, misogynistic and other radical content in more than 6,600 online channels and that Canadians were proportionally more active in such channels than other users abroad.

I've taken the time to go through these statistics in order to underline the importance of this legislation. Among other things, the bill identifies and provides definitions for seven types of harmful content, many of which are directly responsive to the alarming trends around online harm, violence and crime that I have just elucidated. Those seven types of harmful content include content that foments hatred, content that incites violence, content that incites violent extremism or terrorism, intimate content communicated without consent, content that induces a child to harm themselves, content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, and content used to bully a child.

In my remaining time, I would like the officials to expand on how they see these provisions, once implemented, being able to be deployed by law enforcement for the purpose of reversing the trends that I have identified, which are some of the main reasons it is so important that we study this bill and pass it into law.

I'll open the floor to whoever wants to take the question.

[Matthew Taylor]

Mr. Mendicino, helpfully, you have identified the context and main themes of the bill.

As you will know, the bill is divided into a number of different parts. You talked about part 1 of the bill, which focuses on creating a new regime, a new infrastructure, to address harmful content online and take steps to remove that harmful content.

You touched upon issues around child sexual exploitation and abuse material, which that part of the bill would be able to address. However, I would point out that the bill also proposes amendments to what we refer to as the mandatory reporting act, in order to strengthen that tool and address the ability for law enforcement to investigate and respond to this behaviour. I—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Can I stop you right there? I'm sorry to interject, but in my remaining time, I'd like to hear more about the mandatory reporting regime, because that would be a novelty in this particular area of online harm. Can you just expand on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Answer very briefly. You have a few seconds left.

[Matthew Taylor]

Very briefly, the mandatory reporting act is an existing piece of legislation that allows for the reporting of child sexual exploitation abuse material to centralized police agencies like the RCMP. This in turn allows the RCMP to share that information with law enforcement partners, with a view to investigating and addressing that conduct in Canada.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

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

That's unfair.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Kroll, I addressed certain issues earlier with the Minister of Justice. Since you were present, I will not repeat what I already said at length.

I would like to come back to the question of judicial appointments. In his swearing‑in speech in 2023, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Justice Yves de Montigny, said that funding was inadequate. Also, in a decision Justice Henry Brown wrote last February, he stated that the current number of vacant positions on the Federal Court was unacceptable. The Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, has twice said—I do not recall the exact dates, but it was a year or two ago—that the times it took to make appointments made no sense and were contributing to undermining public confidence in the justice system.

Has something been done in this regard? Does the budget provide for additional funds to create judge positions and provide new courtrooms and staff?

Better funding for the judicial system could also curtail the problem of proceedings being stayed as a result of the delays referred to in the Jordan decision. These stays cause considerable damage to the image of the justice system, and this could lead to a major crisis of confidence in our justice system among the public.

I would like to hear your views on that.

[Bill Kroll, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Management Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question, but it really involves the Court Administration Service rather than my department.

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

I understand, but you are here to talk to us about the budget. Does the budget provide funds to create new judicial positions or to speed up the appointment process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

You have a few seconds left.

[Bill Kroll]

There are none in our department's budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the officials for staying with our committee.

I want to focus my question on the part of the supplementary estimates that provide additional funds for legal aid for refugees. I want to place this in the context of the ascendancy of a second Trump presidency. Trump will, of course, be inaugurated on January 20. We know that members of his inner circle have been talking about mass deportations.

I'm curious about that. I'm not asking you to comment on American politics, but rather to look ahead and inform this committee about how the Department of Justice is preparing for what that could mean at the Canadian border. Are these supplementary estimates and your plans taking into account what the situation might be post January 20? Do you expect the demand for these types of services to increase post January 20? Are any departmental plans being put to work to prepare for that contingency?

[Elizabeth Hendy, Director General, Programs Branch, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

The funding in the Department of Justice's estimates and supplementary estimates for immigration and refugee legal aid is money we provide to the provinces and territories—mainly provinces—as they deliver immigration and refugee legal aid services. We are obviously in contact with the provinces' legal aid service providers to maintain and understand the forecast from April 1 until now and what it could potentially be to the end of the fiscal year. We take that information and use it to work with our other colleagues.

We're not at this time forecasting an increase over and above the $71.6 million we need to get to the end of the fiscal year, and that's part of the supplementary estimates.

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

Thank you.

Very quickly, the minister in his opening statement talked about the judicial vacancies that were filled. Do you have a rough estimate, with the current demographics we have, of what the vacancy rate will be like going into the future? Do we expect a lot more vacancies heading our way because of the current demographics of sitting judges and how close they are to retirement age.?

[Bill Kroll]

I'm afraid we don't have that answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you. That's the time.

This is a bit different from what we've done, so I'm going to ask you to bear with me.

We'll now go back to Mr. Brock for five minutes and then to Mr. Maloney for five minutes. Then I'm going to reassess my time. I need about 10 minutes at least at the end because I have seven questions to pose about the supplementary estimates.

Just bear with me and I will look at the time.

Mr. Brock, you have five minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

All my questions can be answered by any official—no one in particular.

I want to push back a bit and correct an error that I believe the government is pushing through the House and delivering to the public.

I know the minister spoke about Antic and Zora in response to a question regarding the failings of Bill C-75, but I want to have everyone reflect on what those two key, seminal decisions pronounced. They indicated that “for most alleged crimes, release on bail at the earliest reasonable opportunity with minimal conditions is the default position.” The decisions also “make clear that the principles operate alongside the grounds for detention and do not replace them.” That is very specific language.

Do the officials agree with the ratio of those two key, leading decisions, yes or no?

[Matthew Taylor]

I agree with everything you've just articulated, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Then why is there a specific wording imbalance that has created the crisis this country has seen with respect to bail decisions?

Section 493.1 was amended by the Trudeau government in 2019. It reads:

In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall—

That's mandatory language.

—give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances—

That's language right out of the Supreme Court.

—including conditions that are reasonably practicable for the accused to comply with

Then at the very end is this tag line:

while taking into account the grounds referred to in subsection 498(1.1) or 515(10)

These are the primary, the secondary and the tertiary grounds.

That is not a balance. That is telegraphing to justices of the peace and judges that the default is the primary consideration regardless of the predicate offence, regardless of the offender's criminal record, regardless of a track record of breaches of the administration of justice and regardless of background overall.

Is the current government open to strengthening the language in section 493.1 when we're dealing with individuals who create a majority of the menace on our streets and continually violate bail conditions? Is the government open to the possibility of amending the language in section 493.1 to ensure that judges are placing equal emphasis on all three grounds enumerated in subsection 515(10)?

[Matthew Taylor]

I think you emphasized a couple of really important points that bear repeating. One is that section 493.1 operates alongside the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds of bail, Mr. Brock, such that where detention is warranted, detention should be imposed.

Minister Virani did allude to his openness to looking at ways to further strengthen the bail system—