Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

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

It would violate the division of powers under what's called the BNA Act of 1867. The administration of justice is the purview of the provinces. I set out pieces of legislation like the Criminal Code and appoint judges, but I do not build courthouses, I do not hire court workers, I do not hire Crowns, I do not hire police, I do not track data and I do not build provincial detention facilities.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It's interesting, Minister, that the Conservatives are laughing when you're talking about the division of powers and the Constitution. There is clearly no regard for that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

They're still heckling as we talk about issues like the charter and the Constitution. The Conservatives are completely unserious when it comes to issues of the Constitution.

I'm wondering if you could discuss the online harms bill, which I know you have before the House. Hopefully, the House will get back to its regular business. I've had the opportunity to meet with a lot of parents on this subject. I know everyone around this table is concerned about what's online and what's out there. We even heard Conservatives on that. They had a lengthy filibuster during their own bill, but one of the themes they talked about, significantly, was the takedown provision for the Internet, even though the private member's bill they were filibustering didn't have that provision.

Could you talk about the provisions of the online harms act and how they will make Canadians safer? I know a lot of parents are concerned about that.

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

Mr. Bittle, thank you for that question.

A duty to protect children and a duty to take down material will be imposed by legislation. Those are the first two points.

Secondly, the duty to take down material would apply to child sex abuse material and what is known as revenge porn, which is the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.

I've spoken to a lot of mothers around this country. Specifically, Amanda Todd's mother Carol said to me that the victimization of her child continues 10 years after her death. Why? It's because the images of Amanda Todd continue to circulate online.

When I spoke to law enforcement, as Mr. Jivani was urging me to do, what law enforcement told me is that you can amend the Criminal Code as many times as you want, but it's very difficult to prosecute in this area. It's especially difficult when the perpetrator is in a foreign jurisdiction, including halfway across the world. They have told me that the only thing that will help these families and victims is getting those images down and doing it quickly.

That is what this bill would purport to do within a 24-hour time frame. It would get the images down. That is why the Canadian Centre for Child Protection is behind it, as are parents right around this country. It is at least one thing I hope we can work on collaboratively and in a non-partisan manner to get across the finish line.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'll ask a question about bolstering legal aid. Can you talk about the impact on people if we are unable to administer the additional $151 million because of the Conservative filibuster in the House?

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

That has to do with the stuff you guys deal with on a daily basis, which is about access to justice.

What we're facing is a problem with a lack of courtrooms, but also court backlogs. What you do when you implement legal aid is ensure people are represented. A represented litigant moves through the system much more quickly, whatever the disposition—up or down, yes or no, civil damages or not and conviction or not.

When I put on the table $700 million of legal aid for immigration, refugee legal aid and criminal legal aid over the span of five years, what I'm doing is enhancing access to justice and the efficiency of our justice system. Again, that is something we should all be behind, because we need a more efficient justice system to ensure people get their day in court and get the kinds of results they deserve.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being with us today, Minister.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C‑373 which proposes to eliminate the religious exemptions provided in paragraphs 319(3)(b) and (319)(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code. I would like to know your opinion on that.

Can we expect that your government will take up that bill, or support it, before the end of the current Parliament?

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

Yes, I am very familiar with the provisions you have proposed in Bill C‑373 concerning the religious exemptions provided in section 319 of the Criminal Code.

If you want to move this bill forward, I would say, quite frankly, that the first thing to do would be to break the deadlock the House is now in. Then, if you want to accelerate the process, I would remind you that a bill relating to the same provisions of the Criminal Code, more specifically section 319, already exists. It addresses online harms.

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

I understand, Minister—

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

The bill is C‑63.

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

Forgive me for interrupting you. I don't want to press you, but as you know, we do not have a lot of time available to us.

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

True. I will let you resume speaking.

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

Bill C‑63 does not address religious exemptions, more specifically the two provisions to which Bill C‑373 relates.

I would simply like to know whether you support the idea of abolishing these two religious exemptions or not. If you do, can we expect this to be done speedily? In order for that to be possible, the House would obviously have to break the deadlock we are in. On that point, I agree with you.

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

I will be brief. First, the same provisions of the Criminal Code are affected and could therefore be covered by an admissible amendment. Second, I am completely comfortable with the idea of your committee studying the situation, hearing testimony, and so forth. My main objective is to eliminate all the hate we are seeing, particularly now, here in Canada.

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

We have the same objective: to eliminate hate. However, allowing hate speech for which religious belief is the excuse is not consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or with the values of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Do you agree with me that this is a problem?

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

Those provisions are 20 or 25 years old. It would be useful to know how many times they have been used and whether the accused got off by using this kind of defence. I think those are rare cases.

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

Yes, this kind of defence has not been used often. The fact remains that Crown attorneys have this in front of them when they come to initiate proceedings. They have a certain number of cases to process and proceedings to bring, but they do not have the time to bring all of them. They are assigned to the most important cases, the ones where their chances of success are best. Paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) cause endless problems because they suggest that if the acts were committed for religious reasons, the defence will be valid.

I would like you to tell me simply whether your opinion is that allowing hate speech where religion is used as an excuse is a problem or not.

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

My answer is yes, it is.

When it comes to deciding how we can expand or amend our own laws, study the situation and combat hate, the approach we suggest in Bill C‑63 is to increase the penalties. If the approach you suggest is to eliminate some of the exemptions provided, I will be completely prepared to listen.

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

I would like you not just to be comfortable listening to me, but also to be comfortable agreeing with us. I understand that I will not get that consent today, but I invite you to think about it seriously.

What we are doing is looking at the question from all angles. As you know, the committee has held meetings in recent weeks in connection with its study of Islamophobia and antisemitism. You have heard about our debates. After listening to all the testimony, I find this question to be increasingly timely and increasingly urgent. Ms. Lyons, the special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism, also testified before the committee. While she did not say she was in agreement on this question, she found it interesting and said we should look into it. I would therefore press the point and say to you that this is something of considerable importance in the fight against hate speech.

I am changing the subject quickly because I have barely a minute left. This morning, La Presse published an article critical of the problems surrounding the appointment of Quebec judges to the Federal Court of Canada. I am sure you saw it, or at least were briefed on it. I imagine there will be two new judges from Quebec appointed to the Federal Court of Canada over the next few days. Can we expect you to appoint Quebec judges? As you know, the Federal Courts Act requires that there be 5 Quebec judges on the Federal Court of Appeal and 10 Quebec judges on the Federal Court.

At the moment there is a deficit, as Quebec's Minister of Justice pointed out. Can we expect that you will remedy this appointments deficit by naming Quebec judges to those vacant positions over the next few days?

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

What I can tell you is that I will be doing my work very quickly. In fact, I have already proven this: I am doing my work faster than any other minister of justice in Canada. For Quebec, 96.8% of judge positions are now filled. Only 3.2% are still vacant. Am I going to allocate the vacant positions on the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal to Quebec judges, as the act provides? I am obviously going to follow the rules and comply with my obligations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister.