Justice Committee on May 3rd, 2022

[Elspeth Kaiser-Derrick]

I would say it's difficult to categorize my research in those terms, other than to say that it was very apparent that the colonial context was completely embedded in their experiences of victimization and criminalization, and how their victimization and criminalization intersected.

I'm not sure if that fully responds to your question, but that's my primary observation.

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

I am a former academic at UBC myself. Are you saying that circumstantial factors often come into play with indigenous women when they come into conflict with the justice system?

[Elspeth Kaiser-Derrick]

Yes. Again, I'm not sure exactly how to respond to your question, but certainly there are gendered contexts that also intersect with this colonial context and are interrelated with women's offending and indigenous women's criminalization.

For example, I mentioned in my opening statement that some of the women in my research became criminalized because they were afraid of contacting police or medical authorities because they were afraid of their children being apprehended by the child welfare system. In that sense, their criminalization was entirely linked with their colonial experience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you Ms. Kaiser-Derrick and Mr. Garrison.

That concludes the second panel. I want to thank all of the witnesses.

We have some committee business to do, so you're dismissed. You're more than welcome to log off. In the meantime, we will hopefully do this quickly.

Members, I think the main topic is the number of meetings we should have on this study. I think we hadn't reached a conclusion on that. I'm hoping that we keep the debate to a minimum and then vote.

Does anybody want to go first on how many meetings we should hold? We have done four, just for the record. This concludes the fourth meeting.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have done four, and I would suggest that we do four more, as Mr. Fortin suggested, for a total of eight, and then, for a bill of this size, have two meetings set aside for clause-by-clause consideration if necessary. If we get through it in one day, then we're through, but I would think we would need two meetings to get through clause-by-clause study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Okay.

Go ahead, Monsieur Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're discussing figures and the number of meetings we'll have. I quite agree, but I'm interested in what we're going to do with these meetings. I see there are already a number of witnesses listed who have not testified. Personally, I know that a witness I summoned to appear will be present on Friday this week or next week. At least, there are still witnesses to be heard.

I think the bill is important and we have to consider it properly. I don't want to repeat what I've already said, but we have to be aware that there are two bills. The Minister of Justice has dropped this in our lap, but there are two bills. The first is about diversion and the second about mandatory minimum sentences. We have to take the time to look at them properly.

Will other witnesses be appearing? Does anyone around the table want to summon other witnesses to appear? We need to know.

As well, how much time do we need to hear those people? That is more what is concerning me than whether we are going to do it in four or five or six meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Clerk has informed us, concerning the witnesses who have been suggested so far by everyone, that we would have them accommodated by May 13 to May 17. In that week, they should be done. That's assuming the following week....

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

How many meetings does that come to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

There would be three more—this Friday, and—

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

Three meetings to finish our witness list, that's what you're telling us, Mr. Clerk?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Yes, that's correct.

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

There seem to me to be a lot of witnesses.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-François Pagé]

I have to take into account the division of the witnesses by party. I'm kind of bound by that. But it is up to the committee to decide.

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

I see that the list contains the names of 25 witnesses in white, which means they haven't yet appeared, if I understand correctly. Hearing that many witnesses in three meetings, doesn't that seem a little audacious to you? Could we not take the time to hear them a little better?

The idea isn't to have people testify just for the sake of saying they testified. We have to listen to what they have to say and then analyze it. There are 25 names on the witness list, unless anyone withdraws.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I believe I'll get some more information. Based on the proportion from every party, I think the clerk is implying that we would be done by then.

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think we have to keep in mind that we have a private member's bill on the decriminalization of personal possession that might well end up in committee. Hearings on an appointment for new Supreme Court judge will most probably come to us within the next month. We have other government bills that are still on the order paper. I don't think we have unlimited time as a committee. I think we have to keep in mind that we have other things that may come to us.

I was happy with six. If we can exhaust the witness list at seven, I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I think we have to keep in mind that we have other things coming to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

That's fair enough.

Go ahead, Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we're also content with six meetings. I know we've had a bit of a robust discussion. We've had a variety of witnesses with very different perspectives, and I think that provided the range of perspectives out there.

We would be satisfied with six, as I indicated at the last meeting. Again, if absolutely necessary, we are amenable to one more meeting, provided that we've exhausted all of the other witnesses with full panels for the meetings up to the sixth meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

I'm fine, Mr. Chair, other than to say that there are 25 witnesses. I don't have the list right in front of me. It seems that we would need at least eight meetings. We've gone through an average of three witnesses per hour. I don't think it's possible to hear from any more witnesses and then have sufficient time for members to ask witnesses the necessary questions. Again, it would seem, on its face, based on that number, that six is completely inadequate, and likely seven isn't sufficient either.

I think we have to do our due diligence and hear from as many witnesses as possible so that we can put forward the appropriate amendments and do our due diligence and the work we've been called upon to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

You're next, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we're all in a similar ballpark. We think of the numbers, and each party puts in their allocation. That's probably why the numbers don't exactly match up. I do think eight is preferable and reasonable.

I want to mention, though, that my suggestion for two meetings for clause-by-clause study is in no way to be interpreted as saying, “Well, if we're not done clause-by-clause....” We have to do our due diligence. We don't know how many amendments are going to come in from each of the parties. I suspect we will have some amendments.

I threw those two days out as a way of saying that we could probably budget for two days, not to say that it might take three. That's a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Last is Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of co-operation—I think this committee generally does work quite co-operatively—I'm going to vote for seven meetings. Of course, I think two days for clause-by-clause study is ample time, but obviously we'll know when we get to it.

If it's okay, and we can have consensus, then we can move forward to have the study on Bill C-5 completed on the 13th, with clause-by-clause consideration and amendments on the 17th and 20th. I don't know what the protocol is, but if it's 24 hours ahead—