Justice Committee on Dec. 5th, 2022

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to move on to another topic, if I may. I'd like you to elaborate on the judicial selection process. Over the years, we've heard a lot of things, left and right, but I'd like your thoughts on this issue.

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

We introduced a system in 2016 to make the process more transparent, and I think we've been very successful.

We're looking for quality and diversity, and not one at the expense of the other. I think we've achieved that. We have advisory committees across Canada, including two in Quebec, one in the east and one in the west. Representation is important.

Some candidates are chosen by Quebec, others by community members, lawyers and the Minister of Justice. We review applications. We created an online form, which we revised in 2022 in response to feedback from participants, who are not all lawyers.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

What is the profile?

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

There is no profile. We look for diversity. Some people are selected by us, others by the provinces. There is diversity within the advisory committees. These committees can do three things: recommend a candidate, not recommend a candidate, or strongly recommend a candidate.

Selected files come to my office, and we consult with the chief justices about their needs, whether they want criminal lawyers, for example, or whether they want experts in other areas, such as family law, which is very important for superior courts.

So we make sure to respect diversity and quality criteria.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Next we'll go to Mr. Bachrach for six minutes, who is filling in for Mr. Garrison.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity, Minister, to ask a couple of questions and follow up on our exchange in the House about two weeks ago concerning federal bail reform.

I'll preface my questions by saying that we absolutely support the goal of reducing the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and racialized people in the criminal justice system. I think that's something that you know. I know that was part of the impetus for Bill C-75—which was passed into law in 2019—as was direction from the Supreme Court.

However, what we're seeing in our communities.... I represent northwest B.C. These are small communities. These aren't the big urban centres of Canada. The largest community is about 13,000 people. What we're seeing in terms of an uptick in crime, both property crime and violent crime, is very concerning to community leaders, to residents and to business owners.

In communities like Terrace, we're seeing a really troubling incident rate of a wide variety of street disorder and property crime. Businesses tell me that people are coming in off the street and are taking merchandise with, seemingly, no consequences. People don't feel safe in their own communities. I'm sure that's something that concerns you as much as it does me.

Now, when communities have gone to the provincial government and expressed their concerns—and to its credit, the provincial government has taken a number of steps; I'm sure you're familiar with these: increasing mental health resources, investing in law enforcement and such—the province has also come back to municipalities and pointed towards federal legislation as being part of the problem. Specifically, they've pointed to the need for reforms to federal bail law.

Now I know this was a message that the attorneys general delivered to you in Halifax during the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial leaders. I'm curious as to what degree you agree with the provinces' assessment of the problem. If so, what kinds of bail reforms might be possible?

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

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach, for that question. You have big shoes to fill, and you're doing it ably.

Bill C-75 was an important bill with respect to bail reform. It was meant to tackle not only overrepresentation but also inefficiencies within the criminal justice system, and it was developed largely with the provinces. At the time, there was a great deal of consultation with the provinces in order to reach a number of different suggested reforms and to implement them. That implementation process is still happening.

I am sensitive to the very real concerns that I've heard from you and from others—not just in British Columbia but in other places—about the challenges associated with bail reform. We're certainly there to work with the provinces. A number of provinces, like B.C., have taken steps to try to attack the problem as you have raised it.

It's certainly not uniquely a problem with Bill C-75. To the extent that Bill C-75 and the reforms or their implementation—or perhaps their non-implementation in certain cases—might be a factor, we've engaged to look at that. We have tasked our deputy ministers, federal and provincial—we did that in Halifax—in order to get some more facts out and to get more detail on the problem. When that comes back, I'm always willing to work....

I promised this to Minister Rankin, and I extend that same promise to any provincial attorney general or minister of justice: to work with them in order to find solutions. At this stage, we're still gathering facts to understand the complexity of the problem, but I'm willing to work in good faith to try to resolve it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Minister, the new premier of British Columbia, David Eby, was quoted in the media as saying, “Rule changes were made with the best of intentions, but have had negative impacts on communities.”

My question is whether you agree with him.

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

Well, we're studying that. We need more facts. I had a great working relationship with Minister Eby when he was Attorney General of British Columbia, and I hope that relationship will continue now that he's taken on a new role.

It is something that we need to look at more and get.... These are very complex problems. They vary from place to place. We only recently implemented Bill C-75. I think we need to study the problem a little more carefully, but I'm certainly willing.... If Bill C-75 is part of the problem, I'm willing to work in good faith to try to identify ways to fix it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Minister, I think, for people who have been affected by this rising crime in communities, hearing that there's a study being done and that a subcommittee's been struck probably doesn't provide them with much comfort that it's being taken seriously or that there's a sense of urgency behind that work.

Could you speak to the timeline for your deputies reporting back to you? How will the results of their work be made public to people in communities across the country?

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

Let me say that the sense of urgency is there. I would caution, before doing anything without a better basis in fact.... I think it's just a general rule for good policy to get the facts and then move from there.

I'll let my deputy minister, who has been tasked with this, to speak more about the mechanics.

[François Daigle, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice]

We've had four federal-provincial-territorial meetings of what we call our CCSO, our committee of senior officers. They are the criminal law specialists across the country in every province and territory.

We have started by looking at what the data tells us where the problem is. We're expecting to get a report out to deputies by the end of this calendar year, in December, and then we'll develop some advice in the new year for ministers before they make some decisions about how to go forward. At that point, reports will be made public.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you to both of you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We'll conclude our round of questions there. It's 11:40, and we'll try to get the votes in for the supplementary estimates. Then we'll be doing Bill C-291.

If we're okay, I will now call for vote 1b under the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Is there any discussion on the vote?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Are we finished the round of questions? I understand that we're prepared to move fairly quickly on the issue of estimates. Will there be no further questions of the minister?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. We did one round, so I was not going to go for another round of questions, because we have about 18 minutes left for the first hour, and we can get to your bill in the second hour.

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

Mr. Chair, may I suggest that a reduced time slot may be appropriate? I do think another round may be warranted in this case, because we do have a few more minutes to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

If it's the will of the committee, we can go. I'll just reduce it to maybe three minutes, if that's okay, for the next round. Are we okay?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

I thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Anandasangaree, for that.

Minister, I know we just talked about bail. I do have Bill C-274—and, for Mr. Bachrach's reference, that is a bill on bail that would target only the most serious of offenders.

Minister, have you reviewed that bill?

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

As in my answer to Mr. Villemure on the same kind of question, all private members' bills are reviewed in a process that follows their sequence in the Order Paper, and according to the minister.

The Minister of Justice has a lot of private members' bills for reasons that I think are often—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I take your point. You haven't.

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

I won't say it publicly. We have begun thinking about it, but I won't say it publicly.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

You are very masterful with your words, so I'm going to follow up on Mr. Moore's question with a yes or no.

Am I to take your comments to Mr. Moore about MAID and the proposed changes to it that are coming in March that you will not be putting the brakes on those changes? Is that a yes or no?

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

In good policy, there's very rarely a yes-or-no answer, Mr. Caputo, as much as I appreciate the sincerity of the question. We are listening. I'm listening to you as we speak, but I'm also listening to others whom Mr. Moore has referred to in his questions—other expert groups and stakeholders. I'm also listening to other colleagues in the House of Commons, and we'll work in good faith to make sure that Canadians are ready for mental disorder to be a sole criterion for seeking MAID. That is how I would frame the answer at this point.