Justice Committee on March 21st, 2024

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

As for how the money is being distributed, you can ask my department.

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

No. I asked just one question and it concerned the miscarriage of justice review commission, and the idea of having nine bilingual commissioners. Are you for or against it?

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

We are definitely in favour of Bill C‑40.

We were disappointed by the Conservatives' filibustering tactics during consideration of this bill, in terms of how cases or files are handled for persons who speak French. Of course, translation will still be part of this new commission's procedures. That will be helpful to complainants or people who want to request a review.

With respect to Bill S‑210, I would like to point out something that is not true—

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

Mr. Minister, you're delivering a monologue.

I asked you a simple question: Do you support bilingualism for the nine members of the miscarriage of justice review commission, yes or no?

Honestly, I appreciate your work. You're an honest and serious person. I don't understand why you're evading my question this morning. If it embarrasses you, just say so and I'll move on to the next one.

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

I'm an understanding person, Mr. Fortin. You raised a number of issues.

Very briefly, in terms of the situation—

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

I said I would have liked to raise them, but I did not, Minister.

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

The point I want to make about Bill S‑210 is that Bill C‑63 already contains age verification mechanisms. Furthermore, we must always protect the privacy rights of Canadians. In other words—

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

We have 40 seconds left. Are you going to continue with your monologue, Minister? Please answer my question.

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

—if we want to use an age verification mechanism—

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

Madam Chair, I'm relinquishing my turn to speak. I understand that the minister doesn't want to answer my question. I'll therefore yield my remaining 30 seconds to one of my colleagues, who may be able to get him to talk about topics we wanted to discuss this morning.

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

May I continue, Madam Chair?

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

No. I didn't ask you about that, Minister.

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

Madam Chair, may I continue to give my answer in the 20 seconds remaining?

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

No. My turn to speak should be mine. With all due respect, I am not interested in hearing the minister's monologue this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Okay. Mr. Garrison, I'm sure, will let the minister continue.

Mr. Garrison, please go ahead.

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

No, I won't.

I want to thank the minister for his very clear presentation on Bill C-63.

I want to add two things to this discussion. One is that the loudest voices on this bill often do not include those who are most likely to be subjected to hate crime campaigns. When it comes before this committee, I'm looking forward to a diversity of witnesses who can talk about the real-world impacts that online hate has. We've seen it again and again. It's often well organized.

I stood outside the House of Commons and defended the rights of trans kids. Within one day, I had 700 emails with the same defamatory and hateful two-word phrase used to describe me. I am a privileged person. I have a staff. I have all the resources and support I need. However, when you think about what happens to trans kids and their families when they are subjected to these online hate crimes, it has very real consequences.

I'm looking forward to us being able to hear from diverse voices and, in particular, those who are most impacted. I know this is not really a question to you at this point.

We have other important work we've been doing in this committee. I want to turn to Bill C-332, which just passed this committee and was sent back to the House. This is the bill on controlling and coercive behaviour. This committee has been dealing with this topic for more than three years. One of the things that we quite clearly said was that the passage of this bill is a tool for dealing with the epidemic of intimate partner violence, but it's not the only tool.

I guess I'm asking two things here.

What other plans does the Department of Justice have to provide the necessary and associated supports for survivors of intimate partner violence?

What plans are there to do the educational work that will be necessary?

The bill says it will be proclaimed at a time chosen by cabinet. I'm assuming there will be a plan to get ready for this. I'm interested in what's going to happen with that plan. It has unanimous support, so I don't think it's premature to be asking about this at this point.

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

Thank you, Mr. Garrison, for your leadership on the first part of what you talked about and the courage that you continue to show as a parliamentarian, and also for your leadership and that of Laurel Collins on coercive control.

In terms of supporting victims, we are constantly and actively thinking about how to better support victims, including victims of intimate partner violence. Please take a cue from what we did in Bill C-75 and in Bill C-48 with respect to the reverse onus on bail for survivors of intimate partner violence. Issues about support and funding are always on the table.

Also, please understand that when you talk about a 24-hour takedown of things like revenge porn, you're dealing with an aspect of coercive control that exists right now. That's in Bill C-63.

You also mentioned, in your opening, hearing from voices. I think two of the most salient voices that I heard from were the two that were at the press conference with me: Jane, the mother of a child who has been sexually abused and repeatedly exploited online, and Carla Beauvais, a woman who has been intimidated and has retreated from participating in the public space.

I would also suggest taking your cues from the groups that were also there beside me. The National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs have, in the last six months, not seen eye to eye on a lot of issues. On this bill, they do see eye to eye. They both support this, as do the special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Those are important voices to be hearing from, and that's what I will continue to do.

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

I want to continue a little bit on the question of legal aid when it comes to intimate partner violence. I know that quite often the answer is that it's really the responsibility of the provinces. What I'm looking for here is some commitment from the federal government with perhaps new pilot programs or new funding to encourage new programs in areas of intimate partner violence and support. The change in the law will mean that intimate partners will be involved in a criminal process but they will not be the defendants. Quite often there isn't legal assistance available for people who may face appearing in court in very difficult circumstances.

I'm looking for some leadership from the federal government on this, even though I recognize it's primarily a provincial responsibility.

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

I think we both have a role to play in providing dollars. On-the-ground delivery is often administered by provinces. We've been quite strong in terms of our support for immigration and refugee legal aid and criminal legal aid. But I would reflect back on what the chair mentioned about targeted supports to Nova Scotia for racialized communities.

I strongly believe in supporting vulnerable people who are in need of legal aid assistance so, if there are proposals that are put before me about how we can address legal aid in an acute manner that helps women in the main who are dealing with intimate partner violence, I am all ears for that kind of discussion. I think those kinds of targeted supports are necessary to really fulfill the promise of ensuring that people's rights are vindicated.

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

Thank you, and we will follow up with you on that.

Mr. Van Popta opened with a question about confidence in the justice system in the appointment of judges. I think we all acknowledge the whole system has to do better in terms of filling judicial vacancies, and I do acknowledge your personal efforts to do that. But there's a second part to confidence in the justice system, and that is that people have confidence in the system when they see themselves represented in the system rather than just subjected to it.

I wonder if you could comment on the nature of the judicial appointments, and the progress that's being made, if it's being made, to make the judiciary reflect the face of Canada.

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

I'm very happy to address this.

When we took office about 30% of the Conservative government's appointments had been women, and 53% of our appointments are women. When I came into office, the record of our government was about 11% racialized candidates being appointed. I have appointed 20% racialized candidates. I believe in a strong, highly intellectually competent bench, but also a bench that reflects the diversity of our country because I believe that helps ensure confidence in the administration of justice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

We will now commence with our second round.

We'll go to Mr. Moore for five minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, we're here in the estimates today. You spent your entire opening remarks on a defence of Bill C-63. I recall your predecessor, Minister Lametti, when he was here. I asked him a question on the issue of MAID, when I think 25 constitutional experts said the minister's opinion on the matter was wrong. I asked the minister who was right, him or these 25 constitutional experts. And he said he was.

That kind of hubris is probably a good reason why he's not longer here and now you are, but we're starting to see that same thing on Bill C-63with yourself, when virtually everyone has come out and said this was an effort to trample down freedom of speech. Margaret Atwood described Bill C-63 as “Orwellian”. David Thomas, who was chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, said:

The Liberal government's proposed Bill C-63, the online harms act, is terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadians' sacred Charter right to freedom of expression. That is what the Liberals intend. By drafting a vague law creating a draconian regime to address online “harms”, they will win their wars without firing a bullet.

There's a diverse group of people who feel that Bill C-63 is an outrageous infringement on Canadians' rights. We also see a government that will not stand up for the most vulnerable.

You had the opportunity, Minister, to introduce a bill that would have protected children, but your government, true to form, could not resist taking aim at their political opponents. This is not about hate speech, it's about speech that Liberals hate, and shutting that down.

Now Bill C-63, if it unfortunately were to pass, will too be struck down by the courts. If you were in a position to appeal it, I have no doubt you would. That brings me to my question on your government's radical agenda.

You've decided to file a number of appeals in recent court rulings. You've appealed a ruling that found the invocation of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional. You appealed a ruling that found that the plastic bag ban and the plastic straw ban that Canadians hate so much was unconstitutional. You were quick to appeal those. But when the Supreme Court ruled the six-month minimum sentence for the crime of child luring was unconstitutional, you chose not to file an appeal.

Why is it that, when your government's radical agenda is challenged in the courts, you're quick to appeal, but when vulnerable Canadians' lives are at stake, you choose not to appeal?

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

Mr. Moore, I disagree with pretty much everything you just said in terms of how you've characterized things. What I would say to you is to actually look at the constitutional record internationally.

We looked at France, Australia, Germany and England. In France, a takedown provision across all sets of content, including hatred content, was struck down as unconstitutional. That's specifically why we are not pursuing that. We have a takedown provision within 24 hours of child pornography and revenge porn. I hope we can agree on that, Liberals and Conservatives. We do not have an immediate takedown provision over other materials. That's the first point.

The second point is that you talked about the author Margaret Atwood. I have tremendous respect for Margaret Atwood. I've invited her into conversation about the nuances of this bill. She has a concern about freedom of expression. I share that concern. I'm duty-bound to uphold freedom of expression. I swore an oath to the Constitution. I'm the only cabinet minister who does. What we've done, through a careful approach, is to look at how we can calibrate the important need to keep Canadians safe and to protect liberty of expression.

If you had listened to Carla Beauvais at the press conference, you would have heard her talk about the fact that her own speech is being curtailed because she is so intimidated from participating in public discourse. We're trying to empower that public discourse.

There are safeguards in the bill that I would urge you to look at, about how Facebook makes its determinations in terms of ensuring that they respect freedom of speech, how the digital safety commissioner must ensure that non-discrimination occurs—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Minister.