Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for being here, Minister.
I have several questions running through my head, but I'll have to prioritize them. I wish I had more time, but I understand that's the way it has to be done.
First, I have some questions about the legal aid system for immigrants and refugees. I'm sure you understand that this issue is of great concern to the Bloc Québécois. In Quebec, the amount owed by the federal government is a problem. In fact, the Quebec government is not getting paid, yet it continues to spend on newcomers.
There's also the question of official languages. A total of $1.2 million has been earmarked for official languages and I'm interested in hearing how that money will be distributed among the provinces.
In addition, there's obviously the whole issue of systemic racism. You want to help judges impose sentences that take this into account. How is that going to work? How are we going to define systemic racism?
There's the question of cybersecurity, in courthouses, etc.
There are plenty of important issues, essential even, that I won't necessarily be able to address this morning, unfortunately. However, I will try.
There's also Bill C‑63, which you told us about in your opening remarks. I'm not sure how it relates to the Supplementary Estimates (C), but it is an important question, regardless. With respect to this bill, I am curious as to why you didn't introduce the age verification process, as proposed by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne. Her proposal seemed relatively wise to me, but there's no mention of it at all in Bill C‑63.
The Bloc Québécois is in the same boat. We've proposed abolishing the two religious exceptions in the Criminal Code, which I think is essential in the current context. How is it possible that someone can still build their defence around the idea that they committed a hate crime or spread hatred because of a religious text? That is completely absurd and contrary to the values shared by all Quebeckers and, I'm certain, by the rest of Canada too.
These are all essential questions, but I'm going to focus on two important elements.
First, our committee recently passed a bill that aims to create a commission to review errors in the justice system. This is obviously something that had to be done; congratulations. I think it was high time for a major clean‑up. The commission will comprise nine members. I've tabled an amendment to the effect that these nine commissioners should be bilingual. In fact, I'm a little surprised that this wasn't planned from the outset. Still, it seems a very modest goal. Nine bilingual commissioners across Canada shouldn't be too hard to achieve. However, I've run into an objection from some of my colleagues, including one of your Liberal colleagues.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. If we want the justice system to be bilingual, shouldn't we necessarily make an effort by asking for bilingualism among these nine commissioners? It's not as though there are 900 of them; there are nine.