Debates of May 23rd, 2024

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Madam Speaker, the process has improved because the candidate assessments are now valid for three months instead of two and the mandates of the judicial advisory committee members are now three years instead of two years.

To answer the previous question, the Court of Appeal needs two judges and the Quebec Superior Court needs six.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank the minister for those details.

I would now like him to talk about the Jordan decision, which has returned with a vengeance in Quebec in recent years. Recent decisions have brought to light the serious problems in our justice system in terms of delays.

Last weekend at the Festival international du journalisme de Carleton-sur-Mer, which took place in my riding, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that we are looking at the problem from the wrong side. Yes, the Jordan decision imposes timelines, but that benefits victims. When we think about the timelines, we rarely think about the victims. Because of the Jordan decision, they do not have to wait for years before they can testify. He also added that we should not seek to change the Jordan decision to extend the deadlines, but instead we should improve our justice system so that it is able to meet those deadlines. That requires massive investments in justice and the quick appointment of judges.

Does the minister agree with the Chief Justice?

I would also like to know what he is doing to improve delays in the justice system.

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

Madam Chair, on a number of occasions, I have done my best to reduce the court backlogs. Obviously, that involves appointing judges. I am doing my best to fill those positions. In addition, I am currently working with Chief Justice Wagner on a committee on modernizing court operations. The committee is working on ways to improve processes in courts across Canada. For example, in the digital age, we are trying to find ways to speed up justice using artificial intelligence for complainants or people appearing before our courts, whether in a criminal or civil trial.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I would now like to hear what the minister has to say about the sensitive issue of medical assistance in dying. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to allow people suffering from an incapacitating disease, such as Alzheimer's or dementia, to make an advance request for medical assistance in dying while they are still capable of doing so.

The bill is supported by Sandra Demontigny, the Collège des médecins, the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the Quebec and Canadian associations for the right to die with dignity.

Will the minister commit to taking a compassionate approach consistent with the steps taken by the Government of Quebec to meet the needs of people suffering from serious and incurable neurocognitive diseases by supporting the principle of this bill to allow advance requests in Quebec?

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

Madam Chair, I believe that the member is referring to Bill C-390, tabled in the House just yesterday. We are currently in the process of analyzing and studying this bill. What I can point out is that I am already in contact with my Quebec government counterpart, Simon Jolin‑Barrette. We have already discussed this proposal. We are going to have further conversations about Quebec's priorities and objectives.

I want to emphasize that, when it comes to medical assistance in dying, a balance must always be struck between individual autonomy and the protection, conditions and precautions required to safeguard the most vulnerable. I am always guided by the quest for balance in this matter.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I would point out to the minister that he does not want to give Quebec an exemption from the Criminal Code, but he is giving one to British Columbia. In my view, this is something that is possible for the people in this situation in Quebec.

Now, I would like to hear his comments on all the issues related to child pornography, children's access to pornography and the sharing of non-consensual content. To my eyes, the purpose of Bill S‑210, which was introduced by Senator Julie Miville‑Dechêne and which seeks to prevent minors from accessing pornography, is completely different from the purpose of Bill C‑63, which the minister introduced and which seeks to protect the public from harmful content streamed on social media, such as intimate content communicated without consent and content that sexually victimizes a child.

Does he agree with me that these two bills have completely different purposes?

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

Madam Chair, that is a great question, but I believe that the senator's bill, Bill S‑210, addresses only one aspect of our broader bill, C‑63.

Protecting children from pornography and sexual predators is a priority for both me and the senator. However, we have different ways of tackling the problem. We are dealing with a much bigger and broader problem in our own Bill C-63. We are also different when it comes to the mandates and the modus operandi that the senator proposes to use.

We are concerned about how to verify someone's age. Does it have to be a piece of government-issued ID? Will this cause other problems or lead to the possibility of other crimes, such as financial fraud, at the international level?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I think that the minister is well aware that those are two completely different missions. Both are commendable.

Bill C‑63 has its good points, but Bill S‑210 really seeks to check the age of pornography users to limit young people's access to it. The Liberal Party seems to disagree with this bill, and yet other countries, like Germany, France and the United Kingdom, as well as some states in the U.S. are looking into this way of verifying the age of users.

Why does Canada not want to move forward in this way to limit the access of children under the age of 18 to pornography?

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

Madam Chair, with all due respect, I want to correct the member opposite.

First, Bill C‑63 deals mainly with types of content that are appropriate for children. Second, it addresses the obligation to protect children. There is also a provision of Bill C‑63 that talks about age appropriate design features.

We are targeting the same problem. We want to work with social media platforms to resolve this situation in a way that will enable us to protect people's privacy and personal information and protect children.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I politely beg to differ. I feel that Bill C‑63 is extremely important, but it is not exactly the same thing. Yes, it contains elements that make it possible to regulate or, at least, be warned before consuming certain types of content, but there is nothing that really makes it possible to verify the consumer's age.

I would therefore advise the government to support a bill like Bill S‑210. Obviously, it is not easy to implement this type of safeguard, and other countries are currently looking at that. However, it is an extremely important bill.

To return to Bill C‑63, would the minister agree that the first part of the bill could be split from the rest so that the digital security commission could be created as quickly as possible? That would enable us to protect female victims of intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

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

Madam Chair, I have several answers to give on this matter. The big difference between the senator's bill and Bill C‑63 is that our bill had the benefit of a five-year consultation. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that, although we agree with some aspects, we want to work in close collaboration with the big digital companies to resolve the situation and protect the public and children from pornography. Taking down that information and content within a mandatory 24-hour period is a much stronger measure than what was proposed in the bill introduced by the senator.

The last thing is that we are targeting a situation where all harmful online content needs to be addressed. This concerns children, teenagers and adults. We want a big solution to a big problem. Australia started nine years ago with children only. Nine years later, protecting children only is no longer appropriate—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, the government is completely ignoring Bill S‑210. Bill C‑63 is a huge bill that has received some criticism. It is likely to take a long time to study.

However, we think the proposal to set up a digital safety commission is a good idea that should be implemented quickly. That is why we are proposing that the bill be split, quite simply, so that we can take the time to properly study all harmful content while still setting up the digital safety commission quickly. I understand that the proposal has not been accepted, but I still think it is a good idea.

The topic of harmful content brings me to hate speech. Will the minister commit to abolishing the Criminal Code exemption that allows hate speech in the name of religion? In fact, that would be a great addition to his Bill C‑63.

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

Madam Chair, the member asked two questions.

First, the harmful content that we are targeting in our bill involves young people, adolescents and adults and has to do with violence, bullying or the harassment of a child and hate. Some children are also victims of hate. The suggestion to divide hate, which has already been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, is problematic to us to be sure. We want to protect all Canadians of all ages from any harmful content.

Second, with respect to what she suggested, I believe that there is another bill that was introduced by the Bloc Québécois having to do with the capacity to defend oneself against the offence of fomenting hatred. We are studying that bill.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, it is indeed Bill C‑367, which was introduced by the member for Beloeil—Chambly and leader of the Bloc Québécois, that simply seeks to eliminate this religious exemption. I hope that the government and the minister will be in favour of this bill.

I will ask a simple question to close: Will the minister finally implement an organized crime registry?

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

Madam Chair, I think that the suggestion about hate, the Bloc Québécois's private member's bill and our Bill C-63 highlight the fact that we need to pass this bill at second reading and send it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that we can study it, hear from experts and witnesses and propose amendments, if a few turn out to be appropriate.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Chair, I wish to notify the Chair that I am going to be using my 15 minutes to delve right into questions. I appreciate having this opportunity to speak with the minister at the committee of the whole regarding the estimates for the department.

I want to get started on a question regarding legal aid. I note that in these main estimates, the contributions for criminal legal aid would decrease by $57 million, from $193.8 million to $136.8 million. One of the biggest barriers to justice in this country is being able to afford legal representation. Too often, the most vulnerable Canadians do not have access to competent legal assistance in an already overburdened justice system. While legal aid is primarily the responsibility of provincial governments, there is a role for the federal government in providing funding.

Can the minister explain why the amounts allocated to contributions for criminal legal aid are being reduced in such a substantial way?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Chair, I can simply say that is actually an incorrect understanding of what is in the estimates. What is happening there is that we are seeing money that was a one-off allocation that is being eliminated.

However, as I mentioned in my 10-minute speech, what is in budget 2024 is a five-year horizon of criminal legal aid that expands the envelope to much greater than it previously was, with $440 million over five years being provided to criminal legal aid through budget 2024, and $270 million over five years for immigration and refugee legal aid. That is a sum total of $710 million being provided to legal aid in those two categories over the next five years, which is a dramatic increase.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Chair, could the minister commit, with those figures he just cited, to making sure they are going to be a new floor and not a ceiling in the future?

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

Madam Chair, I can double down on my personal commitment to legal aid, as a lawyer and as the Minister of Justice. Obviously, I cannot bind future parliaments with any pronouncement on the floor today.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Chair, I want to turn to the subject of criminal records. Twice the Liberal government has been asked, and twice it has not answered, whether and how it will meet its legal requirement to sequester the criminal records for simple possession of drugs for more than 250,000 Canadians. The legal deadline is coming this November, and Canadians are rightly asking whether they will be notified that their records have indeed been sequestered.

I do not need to remind the House that these kinds of records for offences that are no longer offences impact the ability of people to seek employment or housing, or to travel abroad to visit loved ones. The records also disproportionately impact indigenous and racialized Canadians and those living in poverty.

Could the minister please inform me as to how the government will meet the legal November deadline and inform the Canadians affected as to how they would know their criminal records have been sequestered?

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the intervention of the member opposite, and I share his passion for addressing issues, including things that have a disproportionate impact on different communities, including racialized communities. What I can say is that the issue he is raising has been touched upon by Bill C-5, which proposes amendments that would need to be made. The Minister of Public Safety is working diligently on this very issue and is working within the parameters of the deadline that he just mentioned, November 2024, to address the amendments that are needed to deal with simple possession and those records.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Chair, could the minister correctly inform me, through the committee of the whole, that the November deadline will be met?

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

Madam Chair, again, the lead on this issue is the Minister of Public Safety. I know he is working with provincial and territorial counterparts with pace in his effort to meet that deadline.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Chair, I want to change the subject now. I have a quick question for the minister. Does he agree with me that the illegality of Israeli settlements is one of the most firmly established issues in modern international law?