Justice and Human Rights

This Canadian parliamentary committee meeting was about a proposed law to create a new agency called the Financial Crimes Agency. The main goal of this agency is to better investigate serious and complex financial crimes like money laundering, fraud, and crimes linked to organized crime and terrorist financing. The committee members discussed how this new agency would work with existing police forces and other groups that fight financial crime. Two key speakers were Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and Minister of Justice Sean Fraser. Minister Anandasangaree explained that Canada is one of the only G7 countries without such an agency and that it would help stop criminals by cutting off their money supply. He also mentioned that 150 new personnel, including experts like forensic accountants, would be dedicated to this agency as part of 1,000 new RCMP hires. Minister Fraser highlighted that financial crimes cost Canadians over $600 million annually and that the new agency would centralize expertise and improve collaboration, especially for crimes that cross provincial or international borders. Conservative committee members, like Arpan Khanna and Roman Baber, questioned the need for a new agency, arguing it might duplicate efforts and pull resources from an already understaffed RCMP. They also raised concerns about the broad definition of "national interest" and "serious and complex financial crimes" in the proposed law, fearing it could give too much power to the Attorney General. Minister Fraser responded that the agency would fill gaps, not replace existing efforts, and that the discretion for prosecution would lie with the independent director of public prosecutions. Liberal committee members, like Marilyn Gladu and James Maloney, supported the proposed law, emphasizing the growing complexity of financial crimes and the need for better coordination and specialized resources. They also discussed the importance of recovering money from criminals to compensate victims. Officials from various departments, including Rob Stewart from the Financial Crimes Agency transition team, further explained that the agency would focus on "following the money" in organized crime and would work in partnership with other agencies like FINTRAC and the RCMP, rather than duplicating their roles. The committee agreed to dedicate future meetings to hearing more witnesses and considering amendments to the proposed law.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss a proposed law, C-238, which aims to change the Criminal Code regarding orders for offenders to pay money back (restitution orders). The main goal of the proposed law is to allow these payments to go to organizations that help victims of crimes. The committee members went through the proposed law section by section. A key discussion point was an amendment proposed by Viviane Lapointe, the person who introduced the proposed law. This amendment changed the wording to ensure that victims of crimes would still be paid back first, before any community organizations. Conservative committee member Andrew Lawton raised concerns that the amendment broadened the scope too much, allowing restitution to go to any community organization, even if it wasn't directly related to the crime or victims. He proposed a sub-amendment to clarify that the money should go to "frontline services to victims of the offence," which was agreed upon by the committee. Another Conservative member, Roman Baber, spoke against the proposed law potentially allowing money to go to drug consumption sites, arguing that these sites can cause more problems and are not always appropriate recipients of restitution. He shared a story about a tragic death near a supervised consumption site in Toronto to emphasize his point. However, his concerns did not stop the main amendment from passing. New Democratic Party member Jenny Kwan proposed an amendment that would require the Justice Minister to report annually on gaps in victim services across Canada. While committee members acknowledged the importance of the issue, some, like Marilyn Gladu and Rhéal Éloi Fortin, argued that this was outside the scope of the proposed law and might interfere with provincial responsibilities. This amendment was not passed. In the end, the committee approved the proposed law with the agreed-upon changes. They also elected Arpan Khanna as the new vice-chair from the official opposition. The committee will now report the amended proposed law to the House of Commons.

The committee met to discuss the process of nominating the Honourable Glenn D. Joyal to the Supreme Court of Canada, following the retirement of Justice Sheilah Martin. The discussion focused on the selection process, the qualifications of the nominee, and the importance of an independent and transparent appointment system. Justice Minister Sean Fraser spoke in support of Mr. Joyal, calling him an exceptional legal expert who meets the highest standards for the role. He explained that the appointment process involves a selection phase and an Independent Advisory Board, emphasizing that public confidence in the justice system relies on the integrity of this process. Mr. Fraser also addressed concerns about political influence, stating that judicial advisory committees are not allowed to consider political activities when making recommendations. Maureen McTeer, Chairperson of the Independent Advisory Board, detailed the rigorous selection process. She explained that the board, made up of eight independent members, reviewed nine applications from western and northern Canada. They interviewed four candidates, conducted language tests, and unanimously recommended two individuals, including Mr. Joyal, to the Prime Minister. Ms. McTeer highlighted Mr. Joyal's deep legal knowledge, extensive experience, and strong commitment to public service, also stressing the importance of confidentiality in the application process. Committee members asked questions about the transparency of the process, the role of diversity and regional representation, and whether provinces are consulted more directly. Concerns were raised about the short application period and the potential for political leanings to influence appointments, which the Minister and Ms. McTeer strongly refuted, emphasizing the independence of the board and the merit-based nature of selections. Marc Giroux, Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, confirmed his office's role in administering the process and ensuring its robustness. As next steps, the committee was informed that they would hold a question and answer session with Mr. Joyal later that day. Additionally, the Independent Advisory Board plans to release a public report within a month or six weeks, which will include recommendations for improving the Supreme Court appointment process.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss a proposed law (Bill C-238) that would change how restitution, or money paid by offenders to victims, is handled. This proposed law aims to allow organizations that help victims of crime to also receive restitution from offenders to cover the costs of their support services. Cristina Scarpellini from Angels of Hope Against Human Trafficking explained that human trafficking causes deep, lasting trauma and significant costs for survivors and the groups that support them. She emphasized that the proposed law would make offenders more responsible for these costs, which is crucial for survivors' long-term healing and recovery. Evie Ali from The Go-Give Project spoke about the severe impact of crime on vulnerable people, such as those experiencing homelessness or addiction, leading to financial losses. She highlighted that frontline organizations like hers absorb these costs and that the proposed law would acknowledge this burden. Committee members questioned the witnesses about the practical aspects of the proposed law, including how it might affect court trials and the process for organizations to collect funds from offenders. They also discussed how to prioritize the needs of individual victims alongside those of the support organizations. One committee member also asked about the witnesses' views on drug policy, particularly safe supply programs. No decisions were made on the proposed law during this meeting. A large portion of the session was spent on a procedural motion introduced by a committee member to discuss a different proposed law (Bill S-233), which aims to protect health care workers and first responders from assault. This led to a debate about the committee's schedule and previous communications. The meeting ended suddenly due to a vote in the House of Commons, without concluding the discussion on either the restitution proposed law or the procedural motion.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss a proposed law about payments from criminals to community groups, but first, they elected a new committee chair. James Maloney stepped down as chair, thanking the committee members for their work. Iqra Khalid was then elected as the new chair and also thanked Mr. Maloney for his service. The main discussion focused on proposed law C-238, introduced by Viviane Lapointe. She explained that the law aims to let judges order criminals involved in drug and human trafficking to pay money to community organizations. These organizations, like shelters and recovery groups, often face high costs helping victims and communities recover from these crimes. Ms. Lapointe said the law would give judges a new tool, recognizing the important but often "invisible" work of these groups, without taking away from payments to individual victims. Committee members raised several questions and concerns. Conservative members Andrew Lawton and Roman Baber questioned how effective these payments would be, noting that few court-ordered payments are actually collected. They also worried that money might be taken away from individual victims or used to fund programs like "safe supply" that they believe worsen crime. Bloc Québécois member Rhéal Éloi Fortin questioned how difficult it would be to prove these costs in court and if it would slow down criminal trials. Justice Department officials clarified that these payments are meant for easily proven costs and are not meant to replace civil lawsuits. Ms. Lapointe responded that the law is not meant to replace payments to individual victims, and she is open to amendments to make this clearer and potentially expand the law to cover other crimes like sexual violence. She also noted that organizations already track their costs for grant funding, so providing expense reports shouldn't be an extra burden. The committee approved the budget for studying the proposed law, and discussions will continue, likely including proposed changes to the bill.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss a proposed law, Bill C-235, aimed at changing the Criminal Code regarding parole for serious crimes. This proposed law would allow judges to set a longer period before offenders convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder can apply for parole, specifically between 25 and 40 years. The meeting began with a motion to extend the time for another proposed law, Bill C-223, which was approved. The committee then heard from several key speakers. Jo-Anne Landolt shared a deeply personal and emotional story about the murder of her niece, Kimberly, and the ongoing trauma her family experiences from repeated parole hearings for the offenders. She strongly supported the proposed law, hoping it would spare other families from similar stress. Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, also supported the bill's goal to reduce re-traumatization for victims' families, emphasizing the need for clear information and considering longer intervals between parole reviews. He also highlighted the importance of a fair process for all involved. Representatives from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Dale Weidman and Simon Authier, expressed support for the proposed law, agreeing that it would help victims' families by reducing the number of parole hearings. However, they also suggested amendments to ensure the law is legally sound and respects offenders' rights, particularly concerning the right to appeal and providing judges with clear guidelines for imposing longer parole ineligibility periods. They stressed the need to balance victims' rights with offenders' rights. During the discussion, committee members expressed their gratitude to Ms. Landolt for her courage. They explored the emotional and practical difficulties of the parole hearing process for victims' families and the importance of creating legally robust legislation. The committee then moved to a clause-by-clause review of the proposed law, where several amendments were proposed and agreed upon. The bill, with its amendments, was approved by the committee and will be reported to the House of Commons.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to talk about a proposed law, Bill C-235, which aims to change how long serious offenders must wait before they can ask for parole. The main goal of this proposed law is to protect the families of victims from having to relive terrible events during parole hearings. Mr. Jeff Kibble, the Member of Parliament who put forward this proposed law, explained that it is for the most dangerous criminals who commit abduction, sexual assault, and murder against the same person. He said that these criminals often use parole hearings to upset and hurt victims' families again. The proposed law would let judges decide to make these criminals wait longer for parole, up to 40 years instead of 25 years, meaning fewer painful hearings for families. He also made it clear that judges would still have the power to make the final decision. Committee members mostly agreed with the idea of helping victims' families. However, some members, like Ms. Gladu and Ms. Begum, asked Mr. Kibble about adding clearer rules to the proposed law. For example, they wanted to make sure it only applies to future crimes or that judges explain why they chose a certain parole waiting period. Mr. Kibble thought some of these changes might not be needed or could make the law too complicated. Justice Department officials, Ms. Joanna Wells and Ms. Erin Kelly, told the committee that the proposed law would likely be checked by courts to see if it follows Canada's constitution, especially because it extends the time before parole. They noted that judges having choices in sentencing is an important part of the proposed law. No final decisions were made at this meeting. The committee heard from the person who proposed the law and government experts. The discussion showed that the committee wants to make sure the proposed law is strong and fair. They plan to hear from a victim's family member at their next meeting to better understand how parole hearings affect them.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss a proposed law, Bill C-231, which aims to change the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This proposed law, also known as the "friends of David bill," focuses on helping young people with problematic drug use and mental health issues through early treatment rather than just punishment. The committee heard emotional testimonies and then moved on to make changes to the proposed law. Key speakers included MP Luc Berthold, who introduced the proposed law, and his wife, Caroline Levesque, and daughter, Justine Berthold. They shared the heartbreaking story of their son David, who struggled with addiction and mental health issues and ultimately took his own life. They explained that the current system failed to provide early intervention and treatment, and they hope this proposed law will give police, prosecutors, and judges better tools to refer young people to treatment programs before their situations worsen. They emphasized that drug use is often a symptom of deeper suffering. Angy Riendeau, a criminologist, also spoke, agreeing with the need for early intervention. However, she raised concerns about whether changing the law is the best solution, or if existing laws are simply not being used effectively due to a lack of resources for assessments and treatment programs. She highlighted that specialized support often depends on a family's ability to pay, which is a major problem. Committee members from all parties expressed their condolences and support for the proposed law. They discussed the importance of early intervention and the need for more resources and training for those working with youth. After the testimonies, the committee moved to make several changes to the proposed law, mainly to broaden its scope to include "problematic substance use" and other treatment programs, not just drug addiction. The committee then agreed to report the proposed law, with these changes, to the House of Commons.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss the Minister of Justice's main goals and the department's budget for the upcoming year. Minister Sean Fraser outlined his department's three main priorities for public safety: making criminal laws stronger, supporting police and community groups, and investing in prevention programs like affordable housing and mental health support. He mentioned several proposed laws aimed at these goals, including those addressing hate crimes, bail and sentencing reform, and protecting victims. Committee members questioned the Minister on various topics. Conservative committee member Larry Brock challenged Minister Fraser on his past views on mandatory minimum sentences and how a new proposed law (C-16) would affect them. Another Conservative committee member, Roman Baber, raised concerns about a proposed law (C-22) that would require companies to keep Canadians' internet data, arguing it might violate privacy rights. Liberal committee members Marilyn Gladu and Anju Dhillon asked about how proposed laws (C-14 and C-16) would address repeat violent offenders, protect frontline workers, and support victims of crime, including those affected by deepfakes. Bloc Québécois committee member Rhéal Éloi Fortin pressed the Minister on the "Clarity Act" and what would be considered a clear majority in a potential referendum in Quebec or Alberta, but the Minister avoided giving a direct answer, emphasizing the importance of a united Canada. There was also a brief discussion about combating anti-Semitism and the role of the federal government in addressing court delays. In the second hour, the committee was supposed to focus on the department's budget (main estimates). While specific budget line items weren't deeply discussed, Minister Fraser also spoke about his role with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), highlighting a new fund to build stronger communities and an economic panel to boost the region's productivity. No specific decisions were made, but the discussions clarified the government's approach to justice and public safety.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to continue its review of a proposed law that would change criminal and correctional rules about child protection, gender-based violence, delays in the justice system, and other issues. The committee was working through the proposed law, clause by clause, considering amendments. Larry Brock (Conservative) proposed a motion to prioritize future committee work, including inviting the Minister of Justice to discuss his priorities and considering other proposed laws related to youth criminal justice and parole ineligibility. This motion also suggested drafting a report on the bail system and studying the appointment of judges. However, this motion did not receive unanimous consent initially. Andrew Lawton (Conservative) questioned officials Leah Burt and Matthew Taylor from the Department of Justice about a "safety valve" in the proposed law that would allow judges to impose shorter sentences than mandatory minimums if the minimum punishment would be considered cruel and unusual. Lawton was concerned about how judges would determine if a punishment was cruel and unusual and whether they would consider the impact on victims. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Bloc Québécois) proposed an amendment to Brock's motion to include a study on the judicial appointment system, which had been previously agreed upon. Patricia Lattanzio (Liberal) expressed concerns about the committee's limited time and the need to prioritize government bills. Ultimately, Fortin's amendment was defeated, but Brock's motion to prioritize the Minister of Justice's appearance and other proposed laws was passed. The committee then completed its clause-by-clause review of the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to a law (Bill C-16) that aims to protect victims and make the justice system work faster. The committee reviewed the proposed law section by section, considering many suggested changes (amendments). They talked about things like protecting victims' privacy, ensuring fair treatment for Indigenous people, and setting appropriate punishments for crimes. Key speakers included Jenny Kwan (NDP), who proposed changes to better protect victims' rights and ensure fairness for Indigenous people in the justice system. Larry Brock (Conservative) focused on making sure punishments fit the crime, especially for serious offenses like extortion and sexual offenses against children. Michael Ellison (Department of Justice) provided legal advice, explaining how the proposed changes would affect existing laws and court processes. Patricia Lattanzio (Liberal) emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and ensuring that the proposed law would hold up in court. The committee agreed to some changes, such as expanding protections for victims of intimate partner violence and clarifying language to ensure the proposed law is consistent across different acts of Parliament. However, they rejected other changes, including proposals to eliminate the "safety valve" that allows judges to deviate from mandatory minimum sentences in certain cases. A proposal to add a mandatory minimum penalty for extortion involving a firearm was deferred, then ultimately rejected. Ultimately, the committee worked through the proposed law, clause by clause, voting on each section and proposed change. The next step is for the proposed law, as amended by the committee, to go back to the House of Commons for further debate and a final vote.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about criminal and correctional matters, focusing on protecting children, addressing gender-based violence, and reducing court delays. The committee reviewed Bill C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act, clause by clause, considering various amendments. Witnesses from the Department of Justice, Department of National Defence, and Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness were present to answer technical questions. Committee members debated several proposed amendments. Leah Gazan (NDP) suggested changes to better protect survivors of intimate partner violence and address the creation and distribution of sexually explicit deepfake images. Elizabeth May (Green Party) proposed extending protections against coercive control to seniors and other family members, but later withdrew her amendments. Conservative members, including Larry Brock and Roman Baber, challenged the scope of the proposed law and sought to reinstate mandatory minimum penalties for certain offenses, particularly those related to child pornography. These attempts were largely ruled out of order by the committee chair. Several amendments were adopted, including those related to testimonial aids, non-disclosure agreements, and the definition of "sexual organs." The committee also agreed to amendments addressing the removal of intimate images from the internet and clarifying the application of criminal harassment laws. The meeting was at times contentious, with disagreements over the scope of the proposed law and the use of the notwithstanding clause. The committee will continue its clause-by-clause review of the proposed law at a future meeting.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-16, also called the Protecting Victims Act. The committee heard from various witnesses about different aspects of the proposed law, including intimate partner violence, coercive control, online exploitation, and elder abuse. Several witnesses spoke about the importance of addressing coercive control, which involves patterns of controlling and intimidating behavior. Inspector Valarie Gates from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and Chief Thai Truong from the London Police Service, emphasized the need for training and resources for police to identify and respond to these patterns effectively. Melanie Webb from the Canadian Bar Association raised concerns about mandatory minimum sentences and their potential impact on court delays and fairness. Other witnesses, such as Leah Zille from Child and Youth Advocacy Centres of Canada, and Lindsay Jolie from Boost Child & Youth Advocacy Centre, focused on protecting children from online exploitation and abuse. They highlighted the need for stronger laws and resources to address these issues. Marta Hajek from Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario, discussed the importance of protecting seniors from coercive control and abuse, particularly from family members and caregivers. Dr. Naomi Parker from the Kindex Research and Knowledge Centre, suggested improvements to the proposed law, such as graduated sexual offence categories and formalizing trauma-informed frameworks. The committee discussed the need for a balance between protecting victims and ensuring fairness in the justice system. Some committee members raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposed law on repeat offenders and the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. The committee acknowledged the importance of training, resources, and collaboration between different agencies to effectively implement the proposed law and protect vulnerable populations.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act. The committee heard from several witnesses about different aspects of the proposed law, including mandatory minimum sentences, elder abuse, and victims' rights. The committee is trying to understand if the proposed law will help victims and if it is fair. Colton Fehr, a professor, talked about the safety valve clause in the proposed law, which would allow judges to give a lesser sentence in some cases where a mandatory minimum sentence would be too harsh. He suggested some factors that should not be considered when deciding whether to use the safety valve. Joanne Blinco, from the Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council, spoke about coercive control in elder abuse, where older adults are manipulated and controlled. She said that this is often a hidden problem, especially for older women. Benjamin Roebuck, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, said that the proposed law is a big step forward for victims' rights, but that there are still some things that need to be improved, like making it easier for victims to get information and complain about violations of their rights. During the meeting, committee members asked questions about how the proposed law would work in practice and whether it would be effective in protecting victims. They also discussed the definition of femicide, which is the killing of a woman because she is a woman. Some committee members wanted to make sure that the proposed law would not unfairly punish people from marginalized communities. Other witnesses including Nancy Boucher, Rizwan Khan and Liz Brown also testified on the bill. Some witnesses suggested changes to the proposed law, such as expanding the definition of coercive control to include abuse by family members other than intimate partners. The committee will consider these suggestions as it continues its study of the proposed law. No decisions were made during the meeting, but the committee is gathering information to help it make informed decisions about the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws related to criminal and correctional matters, focusing on protecting victims. The committee heard from several witnesses about their perspectives on the proposed law. The first panel included representatives from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Daughter Project Canada, and the London Abused Women's Centre. They discussed topics like femicide, coercive control, online sexual exploitation of children, and the need for prevention and education. Jennifer Dunn from the London Abused Women's Centre emphasized the importance of recognizing femicide but cautioned against criminalizing coercive control without proper training for police, lawyers, and judges. Monique St. Germain from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection supported changes aimed at protecting children from online exploitation and image-based abuse. Kristin Szabo from Daughter Project Canada recommended strengthening the definition of "intimate image" and addressing online exploitation through shared responsibility between individuals, platforms, communities, and governments. All three emphasized the need for more data collection and public reporting on child sexual exploitation. The second panel included Kendra Cooke, who shared her personal experiences with intimate partner violence and coercive control, highlighting the need for better support systems for victims. Angela Marinos from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights proposed providing independent legal representation for victims of sexual violence and sex trafficking. Andrew Ullock and Lisa Henderson from the Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association emphasized the importance of restoring mandatory minimum sentences for child exploitation offenses and addressing unreasonable delays in trials. The committee approved a budget of $46,600 for the study.