THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 3, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:19 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, my name is David Arnot. I am a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of this committee.
I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from La Salle division, Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. Welcome. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: We are meeting to begin our study of the subject matter of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, specifically, the elements contained in Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome officials from the Department of Justice Canada: Sarah Geh, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector; Anna Dekker, Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Judicial Affairs Section, by video conference; Marie-Josée Poirier, Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section; Sacha Baharmand, Deputy Director General and General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section; and Jenna MacDonald, General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section.
Welcome, and thank you for joining us here today, members of this panel. We will begin with your opening remarks, and then we will move to questions from the senators. From the Department of Justice, I will ask you to speak for five minutes. Ms. Geh, please proceed. Thank you.
Sarah Geh, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you. Good afternoon, honourable chair and committee members.
[Translation]
Thank you for inviting us to appear today before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to speak to Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, the Budget 2025 Implementation Act, tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Division 30 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act to repurpose 10 previously approved trial pool positions in Ontario’s superior trial court.
[English]
These amendments allow for the timely allocation of judicial resources in a way that allows superior courts in Ontario to respond to pressures in the justice system, including workload pressures at the Ontario Court of Appeal.
[Translation]
Division 31 of Part 5 amends the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act to give the service statutory authority to continue providing support services to territorial bodies, including Yukon labour relations boards.
[English]
I would note that Division 32 of Part 5, which also includes amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, or ATSSC Act, to give the service statutory authority to continue supporting the Environmental Protection Tribunals of Canada, was considered separately yesterday by the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I will start with Division 30. Amendments to the Judges Act would repurpose funding originally authorized in Budget 2018 for Unified Family Courts, or UFCs, and reprofiled in Budget 2024. This repurpose of existing positions gives effect to a request from Ontario and its superior courts regarding the allocation of Ontario’s judicial resources.
Salaries for 10 judicial Superior Court trial judge positions previously allocated to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice through Budget 2024 would be repurposed to convert eight of those positions to unified family court judges. This will support the establishment of a new UFC site in Brampton, Ontario, and will benefit people and families by improving access to justice in family matters.
[Translation]
The amendments also create authority to appoint two additional judges to the Ontario Court of Appeal in order to respond to demonstrated workload pressures.
[English]
Moving now to Division 31, the amendments to the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act provide the Minister of Justice with authority to add territorial bodies to the ATSSC’s support mandate. This will provide the ATSSC with the statutory authority to continue supporting territorial bodies, including the Yukon Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Yukon Teachers Labour Relations Board.
Pursuant to long-standing and historical practice, full-time members of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board have also constituted the members of both of these Yukon labour relations boards. Both territorial and federal statutes provide and allow for this. The federal government has supported this arrangement since the 1970s.
In this particular case, giving the Minister of Justice authority to add territorial bodies to the statutory support mandate of the administrative support service will allow for the confirmation of existing practice and will ensure consistency in the support services provided to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board members regardless of whether they’re wearing their federal or territorial hats.
[Translation]
It will also allow the Yukon labour relations boards, and any other territorial board added to Part II of the schedule, to consistently benefit from the full suite of ATSSC support services. These services include, for example, a streamlined, single point of contact, case management systems, translation services and enhanced digital capabilities.
[English]
From a financial perspective, I would note that one of the statutory preconditions to the addition of territorial bodies to the new Part 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act Schedule is that the Minister of Justice be of the opinion that there is a satisfactory funding arrangement in place for the provision of support services and facilities to the territorial body. This will ensure that there is fair cost recovery from the territory for the provision of those services.
[Translation]
I understand that with respect to Yukon labour boards, the Chief Administrator of the ATSSC and the Yukon government fully support these amendments to the ATSSC Act.
At no additional cost to the federal government, the Division 31 amendments will give the Minister of Justice authority to regularize long-standing practice, improve cost‑effective service delivery and maintain ongoing collaboration between the federal government and that of the Yukon.
[English]
We are now happy to take any questions you may have on the amendments in Divisions 30 and 31. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks. We will now proceed to questions from members of the committee. Five minutes, please.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for being here. I will start by asking you a basic question. Why increase the number of judges only in Ontario, compared to the other provinces?
Is this the only place where there is a notable shortage of court of appeal judges?
Ms. Geh: Thank you. I can give Ms. Poirier the floor.
Ms. Marie-Josée Poirier, Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Department of Justice Canada: These are not new judge positions; they are positions initially allocated in the 2018 budget, and repurposed in the 2024 budget.
In 2024, 17 positions needed to be repurposed, including 10 previously allocated to Ontario.
Following this decision, Ontario asked to change or repurpose certain positions again to expand their unified family courts in Brampton for eight positions and for two positions at the Court of Appeal.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: These positions already existed in other forms?
Ms. Poirier: Indeed.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Will this have an effect on the overall number of judicial positions? In recent years, we’ve been told about the shortage of judges. Could the changes you are making affect the fact that filling judicial positions is difficult?
Ms. Poirier: What the legislation does is allocate six positions. As it stands, they were already created under the Judges Act. However, the act is being amended to allow these positions to be allocated specifically under subsection 24(4). That means we are talking about positions within the Unified Family Court and other positions for judges at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why does Ontario want more unified family courts? How are these courts more relevant than those being abolished?
Ms. Poirier: No courts are being abolished here; we are simply changing the positions. Ontario wants to expand those courts. Currently, in some parts of the province, unified family courts already exist. By the end of the 1970s, Ontario had unified family court positions. In 2019, when the government expanded the application of family courts, Ontario expressed its intention to expand the unified court system throughout the province by 2025. Part of this task was accomplished in 2019, and Ontario is now asking that the positions allocated to it under the 2024 budget be specifically repurposed under the provision allowing for the appointment of judges to unified family courts.
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to thank you for providing us with very informative questions and answers. You understood the issues that might be raised.
My question is on the entirety of Part 5, regardless of the section. In your questions and especially your answers, among the objectives of section 30, I noted the desire to respond to existing caseload pressures at the Ontario Court of Appeal. Same thing in sections 31 and 32; we want to improve cost-effective service delivery, make government more efficient and reduce expenses.
Furthermore, the understanding is that costs are incurred only when a judge is appointed or expenditures occur. For sections 31 and 32, you talked about improving service delivery. In those same sections, regarding the Administrative Tribunals Service of Canada, environmental review officers will benefit from the entire suite of administrative support services.
My general question is the following: How will these measures as a whole reduce delays and improve service delivery, regardless of the section? That’s the aspect I would like you to tell us more about. Do you have projections about the positive impact on reducing delays and on judges’ availability if administrative support services were asked to better support them?
Ms. Poirier: Firstly, I can respond to the Judges Act amendments. Regarding caseloads, when provinces ask for new judges, they must prepare a file in which they provide us with very specific data. With respect to the Court of Appeal, the province did indeed provide that information. That means it’s taken into consideration during the analysis and the recommendation made to the minister.
Senator Saint-Germain: But you don’t have specific data to say that the estimate in Ontario, for example, for the Court of Appeal —
Ms. Poirier: I do not have any to provide to you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Very well.
For sections 31 and 32, do you have any answers regarding estimated efficiency improvements, specifically in terms of reducing delays or caseloads for the stakeholders involved?
[English]
Jenna MacDonald, General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you. What has happened at the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada is that, since they were created in 2014, they developed quite an advanced case management and digital service system. So when tribunals join them, they are able to take advantage immediately of the support systems that are in place. I understand that the chair of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board is appearing tomorrow, and she can speak to the particular impact it has had on the delays or any caseload issues.
The chief administrator yesterday explained that being supported by the ATSSC — because they support a grouping of tribunals — means that they can move their resources around to respond to surges at various tribunals when there are more quiet periods before other tribunals. In that sense, it helps to reduce caseloads and delays for the tribunals that it supports.
[Translation]
Ms. Sacha Baharmand, Deputy Director General and General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Department of Justice Canada: I could add to that answer.
I believe the Deputy Chief Administrator will appear before the committee tomorrow. One of the things he may raise is ATSSC’s digital strategy — to use the acronym you used, Senator Saint-Germain — which aims to surpass what Ms. McDonald described, so as to deal with court delays for people appearing before them.
Senator Saint-Germain: Very good. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here. Sections 15.1(2) and section 15.1(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, or ATSSCA, impose requirements on the Department of Justice Canada before the minister can add a territorial body to the list for support services. Primarily, the Minister of Justice must be of the opinion that there is satisfactory funding for the provision of support services.
What would constitute a satisfactory funding arrangement in the opinion of the minister?
Ms. MacDonald: Thank you for the question. The language “in the opinion” was intended to provide flexibility, because what might be satisfactory in one fiscal climate might be different in another. But for the moment, satisfactory funding is ensuring basically that, in supporting these territorial boards, the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada will still have sufficient funds to support all of the bodies — sufficiently resourced to support all of the tribunals it is responsible for. So satisfactory funding could vary from time to time. It is supposed to be flexible and allowed to be negotiated perhaps with the territory with respect to the resources they can share with the ATSSC to provide those services.
Senator Simons: Is it the minister’s office that would have to decide in each case based on the minister’s opinion?
Ms. MacDonald: Yes.
Senator Simons: There is a fine line between being flexible and being obscure, I guess. How will the territories know what criteria they have to meet to be considered satisfactory?
Ms. MacDonald: What will happen, or should happen, is that the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada will negotiate with the territory the services that they require from the service as well as what the territory is able to contribute to the provision of those services, and that information is then shared with the minister, and he will reflect upon whether that is sufficient in consultation with his territorial counterparts as well as the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada.
Senator Simons: I want to clarify: How many provinces have a Unified Family Court now? I remember last year, Alberta gave money back because they didn’t want to have a Unified Family Court.
Ms. Poirier: There is one province-wide in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, and partial implementation of Unified Family Courts in Ontario and Newfoundland.
Senator Simons: But not British Columbia or Alberta.
Ms. Poirier: No.
Senator Simons: The idea of the Unified Family Court is to be efficient, but is it also meant to have a cost saving?
Ms. Poirier: Yes. Do you want to answer that question, Anna?
Anna Dekker, Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Judicial Affairs Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for the question. Generally, the model has been one that would lead to sustainable and lasting conclusions in family law matters. For example, a province can establish a Unified Family Court, or UFC, in a way that best suits their population and their court structure. Generally, they include some factors such as a single court exercising family law rather than being divided between the Superior Court and the provincial court, for example. Simplified procedures are often part of the model as well as specialist judges, such as those that would be appointed to the UFCs. Also, a last thing that many provinces have used are Family Justice Services that are either court annexed or out of court, and the combination of all those factors are intended to allow greater access to justice to families. Cost savings could be part of it because ideally it would lead to more efficient and more lasting outcomes.
Senator Simons: Senator Miville-Dechêne already asked why this only applies to Ontario, and you explained that this what they had asked for.
Is the federal government still negotiating with the other provinces to convince them to adopt a Unified Family Court, using funding as a carrot? What is the status of the Unified Family Court project? Are there provinces waiting to see how it works?
Ms. Dekker: I can answer that. Unified Family Courts, or UFCs, were first implemented in the early 1970s, and they were based on pilot projects for provinces that expressed an interest in participating. Since then, there have been several stages of expansion. The most recent one, as my colleagues have mentioned, was in 2018. As all the other expansions have been, that was on the basis of a general call to jurisdictions that wished to participate, and they put forward a business case about how they would like to participate.
In 2019 expansion was announced through the 2018 budget, but it came into force in 2019. That allowed for expansion in Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Alberta. As you mentioned, Alberta has declined to participate in UFCs at this time, so those were reallocated to address other parts of the system.
At this point, there is not expected to be a general call out. However, as has been shown in how the government has responded, there is support for the Unified Family Court model. But given that the administration of justice is a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces, it does require collaboration and consultation on both sides.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you for being with us today. My question focuses specifically on provincial administrative costs. Under Canadian law, we know the federal government appoints and compensates superior court judges, but provinces and territories take on the majority of court administrative costs.
In the Department of Justice documents, you referred to your ongoing work with provinces and territories on judicial resource needs, specifically for unified family courts and appeal courts.
Within the framework of your recent conversations, how are the provinces’ expressed needs currently reflected in section 30 of Bill C-15, knowing that the provinces continue to bear these administrative costs?
Ms. Geh: Thank you for the question. There is the creation of positions and also the matter of filling them. That’s different.
Regarding the provincial request assessment process, the Judicial Affairs Section helps the Minister of Justice respond to requests for a greater number of superior court judges.
Every year, the Assistant Deputy Minister — me, in this case — sends a letter to their counterparts in each province and territory to launch the request assessment process for additional superior court judges. The letter includes deadlines for submitting the business case in support of a request, taking into account the federal budget cycle’s current timeline.
I believe Ms. Poirier referred to the letter and business case for requests.
Senator Oudar: Were the needs expressed by provinces and territories reflected in the choices we have before us today? My question was not on procedure, but thank you for the information.
Based on the provinces’ replies to you, what guided your choices?
Ms. Poirier: In this year’s budget, there are no new positions.
Or rather, was your question intended to find out if requests followed up on the Assistant Deputy Minister’s letter to her counterparts to determine if there was a need for more . . . Was that your question?
Senator Oudar: It’s hard for us to know, because we don’t know what letter you’re referring to, or what answers you received.
Could you fill us in on the replies the provinces sent to you, and tell us if they are met by what we have before us today?
Ms. Poirier: A letter is sent out every year to all provinces and territories, asking them to provide us with a business case to determine if they need more judges.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide information on that, because we have a memorandum of understanding with the provinces and territories. All the information belongs to the courts; it’s confidential. I cannot disclose information about provinces that made requests or the requests that were accepted. I’m sorry I cannot answer your question directly.
Ms. Geh: We’re halfway through the process of analyzing my counterparts’ responses.
[English]
Right now, for this particular budget, we are repurposing some positions for Ontario, but there are outstanding business cases with us that we still have to analyze for the next cycle.
The Chair: There are 30 seconds left, actually.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I have a question on the Jordan ruling. I think I may need more time.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Second round.
Senator K. Wells: Could you tell me what funding you are providing — or another way to look at it would be cost savings — to a province that participates in this program?
Ms. Geh: This is the Unified Family Courts?
Senator K. Wells: Yes.
Ms. Geh: I don’t have any information on the specific cost savings. Anna, I’m not sure if you have anything to add, so I’ll turn to you.
Ms. Dekker: Thank you. As part of what I said before, the jurisdiction over justice is split between the provinces and the federal government. In this case, the administration of justice would include support for judges, and that would be whether they are at the provincial court level or at the Superior Court level. UFCs are at the Superior Court level. Sometimes, the way a province can see savings is that if there is the creation or expansion of a Unified Family Court within their territory and there are judges of the provincial court who are then appointed to a new position at the UFC, the provincial government who pays the provincial court judges would then save those salary dollars since now it is for the federal government to pay the judicial salaries for doing that same work at the Superior Court level.
So there might be some provincial savings, but they would still have to support the judges in terms of chambers, registrars and assistants and so on. Those costs would still be borne by the province.
What has happened in past expansions is that any salary savings the province realizes through appointments from the provincial court to the Superior Court have been reinvested into family justice services, so overall, there is the same level of investment — or more investment, in fact — into family justice.
Senator K. Wells: Would it be safe to say that participation in the program would strengthen this family court process and the provinces that are participating?
Ms. Dekker: There are different ways of looking at it. The federal government, yes, has supported in the past, and many provinces — as we have seen — have taken part; others have opted not to take part.
Senator K. Wells: What would you say the value of creating these programs is for Canadians who were dealing with a very stressful and difficult personal situation? What is the benefit of having this program for somebody who is coming before this unified court versus a system that doesn’t have it?
Ms. Geh: I will turn to Anna in a moment, but it will depend on province by province and the extent of family services in addition to the family court system that exists in each province. One of the advantages, as Anna mentioned previously, is that, because of the division of authorities between the federal government and the provincial governments with respect to superior courts and provincial courts, there is an advantage to having a UFC and simplifying, in some sense, the access to justice for those families who need to access family courts.
Senator K. Wells: I would welcome further comments online.
Ms. Dekker: That covers what I would say. Again, the specialized judges, annex justice services and so on are intended to provide help to families who are experiencing family breakdown which can be stressful, of course.
Senator K. Wells: So this would create a more compassionate, humane system that provides more appropriate or faster access to justice. These are good investments to be making that benefit Canadians who are having to go through this process.
Ms. Geh: Yes, we think there is a benefit to UFCs, including for the people who are going through family justice issues.
Senator K. Wells: Great, thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, folks, for being here today. Apologies for not being here at the onset and missing some of your presentations.
I just want to pick up from where my colleague left off with the UFCs — strange saying it that way — the Unified Family Courts. I’ve heard that they are for simplifying access, reducing barriers, time savings, streamlining and greater support. Are there metrics to support all of that and data that you collect?
Ms. Geh: I don’t have any data with me right now. I can turn to Anna or Marie-Josée to see if they have any.
Ms. Poirier: I don’t have data with me, no.
Senator Dhillon: Is there data?
Ms. Poirier: It is collected by the provinces and territories, so it varies a lot from one jurisdiction to another. When the provinces provide a business case to us, they do have to provide data, yes.
Senator Dhillon: Is that data available to this committee?
Ms. Poirier: We cannot share the business cases that were provided to us, but if it’s publicly available we can see if we can provide this information. I don’t know if the data is publicly available.
Senator Dhillon: Just a commentary on my end. I’m not in any way, shape or form questioning your deliberations or decision-making process around establishing this. Conceptually it makes all the sense in the world. I’m surprised to see that British Columbia hasn’t taken advantage of it. As I am from British Columbia, I have some interest in bringing some of those services to British Columbians. But I am also curious about what that decision-making process is guided by when it comes to those metrics?
If it’s different from province to province, it piques my curiosity more as to the threshold of the return on the investment that is being made, and whether those concepts that I’ve laid out — which you folks have spoken about very eloquently — are being met and whether they are exactly deliberating on those particular expectations.
Ms. Poirier: What we have heard is that when there are UFCs, there are family justice services like mediation and parental education, and most of the time, it helps people to settle. It’s often the same judge that will hear the case. The family is accompanied in the case as well, so that’s helpful. That’s the main reason why some jurisdictions want to implement those types of courts.
Senator Dhillon: I’m not arguing with that at all. I accept all that you have said. All I’m looking for are metrics that support exactly what you’ve just shared that are actually ground truth. I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you for being here and providing answers to our questions.
As I am from Ontario, I don’t want to boast too much about our UFCs, but maybe I should. I haven’t practised family law in my career here in Ontario, but, generally speaking, UFCs have received a lot of interest and investment and are generally seen positively. I certainly understand the questions coming from my colleagues outside of Ontario.
I want to thank you, as did Senator Saint-Germain, for the overview document providing information and questions. You’ve answered questions about how many should be appointed, but I’m interested in who is being appointed. In your overview, you say how many federally appointed judges there are and how many are women. That number is 49.16% women; we’ve come a long way, and that’s great.
I wonder if you have more data around who else is being appointed. I know you probably do keep that, but if you could answer with regard to the different racialized, other minority communities, it would be interesting.
[Translation]
Ms. Poirier: The Department of Justice Canada doesn’t hold that information; it’s the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, which produces a report every October. The proportion of men, women, racialized people and persons with disabilities selected for superior court positions is recorded in that report.
Senator Clement: Have we made any gains on that level as well?
Ms. Poirier: Indeed, we made gains there as well. In 2016, a policy was amended with respect to diversity. Therefore, it’s all taken into consideration by the committee in charge of assessing judicial candidates. It’s part of the conditions. However, I’ll say it again: The Department of Justice Canada is completely uninvolved in the process.
Senator Clement: You’re aware of those files and you follow them anyway?
Ms. Poirier: Yes. When developing policy, the minister is involved, but the appointment process is actually covered by the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. It’s responsible for assessing candidates and recommending them or not.
Senator Clement: The Judges Act was recently amended to include a bit more language about diversity. Diversity is mentioned in the legislation, but the process still remains separate.
Ms. Poirier: Exactly.
Senator Clement: Very well, thank you.
I’m really looking forward to hearing the answer to Senator Oudar’s last question, so I hope you will be on the second round.
Senator Oudar: I already tipped my hand on the Jordan ruling, with which I’m certain you are familiar. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the government’s responsibility to structure the justice system in a way that upholds rights guaranteed under section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don’t know if you already talked about it, but I am interested in section 30 of the bill, where it reassigns existing positions to meet certain targeted needs you described, namely for the Court of Appeal and family courts.
We know that for the courts, many reports still highlight a rather generalized crisis affecting the legal system’s ability to meet deadlines.
I’d like to know this: How do you reconcile the reassignments we are talking about today, which are in the bill, with the constitutional requirements included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the principles of the Jordan ruling, which require the government to properly administer the justice system? Did you have analyses to guide your choices?
Ms. Geh: I think there’s no analysis we can share with the committee. Obviously, deadlines in the criminal justice system are a significant part of our concerns and those of our department.
[English]
In relation to section 30, I think the focus is following the request from Ontario about the Unified Family Courts, or UFCs, but there are the two Court of Appeal positions that, as they hear appeals from the lower courts, are intended to address some of the judicial resources pressures that Ontario is feeling.
This is just a focused repurposing in this particular provision, but there is an overall process both for the creation of judicial positions and also the filling of judicial positions that I know our minister and the commission is focused on.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: If you haven’t done any analysis, or if you don’t have empirical data, how can you know if the reassignments we’re talking about today will uphold the principles of the Jordan ruling?
Ms. Poirier: The analysis is done when new positions are created.
In section 30 more specifically, those positions were already assigned to Ontario, to the general division. Changes were made at their request to assign to positions to the Court of Appeal, which will certainly benefit from them.
As Ms. Geh said, the Court of Appeal hears trial court cases. As for the other eight positions, the change is being made at Ontario’s request to assign those positions to unified family courts.
Senator Oudar: Do you have data or statistics on current delays with the courts and the failure to meet certain deadlines? Do you look at that on the Department of Justice side?
Ms. Poirier: It’s one of the things we look at when provinces present requests to increase the number of judges.
Provinces must provide us with information on empirical data, as I was saying, but unfortunately, it is confidential.
It’s one of the criteria we look at. Obviously, everything to do with workload, wait times, scheduling, etc., it’s all data that . . . If it’s not provided to us in the initial request, we work with our provincial counterparts to try and get the information, with the goal of providing a legal opinion to our minister that includes all the data, yes.
Senator Oudar: If data on the delays were anonymized, could they not be shared with the committee?
Ms. Poirier: Only if they are public. The data we obtain as part of assessing new positions are confidential, due to the memorandum we signed with the provinces and the courts.
Senator Oudar: You don’t conduct any analyses other than those the provinces provide to you?
No general analysis is done by the Department of Justice with regard to the principles of the Jordan ruling on the government’s responsibility to ensure that the justice system is structured in such a way as to comply with section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in relation to section 7?
Am I correct in understanding that no Department of Justice analyses exist to support these principles? Aside from what you receive from the provinces, do you not conduct more general analyses on the government’s obligation to structure our legal system in line with the Jordan ruling?
[English]
Ms. Geh: Within Justice Canada, there is clearly a focus on the issue of the criminal justice system and how that functions. With respect to criminal cases where Jordan would apply, we have the provincial courts, which each province is responsible for filling and maintaining, and then there are the Superior Courts. So the question of Jordan timelines will impact both systems, so it really is a collaboration with the provinces and their statistics and how they gather the statistics, which may differ from province to province.
There may be some analysis within the Department of Justice with respect to the criminal justice system across all of the provinces, but because the Jordan timelines don’t relate to the Unified Family Courts that we’re talking about here, unfortunately, we don’t have that analysis with us.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: My question does not pertain only to family courts. If an analysis exists, it would be good for the Department of Justice to tell us about it.
I understand you’re not authorized to disclose information coming from the provinces. However, if the federal government, through the Department of Justice, analyzes the application of the Jordan ruling and unresolved wait times within the legal system, I would like us to benefit from it and be able to read it. Thank you in advance.
[English]
Ms. Geh: We can take the question back, although, as I mentioned, the criminal justice system will involve both provincial courts as well as Superior Courts with respect to that analysis.
The Chair: We look forward to something you can produce in writing in answer to Senator Oudar’s questions.
I want to thank the witnesses for taking their time to be here today and for assisting us in our deliberations. Thank you very much.
We will now discuss the committee’s future business. There are three items to discuss. The first one is an update on Bill S-209. First, I would like to provide an update pursuant to the motion adopted on October 29, 2025, during our study of Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material, which concerned the committee’s authority to compel a witness to appear to provide testimony under oath.
Your steering committee has carefully considered the concerns raised by the members of the committee here. In assessing this matter, we reviewed the relevant testimonies as well as subsequent correspondence received by the committee in relation to that evidence. We also examined the procedural options available to the committee and sought the legal advice of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.
Based on this review, your steering committee is of the view that no further action be taken at this time and that the committee proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-209 in February 2026.
We wish to thank members for their deliberation in bringing this matter forward. Are there any questions?
Senator Tannas: Thank you for giving the subject the consideration that it warranted. I appreciate the time that everybody put into this, and I appreciate that Senator Miville-Dechêne tolerated the delay of her bill.
The Chair: We’ll leave that matter and go to the next item.
I would like to draw your attention to the two draft orders of reference for special studies that were circulated to all members.
The first motion concerns the committee’s special study on Criminal Code reform, and the second relates to an update on the delays in the court system. With respect to the Criminal Code reform study, steering intends to start this special study when there is an opportunity in the new year by inviting a broad range of stakeholders whom we discussed as a committee earlier this fall. These would include representatives from law enforcement, victims groups and communities that are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system, such as Indigenous, Black and LGBTQ+ communities.
The second long-term study involves reviewing and updating the committee’s previous report on court delays. The remaining ideas and proposals that were discussed earlier this fall, such as inviting the Chief Electoral Officer in conducting statutory reviews, can be examined under the committee’s general order of reference and scheduled on an ad hoc basis.
Members are encouraged to forward any witness suggestions for each study to the clerk.
If the members are agreeable with the wording of these two motions for the larger special studies, I’ll proceed to present them to the Senate this week. Are there any questions regarding the two draft orders of reference?
Senator Simons: I have a question about the timing of things. I understand what you’re saying that Senator Pate’s idea can be done under the general order of reference, and that Senator Batters’ idea can be done under the general order of reference.
The Chair: And Senator Dhillon.
Senator Simons: Yes, Senators Dhillon and Pate had something quite similar about the reviews of things that were supposed to have been done. What would receive priority? I don’t think we ever decided on the timing of things.
The Chair: I don’t think we have had a discussion on priority.
Senator Simons: The way you’ve dated these, the Criminal Code review has to be wound up basically before we could begin to look at court delays because of the timing of the conclusions. One has to be done by December of 2027, and the other has to be done by December of 2028.
The Chair: What would you suggest? What’s your concern?
Senator Simons: My concern is that I don’t recall us deciding that the Criminal Code review should be our top priority.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Simons: In fact, there was some discussion that doing something smaller might be more prudent given the demands on our time. We are going to be slammed in the new year. We’re going to have Bill C-9 and Bill C-14. Depending on what happens with Bill C-4, there may be Bill C-4 carry-over. We just don’t know. So the idea that in the new year we’ll be able to start a deep dive into the Criminal Code may be a bit optimistic.
The Chair: I don’t disagree with that. I don’t know if we’ll ever get to any of these studies.
Senator Simons: I am just wondering if there isn’t some practical merit in choosing a smaller study, a more contained study, to make our priority. That doesn’t stop you from putting these orders of reference on the table, and then we’ll have them.
Senator K. Wells: In light of those comments, what if we just changed both dates for the final report to be the same period, and then we can come back and prioritize at another time? That just leaves all the options open.
The Chair: That’s reasonable. So December 31, 2028, for both? Okay. The idea of a priority to all of the suggestions is yet to be determined.
The steering committee will take this under advisement. Are you in agreement that I should be authorized to present these two special studies to the chamber this week?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed that the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate for the following order of reference on the current state of court delays in the criminal justice system and, as well, the authority from the Senate for the following order of reference on modernizing and clarifying the Criminal Code?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It’s agreed on both. Okay.
Third matter: As a final item, I would like to provide a few reminders and updates regarding the next meetings. Bill C-15, the budget implementation act: The committee will focus its attention on the study of the budget implementation act this week and continue through next Wednesday to review and discuss a draft report. Members are invited to prepare any observations they may wish to propose in advance if possible.
With respect to Bill S-205 and Bill S-209, we will then resume our study of Bill S-205 next Thursday, December 11, and we will turn to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-209 in February 2026.
Senator Simons: Will Bill C-4 bump Bill C-15?
The Chair: It may. It will, because if it comes in, we’ll have to do it.
Senator Clement: We are not going to get Bill C-4.
Senator Simons: Senator Clement means that it’s not going to come out of the House in time.
Senator Batters: That would, of course, depend on what kind of reference we get from the Senate about that, as far as a reporting date, because the reporting date on Bill C-15 isn’t actually until mid-February. So if there is an earlier reporting date than that on Bill C-4, that would dictate that, but if there isn’t, then it wouldn’t.
Senator Simons: I would like to note that this is a pre-study. But you’re right; it still has a time limit.
The Chair: Are there any further comments on what we’ve just discussed?
Finally, I wish to thank all the members for their participation and collaboration throughout this session of Parliament.
As chair, I’ve endeavoured to be flexible with respect to members’ questioning time. However, you probably noticed today that I changed that somewhat. We’ll restrict senators to five minutes with a one-minute notice, subject to my unfettered discretion.
Moving forward, I’ll be adopting a more structured approach to ensure all members have an opportunity to pose their questions. As such, questioning will generally be limited to five minutes for each member, subject to circumstances.
That sums up the items that I wanted to raise.
Are there any other questions or concerns people would like to raise in the committee? Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)