THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 10, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to study 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.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. We’re meeting to continue our study of the subject matter in 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.
Today’s purpose is intended to allow members to discuss the divisions under study, reflect on the testimony received thus far and provide the analysts with drafting instructions for the draft report we will examine at our first meeting in February of 2026. I should note that the Honourable Minister of Justice and Attorney GeneralSean Fraser has confirmed his appearance before the committee on Bill C-15 on Wednesday, February 4, 2026. As per steering committee’s plan, the committee will proceed to finalize and adopt its report shortly following the testimony of the minister.
Do the members have any observations they would like to put forward? I have one observation from Senator Oudar, and I will speak to another matter.
I have five observations, but there is an issue. The issue is that they are in English only, and I feel strongly that they should be in French. I have spoken to some colleagues, and they have advised me, as has the clerk, that if I put these amendments forward, I could read them, and then they would be translated into French by the interpreters. I have copies for all the senators. There are five of them. They are based on the testimony of witnesses, and they are meant for discussion purposes. I don’t feel strongly about any of these observations other than I believe they are in compliance with the testimony. So it is up to the committee to decide whether they want to support them or not.
Does anybody have an objection if I distribute these five observations in English to all members of the committee?
An Hon. Senator: I don’t have an objection.
Senator Simons: Were they circulated earlier?
The Chair: No.
Senator Simons: May we see a copy of them?
The Chair: Yes. That’s what we are going to do.
[Translation]
Senator Simons: Is it only in English?
[English]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes. Read them — they will be translated —
Senator Simons: By the interpreters as we read them. Okay.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: If you have an objection, you —
[Translation]
Senator Simons: I do not need it, but maybe for the others.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, we just opened the meeting. I failed to ask the senators to identify themselves knowing that Senator Tannas and Senator Batters wouldn’t be here until now, so now I will ask you to identify yourselves for the record.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Busson: Senator Bev Busson, British Columbia.
The Chair: My name is David Arnot, I’m the chair of the committee and I am from Saskatchewan.
Senators, just so it is clear, we’re at the point where I have asked the members of the committee whether they have any observations. Senator Oudar has an observation, and there is a copy of that in English and French.
I mentioned to the senators and got permission from the senators who were here to distribute five potential observations; however, they are only in English. As I mentioned earlier, I feel strongly that is an error, and I was advised by the clerk and some members of the committee that if I read them, they would be interpreted and then these observations could be contemplated by the committee.
I have also said I don’t feel strongly about any of these observations, but I do believe they are in compliance with the testimony heard. Does anyone have an objection if I read these potential observations in English so they can be translated in French? Any objections?
Senator Simons: Will you read them all together or take them one at a time?
The Chair: What do you suggest? I can read them all at once or one at a time.
Senator Batters: I think it would be helpful, chair, if you read it as you have written it here, and then it will be translated into the format that you anticipated in French as well.
The Chair: Okay, I will proceed on that basis. Senator Oudar, do you want to deal with your observation first? Would you prefer to do that?
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Go ahead, Mr. Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Everyone has received this, unfortunately only in English. The first one is with respect to the need for clear performance metrics for the Brampton Unified Family Court, Division 30. Witnesses described expected benefits of the Unified Family Court model, but no detailed or measurable performance indicators were provided to assess outcomes related to delay reduction, family law efficiency or access to justice. An observation would potentially be:
The committee encourages Justice Canada, in collaboration with the Government of Ontario, to establish and publicly report clear performance metrics for the Brampton Unified Family Court, including case processing times, resolution rates and impacts on families.
The second one would be concerning transparency in judicial resource allocation across provinces. The rationale for allocating positions to Ontario was explained, but witnesses did not outline if national criteria guide federal decisions on judicial resourcing. An observation could possibly be:
The committee encourages Justice Canada to develop and publish national criteria-based frameworks for allocating judicial positions to support fairness and transparency for all provinces and territories.
The third one is clarification of satisfactory funding for territorial bodies seeking ATSSC support, Division 31. Witnesses indicated that satisfactory funding is determined by the minister without defined thresholds, creating uncertainty for territorial partners. A potential observation:
The committee encourages the development of objective, publicly communicated criteria to guide the minister’s assessment of funding adequacy for territorial tribunals requesting ATSSC support.
The fourth is measuring outcomes of the ATSSC modernization. The committee heard modernization would provide important administrative improvements for territorial tribunals. However, specific methods for measuring fairness, efficiency or independence were not detailed. The potential observation is:
The committee encourages ATSSC to adopt and report on standardized performance indicators such as case processing times, accessibility measures and independent safeguards for tribunals supported under Division 31.
The fifth is on monitoring long-term implications of federal-territorial support arrangements. The committee notes the potential risk of long-term territorial reliance on federal administrative services. The potential observation:
The committee encourages the inclusion of capacity-building provisions in future agreements with periodic evaluations to ensure that federal support strengthens rather than replaces local tribunal capacity.
I put those forward in the hopes that it could stimulate some discussion on those issues, and potential observations if adopted by the committee.
Senator Batters: I support each of these and think they are well founded. I have a couple of very small technical suggestions. In number three, the first time that it says the acronym of ATSSC, I think you should spell out the full name first and then use the ATSSC after that. Then I have a couple of other very small things that I will not bother the committee with but will just relay to the clerk.
Senator Simons: I’m glad you put the issue of satisfactory funding in because that was something I had come back to in my questioning.
The issue of the other provinces is well communicated too. So thank you for this work.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am wondering — and please excuse me if it is because of my lack of knowledge — if we can have national criteria-based frameworks on judicial positions considering that Quebec has some differences? I know it is in provincial courts in general, but is there enough of a resemblance between all the systems that we can have national criteria? That is a better way of formulating my question. If we take out “national” published criteria-based framework, for example, if a province uses more of the Unified Family Court, there may be some preferences. I’m not an expert. I’m just saying that I am a little worried about the “national” word because provinces make their own choices sometimes. I don’t know if this makes sense.
The Chair: I am sensitive to the issue. Senator Oudar, do you have any comment on that? I just don’t know the answer.
Senator Batters: I think taking out the word “national” but retaining the rest of it accomplishes a similar situation to what you wanted to say. It is having Justice Canada do it; it is indicating that it is supporting fairness and transparency for all provinces and territories, so I think that it accomplishes the same thing.
The Chair: Yes. If we take out the word “national,” it would satisfy that issue; we don’t want to step on any jurisdictional toes.
I don’t want to rush this, but does anyone have any further comments?
Senator Batters: I would also suggest that rather than only putting the observations, the short factual parts before it provides some good context. I would suggest that also be included.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. Would the analysts be able to accomplish it? Yes. Okay. Unless there are any other questions — these are numbered 1 to 5 — I would ask that all of these observations be attached to the report.
Senator K. Wells: Could you say “as amended?” You amended number two.
The Chair: Yes. Absolutely.
Senator K. Wells: Okay.
The Chair: Okay. It is agreed? Thank you very much.
Senator Oudar has recommendations, and let’s deal with that issue.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you for going ahead of me as I had suggested, because, indeed —
Yes, the translation can be handed out. Both pages are translated, so it can be given to the interpreters. I do not know whether they have it.
[English]
The Chair: Should we send it first? You could just give them this, if you want.
We will take a picture. I will ask now Senator Oudar to speak to her observations.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: We are addressing the same objectives you shared in the five observations you made earlier.
You received an electronic copy in both official languages of the recommendation regarding an addition to the report.
First, there is a context explaining the reason for the recommendation, which I will not repeat in full. However, I would like to draw your attention to the context of the second and third paragraphs of the document, which call for impact assessments to be carried out. These assessments would have been useful to the committee in order to properly analyze the scope of the issues relating to Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5. They would also have helped us to support our analyses.
We would have liked to see more in-depth studies to ensure that the department is complying with the principles of the Jordan decision. There are obligations regarding time limits, but there are also obligations that the Supreme Court imposes on the government, including structuring its justice system to address delays and inequities.
I will read the recommendation I wanted to make. I believe it could easily be included in your second recommendation, which would allow the wording to be broadened to avoid repetition:
The committee recommends that the government develop and publish studies — I am prepared to take out the word “national” — on judicial resource allocation and its impact on court delays, taking into account the principles established in the Jordan decision. The committee recommends that these analyses be made available to the public.
I think I also agree with your commitment to transparency; it is key to conducting analyses that will also be publicly available.
[English]
The Chair: I would err on the side of leaving in exact wording because it is Jordan specific, and it was of deep concern that they couldn’t answer the question. I will let other senators make any comments. Are we all in agreement with Senator Oudar’s position?
Senator Batters: Thank you for bringing these recommendations forward because I think this was such a crucial part of this — these two parts that they asked us to examine, especially because there was just a media article a few days before that where it indicated that 10,000 charges had been dropped due to Jordan delays that did not accord with the Jordan decision. It is very important that the Department of Justice recognizes this, and they should have been prepared to answer those types of questions when they came to this committee, especially in light of that media article that had recently come out.
I do support this, and I would suggest one minor change. Near the end of the first paragraph, where it says “Justice officials,” because it isthe first time that we are mentioning them in this one, I would maybe put “Department of Justice officials,” just so that people don’t think it is some other aspect of the justice system. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: With the correction.
It is the same thing, I completely agree. In French and English too. I would make the same correction.
[English]
The Chair: All right. Are there any other comments? Senator Pate and Senator Clement have arrived. The good news is that we just got unanimous support for five observations and now six, almost.
Senator Clement: I like the chuckles, so I am going to stay cool.
The Chair: We’re discussing Senator Oudar’s observation. Senator Pate, do you have any comments?
Senator Pate: No. I think this is great. Thank you, Senator Oudar, for introducing it.
The Chair: Senator Clement, do you want to take a couple of seconds to —
Senator Clement: Sorry. I had to be in the chamber until the very last minute. I’m good. Thank you.
The Chair: All right.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question. We were asking ourselves if we wanted more transparency on the fact that other provinces had asked for more resources, but all of that was secret. We know how many judges altogether are missing from Canada, but we don’t know the breakdown by provinces. This is considered confidential information and the provinces do not release it. Maybe not the federal way. Should we ask for transparency or is it out of order? I was a bit surprised that we could know how many resources were missing in each province.
The Chair: If you want something more specific, you could put forward some words on that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In English? And to be more transparent — at the end of the observation — regarding the number of vacancies of judges in each province.
The Chair: Yes. We can make that observation, and we don’t have to worry about it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Maybe they will just say that we can’t do that.
The Chair: I think it was concerning that they were not able to answer Senator Oudar’s direct questions, and this is what we are not happy with. There is no excuse for that, probably.
Senator Batters: Are you speaking about a federally appointed judge or all judges, including provincially appointed ones? Because for the federal ones, they do actually break it down on their Justice Canada website. Every month, near the start of the month, they list what the vacancies are for the federally appointed positions, but it is only federal ones.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: [Technical difficulties] — just with my remark. What stays is that we don’t know if provinces have requested additional judges. We were told that they had to fill up a form, send the form and then Senator Oudar asked, “So can we know,” and they said, ”No.” Are we interested in knowing if they asked for more? There are vacancies, but did they ask for more and they just chose Ontario? Why is that?
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I would be careful about the request, because the provinces themselves may have been the ones asking the federal government for a confidentiality agreement. It was not clear. I drafted the recommendation so that I would not be told we did not get the information because of the provinces. We would like the Department of Justice to conduct a critical analysis to see whether the Jordan decision is being respected. How should they go about it, and with what information? I would leave that up to them.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You are speaking more broadly, and that is great. I think it makes sense.
Senator Oudar: This is to avoid being told that we could not get it because the provinces did not want to give their consent. We understood that this was the response we received. So we went to a slightly higher level to ensure we had the information from a Canadian perspective, because we must not forget that the Jordan decision is applicable throughout Canada.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You are correct. I think I am being a little too precise or journalistic here. So let’s go back to the big picture.
Senator Oudar: I completely agree with you. We also need to be careful about what we ask for.
[English]
The Chair: If we do a study on trial delay, building on the last study, these kinds of questions will be put to the Department of Justice very pointedly. We may deal with that. We would be in control of that, actually, in those questions.
Senator Pate: I don’t remember in the response, but I know from other contexts that one of the issues that is also coming up is a number of judges who have been on the bench a long time and are going supernumerary and so they are working basically halftime, which takes up positions. That means that you are not dealing with all the court delays as well as illnesses. It may be that there are some privacy issues where we don’t get those details. But I don’t recall us even getting that kind of information when you asked.
The Chair: All right. Are there any other comments on Senator Oudar’s recommendations for observation? If there is not, then I think we will accept that, and you will format it in the same manner as the other ones, yes?
Okay. I just remind everybody that we will have the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice, to comment on Bill C-15 on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, as per the steering committee’s plan. This committee will proceed to finalize and adopt its report shortly following his testimony. This is the plan.
I believe senators, we are at the point where there is no other business. Once again then, the plan is for the steering committee to consider your advice based on today’s discussion. The parliamentary analysts will produce a draft report, and that draft report will be circulated to all committee members for final review and adoption on February 4, 2026, in time for us to meet the Friday, February 13 reporting date.
I guess if there is some information that we want to incorporate, having heard the minister, we will give further instructions in that regard on February 4. Are there any questions?
Thank you, everyone.
(The committee adjourned.)