No, we're still on clause 471, so it's Liberal-8.
Evidence of meeting #12 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #12 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Brison, you could address Liberal-8 and Liberal-9 together, if you wish.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You're also adding a new clause in amendment L-10, so if you wish to address all three, you may do so.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
On Mr. Casey's amendment as proposed last week, what we're proposing is adding this definition:
at least 10 consecutive years in good standing at the bar of a
That's at the bar of a province, obviously. We feel that this strengthens the clause.
I want to take this opportunity to reiterate how ludicrous it is that in a budget implementation act, this committee is actually charged with dealing with issues of the appointment to the Supreme Court.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
This ought to be debated, discussed, and voted on, certainly at the justice committee, if there are going to be changes to the Supreme Court Act. These are important and fundamental changes. It is unprecedented that something so unrelated to the fiscal framework be part of a budget implementation act.
My colleague, Mr. Casey, a lawyer and someone who has served on the justice committee, proposed this amendment. I think that it makes sense and will improve what ought not to be part of a budget implementation act to begin with. We don't have significant expectation that the Conservative members will give any support to this at this stage, even though it is Christmastime, and hope springs eternal.
Again, the idea that we're debating at the finance committee changes to the Supreme Court Act reminds us how patently absurd this whole process has become.
Thank you.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It reminds me a lot of some omnibus legislation brought in by the Liberals in the late 1990s or early 2000s. It's very similar. There were some strange things that didn't need to be in that bill, setting the precedent, Mr. Brison.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Order.
I have Monsieur Caron, and then I'll go back to Mr. Brison.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will speak only about the amendments, and I'll come back to the main motion later.
We are obviously opposed to the government's intention to amend the Supreme Court Act. Not only do we disagree with how it was done, but we also disagree with the fact that the government tried to address in an ad hoc way a situation that they themselves created and should have predicted.
Because the provisions themselves are extremely problematic, we cannot support the amendments or a simple correction to the process put forward by the government through the Standing Committee on Finance. We think it is extremely important that there be a viable and valid process for something as important as the Supreme Court. Since the amendments cannot improve the effectiveness of the provisions or their validity, we will simply vote against them. We acknowledge the effort made, but it isn't enough. On principle and within the spirit of good governance, we cannot support these amendments.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Caron.
Mr. Brison, did you want the floor again?
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Chair, I just wanted to say that the provisions being added by clauses 471 and 472 are intended to merely be declaratory in nature, which means they are not meant to change the requirements for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada as set out in sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act. They are only meant to clarify what these sections have always required.
The amendments proposed by the honourable member for Charlottetown would likely constitute substantive changes to these sections and cast doubt on the declaratory nature of clauses 471 and 472.
It is important to remember that sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act only set out the minimum criteria for appointment to the Supreme Court. Additional requirements are determined and assessed through the Supreme Court selection process, which includes a multi-party, non-partisan appointments advisory committee whose role it is to review in detail the professional qualifications of candidates for appointment.
In practice the process is rigorous, and appointments are only made following consideration of a range of criteria regarding a candidate's professional qualifications, experience, and personal attributes, all of which inform the key consideration, which is merit.
For these reasons, we're opposed to the amendment.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, it ought to be clear why we've proposed this amendment. It's because the government bungled the Supreme Court appointment, which some journalists have called a spectacular mess.
We're not blaming the nominee, Justice Marc Nadon, for anything. The blame lies squarely with the justice minister and the Prime Minister, for going ahead with an appointment when there was clearly risk of litigation, and there was a question of whether Justice Nadon met the specific rules regarding who can assume a seat on the Supreme Court from Quebec.
The justice minister himself hinted the statute needed to be changed over the summer, and in the fall he released a legal opinion that the government had sought to defend the choice of nominee. The problem is that an opinion, even from a great jurist, does not make one immune from a lawsuit. The minister took the risk of making the appointment. The lawsuit challenging the government's interpretation of the law was filed, and since then the court has been sitting with eight justices and Quebec is under-represented in the nation's highest court.
Through the back door, and with Bill C-4, the government is attempting to retroactively rewrite its appointment law, while at the same time it's asking the court to interpret the law by means of a reference. The problem is that it's not even rewriting its own appointment law well, and that's where this amendment comes in. The government's rewrite is to say that the members of a bar with 10 years of standing at a bar at any time are eligible for nomination to the court. Our amendment would make it that they would have to be in good standing, and that the 10 years would have to be consecutive.
At committee we heard from Professor Adam Dodek of the University of Ottawa. He and others were asked if these changes were good ideas, and they agreed that we should want bar members in good standing only to be eligible, and it would make sense that their 10 years of membership in any bar be consecutive.
Frankly, we're trying to be constructive and help the government to deal with this issue. It's awkward, because it ought not to be before this committee and we are trying to be constructive. My colleagues, Sean Casey and Irwin Cotler, a former minister of justice during better times, have been extremely helpful and constructive on this, and it is in the interest of good government that we are proposing it.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
