Evidence of meeting #6 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was supreme.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
What I can tell you is I'm here to discuss a provision that brings clarity to the Supreme Court Act. I can speak to that. I can't speak to every provision of the budget. That isn't legislation that I've personally brought forward as Minister of Justice.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
So I'll take that as a no. You cannot point me to a provision in the budget that deals with amendments to the Supreme Court Act?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
I can point you to the legislation that's before this committee for consideration.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
This is a piece of legislation that is part of an omnibus bill that pertains to changes to the Judges Act, which is not uncommon, as you would know. Consistently we've seen omnibus legislation from all governments, including Liberal governments.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
In the search to try to find some connection to the budget, what we have here is a lawsuit instituted by an Ontario lawyer. We have a reference to the Supreme Court Act. We have the development of legislation. Can you give me an estimate of what all those things are going to cost and what impact they might have on the budget?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
What I can tell you, Mr. Chair, colleagues, is the impact that we seek to achieve here is greater clarity for the interpretation of the Supreme Court Act. The legislation adds the words “at any time” and brings about parity with respect to the French and English interpretation of the legislation.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
In your opening remarks, Mr. Minister, you referenced a future government, and in response to Madame Boivin's first question you referenced a future process. I take it from that, that the goal of these amendments is to have an impact on future appointments.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
If that is the case, then, would you be amenable, Mr. Minister, to a delay in the implementation of these provisions, a delay in the coming into force of these provisions so that, in effect, we are not asking the Supreme Court a question and then effectively legislating the answer?
My question for you is whether you would be amenable to delaying the impact of these provisions to allow the Supreme Court to speak unimpeded.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
Not at all. Absolutely not.
Our intention is to clarify what we believe is the case and what we believe the Supreme Court will affirm.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
So as I understand what you just said to me, you are not in favour of delaying the implementation until the Supreme Court has spoken. You want to have Parliament amend the legislation to say that this is the state of the law, and then ask the Supreme Court what the state of the law is.
Do I have that right?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
Well, Mr. Casey, you've been here a little while now, and you recognize that there is something called the supremacy of Parliament when it comes to the passing of laws.
So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. We are telling the Supreme Court this is what the legislation means. We're putting in place a declaratory provision to bring about a greater understanding of the eligibility rules, and at the same time we have sought an opinion from the Supreme Court.
That's how it works, sir.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Brilliant.
Can you tell me about the consultations you've had, in the course of bringing forth this legislation, with the Barreau du Québec?
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Could you outline for us the consultations you've had with the Barreau du Québec in the course of bringing forward this legislation?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
I've already told you that we've sought an opinion with respect to our belief of the proper interpretation of this legislation. Justice officials have...some of whom are members of the Barreau du Québec, and they have spoken with other lawyers from the province with respect to this assertion.
Madam Wright, you might want to speak to how the Justice lawyers have gone about consulting with the Barreau du Québec. What's the normal practice?
November 21st, 2013 / 9:20 a.m.
Laurie Wright Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
In this particular case, I'm not aware that there were any consultations with the Barreau du Québec. It's not unusual for the government to consult in circumstances such as this, though.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
In the House, Mr. Minister, you indicated that the legislation was designed to allow long-serving members of every bar in the country to serve in the highest court of Canada. I believe you confirmed that here as well.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Yes. We would agree on that.
Were there consultations with any bar societies in the course of developing this legislation?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
As I said, this legislation was drafted in consultation with members of the bar who would be, in some cases, employees of the Department of Justice. We would look at precedent and previous legislation, I suppose, that led up to the original drafting of this bill.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for your questions, Mr. Casey, and for those answers, Minister.
Our next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Dechert.