Bill C-9

An Act to amend the Judges Act

This enactment amends the Judges Act to replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge’s removal from office and makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice. As with the provisions it replaces, this new process also applies to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an Act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour.

Judges Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to look at every piece of legislation, but we are spending an entire day on a piece of legislation that nobody can oppose and on which nobody can suggest the need to get it to committee for amendments.

This is a bill that was essentially drafted by the Canadian Bar Association after numerous studies looking at the Canadian Judicial Council and with the full engagement of the existing Canadian Judicial Council, so it is an excellent piece of legislation that has been well drafted.

I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. It has been almost three years to the day since this Parliament passed, on June 18, 2019, the motion declaring that we are in a climate emergency. We have yet to act as though we understand that we are in an emergency, and I think the more we talk about anything else, the closer we go to a place that is a point of no return for our own children.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an impactful bill. It will help shorten these processes, establish a mechanism to deal with complaints ranging from the less serious to the more serious, and ensure that the misconduct is punished.

Does my colleague agree with fast-tracking the adoption of this bill?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. It is a good bill. It is well drafted and clear. It is the result of a decade or more of study and reflection. I think we have a duty to do whatever we can to adopt this bill as soon as possible.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech.

I agree that the fight against climate change is very important. It is the greatest existential challenge of our generation. I hope that she will also agree that everyone needs to work together to fight climate change, and that doing so takes social cohesion.

It is very important, especially for minority groups, such as racialized people, that a bill like this one is passed. Canadians of all backgrounds will then have confidence that, if they appear before a judge or a court, they will be respected and judged on the merits of the case. They will not be concerned that a judge may have an unwarranted bias that may undermine justice.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need to have a system that gives each and every Canadian and Quebecker confidence that the system is fair and free of racism. We currently live in a society where systemic racism is found in every institution, group, and province, because racism is built into the system, even though not everyone is racist.

That is why we need to do more.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always in the House, it is a pleasure to rise to speak and raise the voice and the message from my constituents in the eastern interior riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. I will be splitting my time here this afternoon with our opposition House leader, the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

I want to start my intervention and notes on Bill C-9 today with a bit of a personal parliamentary perspective.

We are hearing a lot of criticism here today on this bill. I will say at the forefront that I agree with this specific piece of legislation on the need to modernize our judicial system and to improve confidence in it in a timely fashion. We will hear from our Conservative colleagues some reasonable questions, comments and perhaps amendments to strengthen it. At the end of the day, when we talk about a general intent and the high level of opportunities for us to build strength and confidence in our judges and a process for removal if necessary, we would be deeming that appropriate.

As a bit of context on this piece of legislation, it was tabled six months ago, and this is the first opportunity to discuss it. It is not as if it had been debated for weeks and months on end here in the House of Commons. This is the first time we have had a few hours to discuss it. In my limited time here of two and a half years as a member of Parliament, I have seen that we have to learn how we can most effectively find ways to get our voices onto the floor of the House of Commons on issues that are important to our constituents.

I will take some time and note a bit of the background on the bill, but I will talk as well in general about some of my concerns and frustrations with the government's direction or tone or intention or narrative when it comes to building confidence in our Canadian judiciary.

The bill before us would update a piece of legislation. When I was looking at the background, I had to go online, and it was kind of interesting. The current process for complaints of misconduct against judges was introduced in 1971. Pierre Elliott Trudeau was our prime minister, and the minister of justice and attorney general at that time was future prime minister John Turner. I think we could agree in the year 2022 that there have been amendments over the years but that we are going to need to tweak and change and edit legislation over the course of time.

I will give credit to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who just spoke for a few minutes and gave some very tangible examples of how we need this reform to go. Right now, one of the issues is that if a serious complaint is made through the process of the judicial council and if the misconduct is deemed less serious, the individual member may negotiate a resolution to the process. That lacks accountability and transparency, and I think there is agreement that we need to reform that process.

The proposal in Bill C-9 would change that so that if it is deemed less serious, there still is an opportunity. A member would review it and could either dismiss the complaint if it was wholly without merit or refer it to a three-member review panel. This would provide an opportunity to make sure all reasonable and credible allegations of misconduct, and their severity level, would go through a proper process, which again would give Canadians confidence.

I will also note from my colleague from the Green Party's intervention that there have not been many of these over Canadian history. That speaks to the integrity, the ethics and the strength of the bench in Canada for decades, but I also think we need to update this to make sure that, again, the cases that are deemed “less severe” would still require a review in a public, transparent process in terms of the review panel, the hearings and so forth.

One of the things I want to raise when we talk about building confidence in the judiciary is the government's intention when it comes to mandatory minimum sentencing. One of the pieces of legislation we have debated here is Bill C-5. That can relate to, and the government is proposing to remove, several mandatory mandatory minimum penalties. The government is saying that if we oppose the removal of those mandatory minimum penalties, we do not support the Canadian judiciary and the discretion of judges. That is not the case. We believe, as Conservatives, in victims' rights and in supporting those who have gone through trauma or issues and have gone through being a victim of a crime. There deserves to be a minimum punishment.

One of the things we talk about when we talk about removal is that this is not for simple things like simple possession. I want to list the things that we have been standing up for, as I believe confidence can still be maintained in our Canadian judiciary and individual judges.

A number of mandatory minimums are being removed related to gun crimes. Mandatory minimums are gone for robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking, importing or exporting, knowing it is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent. The mandatory minimum in all of these cases is gone, and the list goes on.

Also, some of the legislation we have been dealing with would eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers by eliminating six mandatory minimums in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of a schedule 1 or 2 substance. What does that mean? It means heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth. There would be a removal of those mandatory minimums.

This, again, is the first time we have been dealing with the bill in this Parliament, as it was over in the Senate. The government prorogued at one point, and then it called the election, so it has been stalled several times. This is the first time that we have an opportunity.

I have advice to the Bloc and the NDP, which are complaining that I would like to stand up and have a 10-minute intervention on confidence in our Canadian judiciary: It is that I do not believe in the direction the government is going when it comes to eliminating mandatory minimums. We may agree on the need for reform; there is what is in the legislation, but, most importantly, it is what is not in the legislation, and we have an opportunity to stand up here in the House of Commons and raise those concerns.

It also gives me the opportunity to be the voice for my constituents as well when we talk about the process. Bill C-9 is one example, and Bill C-5, which is terribly flawed, in my opinion and in the opinion of our caucus and in the opinion of many members of law enforcement as well. One of the things that we are not seeing, among the easy things to do, is a whole bill dedicated to reforming this. It means that they are not putting in legislation to address some of the other things. We are calling it out when we see it.

A perfect example is the lack of services for those in the Canadian justice system who are dealing with addiction or battling addiction. We are seeing changes in an effort, through legislation, to try to distract us from the lack of investment in mental health and addictions treatment for those who truly need it. We are taking mandatory minimums away from people who are trafficking and preying on some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet we are not providing the resources to get them the help that they truly need.

When we have a bill like this, it is an opportunity to talk about the views from our community on the portfolio of the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice. It is an opportunity to perhaps find agreement on this, yes, but I can also find time to join the floor of the House of Commons and say what is not in forthcoming legislation, what is perhaps not in budget bills to address some of the flawed aspects of the government's intentions.

I will just say this as we wrap up, and I have always said it: Somebody who is battling addiction does not need prison time. That is a universal agreement in our country, of law enforcement, I believe, and of the House. We need to target our resources and our criminal justice system on those who are preying on these people and victimizing them. At the same time, we need not only pieces of legislation like Bill C-9 to increase confidence in our justice system; we need investments that can actually get victims, those who are dealing with addiction, out of our justice system and into proper help to get back into a better trajectory in life and a more positive future for themselves.

I will say in review of this bill that it is time for an update. I look forward to questions and comments and I appreciate the opportunity to speak broadly about confidence in our justice system.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell his party to let him speak more because, especially in his conclusion, he talked about diversion-related values that I would like the Conservative Party to address more often. I would like to hear more about that interesting idea.

In the current context, I would like to ask him what measures he would propose to make this a little more efficient, if he were the justice minister. There seems to be a lot of tension in the House today.

In closing, I would like to point out my colleague's good taste in clothing. I really like his tie.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment on my tie, and members will note I am wearing the “loud MacLeod” tartan today, which represents the Glengarry county part of my riding.

To the member's comment, I will go back to the opportunity to speak more broadly about criminal justice reform and reform to our justice system. On this piece of legislation, I know some of our Conservative colleagues, from conversations, look forward to hearing from witnesses, and many of them have been quoted in various debates today. I think we may find some reasonable amendments to strengthen the legislation, and I will defer to them specifically on that.

I had the opportunity to speak in general support of the bill, and again, we will see where it goes in committee, and also to raise some of the things that are not in the government's justice agenda and legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to other legislation, Bill C-5, which is on minimum sentences, and he is very offended by the fact that that legislation was brought forward. Getting rid of minimum sentences does not mean someone who commits an act would get off scot-free. What it does mean is we would be providing more opportunity for judges to use their discretion. Judges, in vast majority, are very well educated and have a very good understanding of the system. They can take a look at the circumstances and are in a better position to be able to give a disposition. I would not want him to give a false impression that, because we are getting rid of minimum sentences, people would get off scot-free. That is just not accurate.

My final thought is regarding the calling of the legislation. Surely to goodness the member would realize that, even though it was introduced and had first reading in December, there are many other legislative agendas. The Conservative Party never approached the government to call for Bill C-9 either. It is here today because the Bill C-14 debate collapsed last night. Bill C-14 was another piece of legislation that was extended because of the Conservative filibuster.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that people would get off scot-free. What I am saying is that Conservatives believe that, for the serious cases I listed, with the removal of mandatory minimums in Bill C-5, there should be a floor, a benchmark or a minimum punishment for some of the most severe and serious crimes being committed to go after the people who are going after our most vulnerable.

Again, I alluded to this in my comments. These are highly educated judges, and I have respect for our judiciary. I also have respect for victims. I believe when somebody is committing robbery with a firearm or extortion with a firearm, or they are producing heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth, there should be a benchmark and a minimum. They would have the discretion to go higher, but there would at least be a floor. It is standing up for victims and their rights.

I will not apologize for that, and I reject the premiss that to support mandatory minimums in these serious cases is somehow saying we do not trust our judiciary. I trust the need to stand up for victims and for there to be proper consequences for those who harm them.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, does the member not realize this bill would actually enhance fairness because of the mechanisms that would be established, and that, through the enhancement of these fairness systems, it would help improve the protection of victims?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to clarify for my colleague from the NDP regarding this piece of legislation, I agree. Looking at the proposal and the draft, this could strengthen it and ensure there is a full process for every complaint that goes through to a review of judicial misconduct. The bill would improve and modernize that.

What I was alluding to in my speech was an opposition to Bill C-5 and the elimination of mandatory minimums. Again, one can support and respect the independence and quality of our judges in this country while still believing there could be a minimum floor.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, a bill that was originally introduced last year, and I may have referenced earlier that it was October 2021, but it was actually in December 2021.

I will begin, and I know he is not going to like this because he is sitting just over my right shoulder here, with some praise for our shadow minister for justice, the hon. member for Fundy Royal. Since his re-election in 2019, he has had to deal with pieces of legislation, government legislation, government fixes to legislation that have been beyond any expectation of what any opposition critic, or shadow minister, as we now call them to mirror what the parliament of Britain calls their shadow ministers. He has done incredible work holding the government to account, and it is a complicated file to be able to disseminate what all of these pieces of legislation are, how they impact Canadians, and how they impact the judicial process and the court process. He has done that honourably and with great conviction.

As we know, when we are dealing with these sorts of pieces of legislation, it is not just us, it is also policy advisors within our offices and legislative staff who comb through many of these pieces of legislation to try to make them better, to try to come up with legislation that is good for Canadians. I would argue that there is nothing more important when we deal with pieces of legislation than those dealing with our court system, those dealing with judges, those dealing with Criminal Code issues. I really want to thank our shadow minister for justice, the hon. member for Fundy Royal, for the work that he has done on many of these files.

It is difficult because, when we are dealing with pieces of legislation like what we are dealing with today, Bill C-9, we know it was introduced in December 2021. This is a bill that has obviously languished in the legislative process. We are now at second reading debate on the bill and these hours of debate today are the first for this piece of legislation, but it is piece of legislation that has received broad support right across the country. My expectation is that it will move through the legislative process rather quickly.

Some of that support has come, for example, from the Canadian Bar Association, which has expressed its support for the legislation. As I said earlier, it aims to change the judicial complaints process, which was first established 50 years ago. This is a piece of legislation that requires an update to reflect the realities of the current environment in this country. Bill C-9 proposes changes to the Judges Act to restructure the process for dealing with misconduct allegations against federally appointed judges.

In particular, the bill will amend the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of these judges in three significant ways. One, it will create a process for reviewing allegations not serious enough to warrant removal from office. Two, it will improve the process by which recommendations on removal are made to the Minister of Justice. Three, it will ensure that the determination of pensionable service for judges ultimately removed from office reflects the actual time of service and excludes the time for review.

As I said earlier, the Canadian Bar Association is clearly in support of this, and I expect that, when it gets through second reading and eventually ends up at committee, we are going to hear from the Canadian Bar Association. We will hear from other stakeholders as well, showing their strong support for review of a piece of legislation that has not been updated over the course of the last 50 years, so it is about time.

One of the most important things about this place is that we have those voices of Canadians. There are 338 members in this place who are elected to express the views of their constituents. Those are important views, and these type of debates become increasingly important in a polarized society, so we can reflect on what the pieces of legislation can do and make these pieces of legislation better. I expect, at committee, the strong voices of those stakeholders and advocates who are for the bill or against the bill will perhaps come together and really reinforce or make this piece of legislation that much stronger.

This is not the first iteration of what we have seen. The bill was originally introduced in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. I went through the criteria of what the bill actually does fix, but again, like every other piece of legislation that was introduced, not only here in the House, but also in the Senate, before September of last year, this bill fell off of the Order Paper.

If we look through some of the issues with the bill, one of the things that it focuses on is the issue of process reform and consultations as well. Bill C-9 follows the 2016 federal government's public consultations on potential reforms to the federal judicial discipline process. Within the consultation report, the judicial discipline proceedings had been marked by significant increases in costs and delays, and reforms were necessary to ensure that the process was cost effective, efficient and transparent, and to preserve public confidence in the judicial system.

Under the current system of CJC, interim or final decisions can be challenged through three layers of judicial review. One is the Federal Court, the other is the Federal Court of Appeal. There is also, with leave, the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result, the judicial conduct inquiries can be subject to multiple, drawn-out legal challenges that can take years to resolve.

I mentioned the judicial conduct and review process, but there are several other key points in this legislation. It also addresses complaints. Under both existing and new processes, anyone may submit a complaint about a judge's conduct to the CJC. Under this new process, the CJC may make a complaint only when there are at least two of its members who have reasonable grounds to believe that the public's confidence in the judge's impartiality, integrity or independence, which is critical as we know, could be undermined for any of the reasons stipulated in proposed paragraphs 80(a) through (d). An anonymous complaint, for example, would face the same threshold test as a complaint made by the CJC.

The other aspect of this bill is that it proposes a screening officer be added to the existing process. The CJC's executive director screens complaints and may dismiss those that are clearly without merit, do not involve a judge's conduct or are not in the public interest. Under the new process, the CJC designates a screening officer, who may be a judge, to conduct an initial assessment. This is proposed section 88 in the bill. Complaints may be dismissed if they are clearly without merit, are not related to one of the reasons listed in new section 80 or do not meet other screening criteria that may be established and published by the CJC under proposed section 90.

A reviewing member, as in the existing system, and this is another important piece of the new process, holds the complaints that are not dismissed after being screened by a member of the CJC. That is in proposed section 91. The judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint may make written submissions at this stage under proposed section 93.

There are more aspects of this bill that are important, but after 50 years, it is time for an update to this review system. I am glad that we are here today debating it in our House of Parliament, and I will be glad to answer any questions that anybody might have.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for that in-depth analysis of this bill, and for putting forward his position on it and how he feels about it. It was truly remarkable.

He spent the first three minutes of his speech thanking the member for Fundy Royal for his hard work on it and indeed referenced the fact that the member for Fundy Royal had to do some in-depth analysis. I think his words were he had to “comb through” the legislation to look for changes.

Could the member for Barrie—Innisfil inform the House of the changes the member for Fundy Royal came to conclude upon after that in-depth analysis of the bill?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.