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.

(Bill C-9. On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act.

(Motion respecting Senate amendments agreed to)

(Bill S-8: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Third reading of Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-40: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Second reading of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews).

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(Bill C-53: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Second reading of Bill C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move that notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:

(a) on the last allotted day in the supply period ending June 23, 2023, the proceedings on the opposition day motion shall conclude no later than 10:30 p.m., the House shall then proceed to the putting of the question on the motion and then, if required, the taking of any division or divisions necessary to dispose of the motion, and the Speaker shall then put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motions to concur in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and to the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and for the passage at all stages of any bill based on the said estimates;

(b) notices of opposed items in relation to the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and to the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, listed on the Notice Paper be deemed withdrawn;

(c) the recorded divisions on government legislation currently deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions today be deemed further deferred to the conclusion of all proceedings in relation to the estimates tonight;

(d) the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Harriet Solloway as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) be deemed moved, a recorded vote be deemed requested and deferred after the recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts;

(e) in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, the amendment to the motion respecting Senate amendments made to the bill be deemed withdrawn and the motion respecting Senate amendments made to the bill, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed adopted;

(f) Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, be deemed read a third time and passed;

(g) Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews), be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

(h) Ways and Means Motion No. 18, notice of which was tabled on June 16, 2023, be deemed concurred in, a bill based thereon standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, entitled “An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”, be deemed to have been introduced and read a first time, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs; and

(i) the written questions dated June 20, 2023, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed to have been transferred to the Order Paper on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, for the purposes of Standing Order 39.

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share my opinion on the gag orders, because judging by what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the minister are saying, one would have to wonder whether gag orders are not the best thing since sliced bread. I consider gag orders to be a technique used to systematically muzzle the elected members of the House, which is unacceptable.

I believe that when the government invokes closure, it is because the government House leader has mismanaged the time spent on House business. All parties support Bill S‑8. We are now at third reading, the committee did a good job, everything is going well, and I do not think that there were many members who wanted to speak at this stage.

I will give an example. Last night, until midnight, we discussed Bill C‑9. We have discussed this several times before, even before the last election. Why has the government House leader not been able to say that this is important, that it enjoys a fairly broad consensus and that it will be implemented quickly? Instead, it takes years to be adopted and implemented.

I have two other examples. Closure was also invoked for Bill C‑47, the budget implementation bill. It is hundreds of pages long and all the organizations that wanted to delve into it would have needed time to do so. Imposing closure on such a bill limits the amount of time available to go through it and the ability to correct the flaws in committee.

One last and extreme example dates back to the pandemic, when the government was not taking action. At one point, it came up with a bill that was to go through all stages immediately. We asked for a few weeks to study it. We wanted it to be introduced so that people could go through it and improve it. However, the government did not want to do that and said that everything had to be passed as soon as possible, without any study or review. Well, it then had to present other bills to fix the first one. That is an unacceptable and absolutely amateurish way of doing things.

Judges Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of discussion about the last-minute amendment brought forward by the good member for Langley—Aldergrove, who is a very constructive member of the justice committee.

I must say that I am quite disappointed that this is now being used as a tool to delay the passage of a very important bill. As we know, Justice Wagner, the chief justice of Canada, has asked for the expeditious passage of Bill C-9. Could my friend and colleague comment on why it is so important that we get this passed before we rise?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, really and truly, we just cannot make this stuff up. We have to see it to believe it. The member is right on.

Canadians need to know just what the Conservatives are actually up to. The idea that out of 106 people in the Conservative Party, when it came time to vote to get rid of the voting app, 77 of them actually used the voting app that they want to get rid of.

It may be that or saying that they support Bill C-9 and want it to pass, but then they move an amendment. Traditionally, when the Conservatives have done that, what they are really saying is they want to talk and talk, as the leader of the Conservative Party said last week about the budget. He said he was going to speak until the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. We did not change it, and four hours later, it passed. It is a game.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague believe that a party should do what it says it is going to do?

For example, with Bill C-9, if a party says we have to adopt this bill immediately, and then offers a delaying amendment, is that consistent? In the same way, if we have a hybrid Parliament and a party votes against the hybrid Parliament, but votes overwhelmingly using the hybrid tools that they were just saying needed to end, is that consistent? Are these contradictions by the Conservative Party that Canadians need to know about?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's comments actually have no relevance with respect to Bill C-9.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, ever since the member from across the way walked back over. This legislation would help Canadians. In one of the questions I put across was the issue of public confidence.

The Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary on justice talk about the importance of public confidence in the system. It is important to recognize that, so when members say this legislation is in the best interest of Canadians, it is. It would make a real and tangible difference. Canadians want to see the independence of our whole judicial system, whether it is with policing, our courts or the process of our Crowns laying charges.

Around the world, Canada is recognized for our judicial system, and it is complemented by the fact that there are many checks in place to ensure that it is not politicized. We recognize that it is a joint responsibility, where we work with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities, to ensure we have a judicial system that has the confidence of the public.

I do not say that lightly, because there have been incidents where we have seen the need for reforms or changes. A good example of that is with the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. God, I wish she came back.

Rona Ambrose had an idea to make changes that would impact our judicial system. It came about because of a number of judges who had made comments regarding gender discrimination, if I can put it that way. They offended a great number of people, and there was a genuine concern among the public and questions of confidence in the system. Rona Ambrose, the former leader of the Conservative Party, came up with the idea of instituting some sort of educational program. I cannot remember all the details, because this was a number of years ago, but government members, members of the Liberal caucus, saw the value in the principles of the legislation, and we actually embraced the idea.

When we did the consultations and canvassed our judicial system for its reflections on what was being proposed by the then leader of the Conservative Party, we found it had garnered wide support, much like Bill C-9. With that support, what did we eventually see? Yes, there was some frustration, but it was not coming from the government or the Liberal Party. In fact, caucus colleagues of mine often talked about how we could ensure that legislation saw the light of day. They wanted that legislation to pass.

We had the support of all members of the House, and it passed unanimously. There was no trickery or anything of that nature. No one said, “We'll pass this if you do this.” There was no trading or bargaining process. We recognized the value of the legislation and agreed to get it passed through the system.

Interestingly enough, I believe a couple of provincial legislatures looked at this. My daughter raised the issue, and she is in the Manitoba legislature. They were looking at what we did here in Ottawa and how it could be potentially duplicated in provincial legislatures. That is how Ottawa can demonstrate leadership on an important issue.

If one understands and appreciates the sense of independence of our justice system, then factors in all of the work and effort that has gone into this piece of legislation getting to the point it is at today, one sees it has been a long journey, a journey that ultimately went through all forms of different stakeholders. The ones I emphasize are the courts, or those directly involved in courts, the judges.

There was consensus, a very broad consensus, that this is the type of legislation communities, including the judicial community, would accept and want to see passed. When the Minister of Justice talked about the legislation earlier, he made it very clear to everyone that this is legislation where there has been pressure coming from the outside, from the judicial community, suggesting that the legislation be passed as quickly as possible.

Interestingly enough, and it might have been at third reading, but I can recall talking about that previously. That is why I was encouraged, even back then, because the Conservatives did not seem to hesitate.

There are amendments and a number of things I am no doubt missing, but having said that, let me suggest to members opposite it is not written in stone. We could pass this legislation tonight, or at least get it to a stage at which it could be voted on. Let me put it that way because we cannot seek unanimous consent now, but we can at least get it to a stage where it could be voted on as early as tomorrow.

I would ask Conservatives to do what the Liberals did when Rona Ambrose brought forward a good idea, which was to recognize the idea for what it is and support our judicial system. Let us show the public we have confidence in the system, get behind the legislation and allow it to get to a point where we can pass it tomorrow. That can be done.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was troubled to hear the leader of the official opposition tell the national media that his party intends to use every opportunity to obstruct the work of the chamber and gum up the works of Canadian democracy. It makes it somewhat difficult to understand whether interventions in this place, at this late day in the session, are made in good faith or whether they are indeed part of this effort to slow down the work of our Parliament. Could my dear colleague reflect on Bill C-9 and offer his thoughts on what is going on here when it comes to the Conservatives' interventions?

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could expand on the issue of the importance of public confidence in the system. For me personally, that is one of the driving forces in terms of why Bill C-9 is of the utmost importance, among other things, and I hope to be able to expand on that shortly.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was just complimenting my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove by saying that he gave an excellent speech. He talked about the fact that the Conservatives support the bill and that they want it to be passed. After 50 years, it is time for us to make that change.

However, at the end of his speech, after spending 20 minutes talking about how important it is to pass the bill, he presented an amendment that is going to further delay the passage of the bill. I do not understand that contradiction at all.

What is more, earlier, the Conservatives voted against a motion to maintain the hybrid Parliament. However, today, they used the hybrid application 291 times to vote on the matter of a hybrid Parliament. I have to say that that includes the Bloc members as well. Together, they used the hybrid app 291 times to vote against the hybrid Parliament. That is another contradiction. I think that everyone can see that there is a problem here. Members are saying that they do not want a hybrid Parliament, but then they are using the hybrid application to vote against the hybrid Parliament. I will move on to another subject because Parliament already ruled on that.

Let us get back to Bill C‑9. An amendment has been tabled that will further delay the passage of the bill, and that is unfortunate. The process has been lacking for 50 years. The public does not support it and it is not particularly clear that justice will be served through this process. Furthermore, it does not allow people to have more confidence in our justice system.

It has been 50 years. First, there were the promises from the former Harper regime, which wanted to amend this process. It did nothing, and that is not surprising. There were a lot of broken promises.

I spent 10 years in the House during the Harper regime, and we saw that regime's lack of respect for Parliament. We saw broken promises, including the promise to set up a process for judges and for complaints about the judicial system. We saw that time and time again.

Then the Liberals came to power and promised to do the same thing. It was put off. I think that the member for Saint-Jean said it well earlier. We ended up with a bill passed by the Senate, but it took years to get to that point. This evening, we believed that the bill would finally pass. There was a consensus. However, the consensus has just been broken again by the Conservative Party amendment.

We certainly support this process to modify the entire complaints process for the judicial system. We believe it is important to put this in place as quickly as possible. This means that we must vote. It seems to me that, once again, because of this party that blocks everything, the government will have to resort to a time allocation motion to pass the bill and bring the legislative process to a successful conclusion. Instead of going round in circles, we must pass this bill.

As all parties have said, including my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, this bill is necessary. However, the Conservatives moved an amendment to further delay passage of this bill.

There is no doubt that New Democrats support the modernization of the complaints process, no doubt at all. We also support aspects of the bill that allow for varied sanctions, such as counselling, continued education and other reprimands. With the current system, which is hopefully not going to continue for much longer, though with the delays that we are seeing provoked tonight, we will have to see about that, the current option is really only removal from the bench. That is why we believe that increasing public confidence in federal judges is absolutely essential, and we need a modernized complaints system.

We believe that this system could have been put into place already. We will recall that this was moving along and then, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister called what was, I think it is fair to say, an unnecessary election in the midst of COVID. At a time when Canadians were preoccupied with getting through COVID, the Liberals provoked an election. Canadians right across this country basically told parliamentarians to get back work, that they were going to give us the same Parliament we had before the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election.

That has caused further delays that have brought us to tonight, when we were hoping to see passage of the bill. That is obviously not to be because of the blocking amendment brought forward by the Conservatives. New Democrats believe there are many other aspects of the judicial system that we need to be tackling. My colleague, the NDP justice critic from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, has been extraordinarily eloquent about this. Yes, he worked on Bill C-9, and yes, he worked to improve it. He brought forward a number of amendments, which I will come back to in just a moment.

The reality is the member from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke had a tremendous influence over this bill moving forward and the quality of the bill. He sought to improve it at a number of different stages, but he has said, and he is right, that we need to move on to other things. There are other pressing issues, such as the opioid crisis and systemic racism in the judicial system. These are all things that need to be tackled, yet we are still dealing with Bill C-9, hopefully with not too many more delays.

Because it has taken so long, because COVID delayed it and because finally, after 50 years of moving it forward, a completely unnecessary election derailed it, we have finally gotten to the point where Bill C-9 was sent to committee. This is where the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke had substantial impacts. I am going to talk about the amendments that he brought forward at the committee stage that are very relevant to the recommendation we have tonight, which is to accept two Senate amendments and reject the rest. That was prior to the Conservative amendment that would delay all of this discussion, but I think there was substantial consensus around the idea that two of the Senate amendments should be brought forward.

What NDP members brought forward at committee is the following. First, there was an amendment that would have expanded the definition of “discrimination” in clause 12 of Bill C-9 by adding “or improper conduct that is substantially similar to discrimination” to the grounds which would have prevented dismissal at the screening stage in paragraph 90(3) of the act.

This concern, as we know, was brought to committee by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which appeared as a witness because, in both the current process and under new provisions in Bill C-9, complaints could be dismissed without proper investigation at the initial stage because the behaviour does not meet a narrow legal definition of discrimination.

This was an important amendment brought forward by the member. As members would have heard when I asked the Minister of Justice just a few minutes ago, ultimately Liberals and Conservatives voted against that amendment, so it failed. It would have made a difference. We are talking about looking beyond the issue of judicial conduct to the issue of discrimination, which is fundamentally important, as the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has said on so many occasions, and as has our leader, the member for Burnaby South, yet that amendment was rejected.

The second amendment that was brought forward added a requirement that when there is a decision to dismiss a complaint at the initial stage, both the decision and the reasons for dismissing that complaint would be conveyed to the complainant, instead of just a summary of the reasons. The complainant would receive both the decision and the reasons for the dismissal of the complaint.

This amendment was brought forward by my old colleague Craig Scott, who was a member of Parliament. He was a fantastic member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth who took over after Jack Layton passed away. He is a law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and he appeared as a witness on this study. He detailed for the committee that no such information was provided to him when he was a complainant proceeding through the judicial review process. He had gone through the process and understood that information was not providing transparency. In other words, it was not leading to that growth in public confidence that is so critical in a democracy.

The amendment was aimed to provide openness and transparency and, as one of the high points of Parliament at the committee stage, all members of Parliament from all parties at the committee agreed to that amendment. It helped to improve the bill.

The third amendment that the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke tabled added a requirement that when a review panel made a decision on a complaint, both the decision and the full reasons would be given to the complainant. This added to what Craig Scott, the former NDP MP for Toronto—Danforth, brought forward.

Those two amendments, in series, helped to ensure that the bill would increase transparency, and this was important.

There was discussion around the right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. The member for Langley—Aldergrove raised that idea in his speech. The reality is that we now have a twofold system of appeals, as the Minister of Justice described in discussing the Senate amendments. In a very real sense, that has helped to provide for the appeal process without making it an unduly long process.

Let us come now to the heart of the matter, which is the issue of the Senate amendments. There are two amendments that the government has proposed accepting from the Senate. The first is removing the words “as far as possible”. The member for Saint-Jean talked about this a number of times during her speech.

It is from the section requiring panels that convene to investigate complaints to reflect the diversity of Canada. We support this amendment, as well as the Senate amendment that adds sexual misconduct to the list of complaints that may not be dismissed without a formal investigation.

Those are two amendments that the Senate has put in place that the government is proposing be retained and that the NDP supports as well.

There were a number of other amendments, including the amendments regarding the Federal Court of Appeal. As I mentioned, we now have a two-stage process for appeals, so the rejection of those Senate amendments, to our mind, seems to be a fair-minded approach.

The most important thing is that we have been going back and forth for several years. There has been no change in the complaints process for 50 years. Improvements are obviously needed. However, we have been going around in circles for three years now. At committee, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke managed to get the NDP amendments I just mentioned adopted to improve the original bill, which is extremely important. This contributed to the quality of the bill.

The bill was then referred to the Senate, which proposed a number of amendments that we can support.

As members know, supporting these two Senate amendments is a bitter pill for the NDP to swallow. Our official policy is actually to abolish the Senate, which is a second chamber made up of non-elected members, as New Zealand and a number of other countries have done. Senators have been appointed, and not elected, for years. I would say they do not have the same credibility as the members of the House of Commons.

Other countries have abolished their second chambers, but that is not just an international phenomenon. Some of these upper, unelected chambers have been abolished right here in Canada, including in Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario. It makes no sense for unelected people to make decisions that have consequences for a population without being accountable. As members of Parliament, we must be accountable.

When I make a decision, I have to be accountable to my electors in New Westminster—Burnaby. I hope that some of them are watching me this evening. Who are the senators accountable to? That is the big question. I know that this is concerning and I know that these questions are being reviewed. It is true that it is important.

Nonetheless, the NDP is voting in favour of these two amendments because they make sense, even though they originate from the Senate. The most important thing to the NDP is that the bill be adopted with the recommendations that the government proposed and that it be sent back to the Senate so that it can get the Senate's seal of approval. The process will then be complete and we will finally have an improved judicial complaints process.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this late hour in Ottawa, where it is almost 11 p.m., to speak to the Senate amendments to Bill C-9.

I would like to start by saying hello to my constituents in New Westminster and Burnaby. In British Columbia it is almost 8 p.m. and so the sun is still up. I know that is also the case in the ridings of the member for Langley—Aldergrove, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country and my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. For the people of British Columbia and for everyone listening to the debates in the House of Commons, we are in the thick of things. I know that there are some constituents listening and I applaud the fact that they are listening after supper to what is happening in the House of Commons.

The NDP will support Bill C-9 and the recommendation on the amendments. I will come back to that in more detail later. First of all, I am concerned that the Conservative Party is once again trying to block a bill. This has been going on in the House systematically for years. As I have said before, there are two blocks in the House: the Bloc Québécois and the block-all Conservative Party, which never misses a chance to block a bill, even the ones it says it supports.

We just heard an excellent speech by my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove who spoke about—

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the analyses I did in my first speech on Bill C‑9 was under section 99 of the Constitution, which addresses judges' security of tenure. Different jurists and analysts who worked on the bill mentioned that this principle of immovability was respected. The foundation of the analysis process for misconduct is that it is to be done by peers and a judge must not be removed for minor issues. It was balanced.

The fact that the number of courts in the analysis process is being reduced and that only a right of appeal to the Supreme Court is being retained was balanced in context to still allow for the right of defence for judges accused of misconduct. This is a bill that is balanced and respects the constitutional part on security of tenure.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, even though it is late, we are wrapping up our work and we may be a little jagged, it is a pleasure to speak to the return of Bill C‑9 as amended by the Senate.

This all feels a bit like groundhog day. I was rereading the notes from my last speech on Bill C‑9 and they begin with a reminder to wish everyone a merry Christmas.

In my notes, I was talking about the fact that I had spoken to Bill C‑9 or its equivalent, Bill S‑5, before the 2021 election. All that to say that I have spoken to Bill C‑9 many times now. I feel like I am repeating myself, unfortunately. It may be a feeling shared by my colleagues, either in their own speech or in having to listen to mine for the umpteenth time this evening.

This has been mentioned many times: There is a real urgency to look into the misconduct of federally appointed judges, as current events are reminding us. There is the case of Justice Brown, for instance, where there were unending delays in the probe of what seemed to be alleged misconduct.

In a context where, unfortunately, there is a shortage of judges, we are reminded that we need to streamline the process for studying misconduct and that we need to do so in two ways. First, Bill C‑9 provides for fewer judges to study a case of misconduct. Second, it provides fewer possibilities for using delaying tactics throughout the process to ensure that the work is done diligently and that the judges are assigned for a shorter period of time.

With respect to the amendments proposed by the Senate, only two were retained by the government and the rest were rejected. I will spend a little more time on one of the amendments, which prompted some questions that I have already asked my colleagues. It concerns an amendment to clause 84, which follows up on the clauses that provide for the creation of a list of judges and laypersons who can be involved in the different stages of the process for studying the misconduct. There is a diversity provision for this list. The initial clause read as follows:

84 As far as possible, the Council shall name persons who reflect the diversity of the Canadian population to the roster of judges and to the roster of lay persons.

The amendment suggested by the Senate and accepted by the government would delete “as far as possible”. As I mentioned, this points to a shift away from what seemed like an obligation of diligence to an obligation of result. To the extent possible, the aim was to incorporate diversity into the list of judges and laypersons for selection. However, by deleting “as far as possible”, I get a sense that we are creating more of an obligation of result, which raises a number of issues.

We are told that there is currently a shortage of judges. We cannot change the current number of judges simply by snapping our fingers. It would be nice if we could because we need them, but we have to work with what we have. If we absolutely had to start reflecting diversity now, with our very small pool of existing judges, we could run into certain problems by selecting judges concentrated in certain geographic areas, where there is better representation. We could end up relying more heavily on specific locations to find judges more representative of diversity. We could also run the risk of sidelining certain other necessary or useful criteria in selecting the judges we want to include on our lists. One example could be knowledge of both official languages. By making diversity an obligation rather than something we are striving for or want, we could be limiting our options at a time when resources are already scarce.

When I asked the minister whether it might not create obstacles that are more difficult to overcome if we make it an obligation of result rather than an obligation of diligence, I got the impression that he somewhat agreed that it was perhaps not the best amendment that the Senate could have suggested. He seemed to be saying that we can live with it, it is not so bad, but that, clearly, we could have done without it.

When it comes to this aspect of creating an obligation of result when drawing up a list, I think we could have done without this amendment. It creates an obligation that may be difficult to fulfill. I do not necessarily share the Minister of Justice's optimism when he says that the Canadian Judicial Council is of the impression that it will be able to fulfill this obligation.

The other amendment that was proposed and welcomed by the government is to add the term “sexual misconduct” to the list of complaints that cannot be systematically dismissed by a screening officer who receives complaints. It therefore says that “A screening officer shall not dismiss a complaint that alleges sexual misconduct [that is the term being added] or sexual harassment or that alleges discrimination on a prohibited ground of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act.”

In the complaints analysis process, a complaint can be dismissed from the outset if it is frivolous, vexatious or obviously unfounded because the grounds for complaint are not sufficiently substantiated. A complaint cannot be rejected if there is an element of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment or discrimination.

This amendment is timely in the context of the #MeToo movement, as we increasingly seek to eliminate everything to do with sexual misconduct. We do not want this to be such a specific criterion that we never reach it. We want to widen the scope. I think it is a good thing to add “sexual misconduct” to the list of criteria for not automatically dismissing a complaint.

In that regard, I believe that good work was done. In my opinion and in the Bloc Québécois's opinion, the minister clearly explained the reasons for which he supports these two amendments, although we do not entirely agree with one of them. However, this will not prevent us from voting in favour of the motion, because it will finally make it possible to implement Bill C-9. This is becoming increasingly urgent. We need to get this done as quickly as possible, so we can truly streamline the complaints analysis process.

The government rejected the rest of the Senate amendments in order to prevent the complaints analysis process from becoming more cumbersome, given that the original intent of the bill was to streamline it. In our opinion, it was warranted to reject the proposed amendments.

I want to come back to the fact that this bill was debated at length on multiple occasions and in various incarnations. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done a lot of work on this, and it seemed as though we finally had a version that parliamentarians agreed on.

Bill C‑9 was unanimously passed at third reading. I think we could have done without the Senate deciding to get involved and adding its two cents. I will not get into the details of Bloc Québécois's position on the very existence of a second chamber. However, I would like to come back to the general purpose of the bill. It is important to remind members of that. The community, all jurists, have been asking for this bill for a long time.

What is more, as I mentioned recently, after the news broke about Justice Brown, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner once again emphasized the urgent need to take action and pass Bill C‑9. He also mentioned that it was too bad that the bill was still being examined by the House.

This allows me to add this little grain of salt: If not for the snap 2021 election, we would already have a bill in place. I mention the following purely as a hypothesis, since I do not have a crystal ball, but Justice Russell Brown's case might have gone differently had it been handled under the future version of Bill C‑9, which we will likely adopt, instead of under the old complaints process, which is several decades old.

This bill, which seeks to shorten the process and therefore lower the cost, is well balanced. It helps speed up the process and make it more efficient, while upholding the rights of any judge who may be the subject of complaints for misconduct of all kinds within or outside their practice.

The other thing we really liked about the bill is that it gets us out of a binary repression mode, a binary method for sanctioning complaints. In the first version, either the judge was cleared of the charges and remained in their position, or they were found guilty of the charges and had to be removed. There was no grey area between the two for less serious misconduct, for example. That is something that has been corrected in Bill C‑9.

I think it is still worth mentioning a few things that are now possible. I did this last time, and I think it is still relevant to repeat it again today. Clause 102 of the bill states: “If the review panel does not refer the complaint to the Council under section 101, it may dismiss the complaint or take one or more of the following actions if it considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances”.

One of the things the panel can do is “issue a private or public expression of concern” about the judge's alleged conduct. It can “issue a private or public warning”. It can also “issue a private or public reprimand”. Once again, these measures may be more appropriate depending on the type of misconduct that may have occurred, rather than an all-or-nothing approach, in other words removal or no removal. The panel can also “order the judge to apologize, either privately or publicly, by whatever means the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances”. This means the judge can be supported through an apology process that would be tailored to the situation.

It can “order the judge to take specific measures, including attending counselling or a continuing education course”. There is a rehabilitation aspect. This is a much more positive approach that shows a desire to retrain judges, if they make honest mistakes, for example.

The panel can “take any action that the panel considers to be equivalent to any of the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e)”. This provides the panel with a fair bit of latitude in the actions it can take. Finally, the panel can, “with the consent of the judge, take any other action that the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances”. The fact that the judge's consent is absolutely required for measures beyond the scope of those mentioned is perhaps the aspect of the bill that made us hesitate a little more.

Generally speaking, this is a bill that has long been awaited and desired by the judiciary and the bar associations. We are pleased to finally see it come to fruition, to completion. We hope that, despite the little game of ping-pong between the House of Commons and the Senate, no more obstacles will be thrown in the way. I would like to point out that the fact that another amendment has been proposed just this evening worries me a little. I hope that this will not prevent the bill from being passed before the summer, or before what could happen in the fall. Nobody here has a crystal ball. I hope this will not be the umpteenth bill to die on the Order Paper. We could fill a lot of shelves with all the bills that have died on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, we are making a lot of work for shelving manufacturers.

In general, we feel that the government's motion assessing the Senate amendments is balanced.

It prevents excessive amendments from undermining the bill's original substance and its original objective of streamlining the process and making it much more efficient. We still have some uncertainty about deleting the words “as far as possible” and imposing an obligation of result. However, we can live with that uncertainty. I think that voting in favour of the government's motion is worthwhile, because it will finally allow the bill to be implemented.

With that in mind, the Bloc Québécois has no problem in supporting the motion. Most of all, we hope that the next steps will be taken in a timely manner and will finally produce an acceptable bill.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, once Bill C‑9 is adopted, should the Minister of Justice finally become involved in the judicial appointment process in order to make it less partisan and more effective?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise here this evening to engage in the debate on Bill C-9, a bill to update the Canadian Judicial Council review process for judges’ conduct.

The last time I spoke to Bill C-9 was in December 2022, when it was here for third reading. At that time, I used an example of a case that had gone through the court system. I think the Minister of Justice referred to it as well. I think we are talking about the same one.

It was an example of a judge who abused the process to his own advantage. In that case, there had been allegations of misconduct outside of the courtroom. There was nothing about the judge's abilities in the courtroom. Of course, the judge denied all that. Early in the review process, it became evident that his days as a judge were numbered and that he would soon be asked to resign. However, he used every trick in the book. He used every delay tactic, every appeal opportunity and every diversion, and he managed to drag the process on for years at great expense to the public, because taxpayers paid for his substantial legal fees throughout the process.

There is one more thing: Throughout the whole process, which went on for many years, this judge earned a full salary. On top of that, his pension continued to accrue. Mercifully, at some point, he resigned; he had a full pension by that point. The public became very cynical about judges judging judges.

I said at the time that the reforms that Bill C-9 sought to bring to the judicial review process were not about that one judge. That was just a good illustration of why reform is so necessary. The process must be simplified, shortened and clarified so that judges being reviewed know what they are up against, the Canadian Judicial Council knows what its responsibilities are and the confidence of the public in our judicial system is restored.

Judges judging judges can be a hard sell to the public, so let us not make it more difficult and more opaque than it has to be. The principle of judicial independence runs deep in our constitutional fabric, and its integrity must be retained. That is why Bill C-9 is so urgent.

My earlier speech was on December 9, 2022, at third reading. The House voted unanimously to send it to the other place, and it went through the chamber of sober second thought. Somewhat surprisingly, it met some resistance, and it has come back to this House with some amendments. There are six in total, and I will get to them.

Before I get into the merits of Bill C-9, as now proposed by the Senate as amended, I want to give an update on what has been happening in the world of judges in Canada. Six months ago, I raised the example of a case that had gone wrong and had gone badly.

Today, sadly, we have another good example of why reform is needed urgently, and that is the example of Mr. Justice Russell Brown of the Supreme Court of Canada, who just resigned.

In the earlier case, the very clever and capable judge abused the Canadian Judicial Council review process for his own advantage. In this latter case, I would submit that the judicial review process abused the judge.

I am not going to get into the details, but I will summarize what happened. During off-hours, the judge encountered a group of people, and security footage showed that they had consumed too much alcohol. Details of who said what, who pushed whom and all that were put before the Canadian Judicial Council. It should have been a speedy process, but it was not. Six months later, the initial review panel still had not completed its work; there was no light at the end of the tunnel as to when a final decision might be made. In the meantime, Justice Russell Brown was suspended from sitting with the other nine judges; there were only eight sitting. His life was on hold, as was his family's life.

As one legal academic described disciplinary hearings, the process itself is sometimes the punishment. Moreover, as another legal expert stated more recently, “Justice Brown’s retirement constitutes an honorable discharge of an honorable man in a dishonorable process.”

It does not need to be that way. If we are serious about maintaining judicial independence, the integrity of our justice system and public confidence, while upholding the dignity of judges, reform is urgent. That is why we need to expedite this bill through Parliament as soon as possible.

How would Bill C-9 improve things? It would simplify the system. It would clarify some of the rules. Bill C-9 establishes a two-stream process for complaints, first, that are serious enough to warrant removal from office, and second, for other complaints that would warrant less serious sanctions, such as orders for counselling, education, a reprimand or requesting an apology. There is a wide range of things that the council could order.

In that two-stream process, Bill C-9 now establishes a five-step streamlined process that should have the positive effect of speeding up the process to final resolution. First, there is an initial screening by a council official to decide whether the complaint has any merit at all. For example, the complainant might be a disgruntled litigant who is unhappy with the judge’s decision. That would be a complaint without merit. The draft legislation also clarifies the criteria to guide the screening officer in their work. There is more predictability, the rules are clearer and there is less fishing for irrelevant facts.

Any case not dismissed by the screening officer then proceeds to a review by an official to decide whether the complaint merits further investigation. The reviewing member is guided by the same criteria as the screening officer. The reviewing member can dismiss the case altogether or refer the matter to a review panel.

Once it gets to the review panel, the panel could either dismiss the case or make orders, short of a recommendation to the minister for removal. If the panel forms the opinion that the judge should be removed, it directs the case to a full hearing panel. In all other cases, it has significant power to order lesser remedies or sanctions. I have already mentioned the remedies. These powers would be much broader, at this level, than they are under current legislation. That is what makes this new process so unique and so important. In theory, this allows the Canadian Judicial Council to directly address all types of judicial misconduct and enables prompt resolution of less-serious cases without a full hearing.

If the judge is unhappy with the order that has been made, he or she could appeal the review panel's decision to a reduced appeal panel. Appeals relating to remedies or orders short of removal go to a reduced hearing. Those related to removal recommendations would go to a full hearing.

The panel can hear evidence, take sworn testimony and, hopefully, settle the case. However, if the judge is unsatisfied with that, they could then have a final appeal within the system.

This internal appeal mechanism has no equivalent under the current system. Appeal panels replace, as the minister has said, the current right to judicial review through the superior courts, where cases are subject to court rules of evidence, potentially greater delays and substantially higher costs. Let us think of the earlier case, where the judge dragged the process out for many years through the superior courts using judicial review procedures that were available to him. It was an abuse of the system. This legislation would put a stop to that.

The whole process would stay within the four walls of the Canadian Judicial Council review process. There are no appeals from a decision of the appeal panel, with one very important exception. Under clause 137 of the legislation, either the judge or the presenting counsel, which is like the Crown prosecutor, could apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is a party’s only opportunity to appeal to the courts under the new process.

The purpose behind this restriction, of course, is to reduce opportunities for endless delays by appealing into the court system. There is one appeal to one court at the end of the internal process, and that is it. Purportedly, according to the government, this limitation balances the right to fairness with a need for expediency; in fact, it is just a faint hope, because a right to appeal to the Supreme Court is only a right to seek leave to appeal, to ask for permission. The Supreme Court is very busy, and it receives many appeal applications in any given year; however, it grants very few of them. As a matter of fact, it grants fewer than 10%.

We had experts come to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and testify that, in their opinion, this is just not sufficient, and that a judge should have at least one real right of appeal into the court system. Conservative members of the committee supported that, and for that reason, we put forward a motion to amend Bill C-9 to give one more right of appeal, and that is to the Federal Court of Appeal.

In searching for the right balance between expediency and fairness, Conservative members of the committee felt that this was the right place to land. However, the chair of the committee disagreed, calling the motion “out of scope”. Bill C-9 came back to the House without amendment, and it was that unamended bill that came before the House for third reading in December 2022. The House approved it unanimously. It went to the other place, and surprise, it has now come back with six amendments, including the one the Conservative members put forward. It was a remake of our amendment, so we support that amendment, of course.

Incidentally, we also support the other amendments concerning more technical matters, such as the structure and composition of hearing panels, reporting and transparency requirements and the collecting of data. We looked at those, and they all make sense.

I want to turn back to the Russell Brown issue, which has been in the news recently. At a press conference held earlier this week, Chief Justice Wagner had this to say: “Since I became Chief Justice in 2018, I realized that there was something to be corrected at the Judicial Conduct Committee. The judicial conduct process was...opaque. It was too long, too costly and...it was not possible...for the public to have trust.... I was happy to see that government has decided to legislate on that issue, to be more transparent, less costly.”

He went on to point out that this process of reform started several years ago, but because of a number of delays, the bill fell off the order table. We all know what those delays were. They were caused by the Prime Minister's decision for prorogation of Parliament and then later to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and force an election in the middle of the pandemic. It was an election that nobody wanted, and the results after are exactly what they were before.

The bill fell off the order table, and that was the cause of the delay. Parliament had to start over, and now the bill is once again before us in the form of Bill C-9. It should have received royal assent by now, and if the Liberals had agreed to the Conservative members’ common-sense amendment concerning the Federal Court of Appeal, the bill likely would have been law by now already. However, let us get it done now.

As I wrap things up here, I want to reflect on Russell Brown's legacy. I will quote several legal scholars, whose words were picked up by a publication.

Joanna Baron, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said, “[Justice Brown's] track record in just under eight years on the SCC is extraordinary. It's sad to consider the counter-history of what his judicial career might've been otherwise.”

Ms. Baron goes on to cite Justice Brown in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act case of 2021. We should remember that Justice Brown was writing in dissent; he was on the minority side of this. Ms. Baron says, “He was skeptical of the move by the majority to accept that Parliament could wade into provincial jurisdiction to legislate reduction of carbon emissions under the ‘national concern’ doctrine, noting that such a move would permanently vest exclusive jurisdiction in Parliament over any matter said to be of the vaguely defined ‘national concern’."

Sean Speer, editor of The Hub, writes about the distinction between judges and scholars who are “living tree” proponents when it comes to constitutional litigation, and those like Justice Brown who pay deference to laws and regulations passed by Parliament and by legislative assemblies.

Asher Honickman and Gerard Kennedy of the Advocates for the Rule of Law had this to say about the vacancy created by Mr. Justice Brown’s departure creates at the SCC:

Justice Brown’s departure robs this country of one of the greatest judicial minds and legal writers to have presided over the Court in recent decades. We urgently recommend that the Prime Minister appoint a successor from Western Canada [where Justice Brown is from] who exhibits a similar legal brilliance and commitment to foundational principles.

I have another quote, from Howard Anglin, a doctoral student at Oxford University, who had this to say about Justice Brown’s departure:

His departure leaves a yawning intellectual hole on the Court. The Supreme Court today is a more jurisprudentially diverse body than it was eight years ago when he joined it, but it is always a threat to resume its old ways of lazy collegiality. If it does, at least future justices and scholars [and I would add law students] will have Brown’s trove of fine writing and clear thinking to challenge, inspire, and shake them out of that all-too-Canadian tendency to complacency.

I just want to have one more quote from Justice Brown read into the record. This is another dissent. It is a case that is important to me because it involves Trinity Western University when it was trying to establish a law school and was turned down by the Law Society of British Columbia. This is important to me because Trinity Western University is a very important institution, highly regarded and highly respected in my home community of Langley, and it is also my alma mater. It is where I did my undergraduate degree many years ago.

I am going to conclude with this quote from Justice Brown from that case, again writing a dissent. That decision went the wrong way, in my opinion, but Justice Brown's words, I think, are very important. Hopefully they will form the basis of judicial scholarship going forward. They read, “the public interest in fostering a liberal, pluralist society is served by accommodating religious freedom...which freedom allows religious communities to flourish and thereby promotes diversity and pluralism in the public life of our communities.”

I would like to thank Mr. Justice Russell Brown for the great service he has given to Canada, to the Supreme Court and to legal scholarship.

I am going to wrap this up, but I have a motion that I would like to read into the record. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, be now read a second time and concurred in.”

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we agree that it is high time that Bill C-9 becomes law.

I am disappointed to hear that the government is rejecting an amendment put forward by the other place that we think is very important, and that is the right to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Right now Bill C-9 says that there can be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but that is really just a right to apply for leave to appeal, and very few applications for leave to appeal are actually approved by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is something under 10%. Witnesses at committee have said that this is really just a faint hope for a judge who is perhaps going to lose his livelihood, reputation and legal profession. In the opinion of those experts in appeals, there should be one real appeal, and it should be to the Federal Court of Appeal.

I wonder what the minister would say.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, the House:

agrees with amendments 1(b)(i) and 1(c)(i) made by the Senate;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 1(g), 1(i), 1(j) and 1(k) because they undermine the mechanisms in the bill for controlling process costs and delays by introducing a second intermediate appellate level into the proposed new judicial conduct process that would duplicate the work of the first and, as a result, would introduce into the new process costs and delays comparable to those that have undermined public confidence in the current process;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because it undermines the mechanisms in the bill for controlling process costs and delays by maintaining most of the unnecessary costs and delays that the bill was intended to excise from the process for obtaining court review of a Canadian Judicial Council report issued under the current process;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 1(a), 1(b)(ii), 1(f) and 1(h) because they would, taken together, have the effect of redefining the roles of lay persons, expressly defined as persons who have no legal background, in the proposed new judicial conduct process by obliging them to fulfill decision-making functions requiring legal training or that are best fulfilled by those with legal training;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 1(c)(ii) and 1(c)(iii), 1(d) and 1(e) because, taken together, they would redefine the balance struck by the bill between confidentiality and transparency considerations arising during the investigative stages of the process in a way that risks disclosing information of a personal or confidential nature, and that would require substantial new financial resources that are not otherwise necessary for the proper operation of the proposed new judicial conduct process; and

respectfully disagrees with amendments 1(b)(iii) and 1(l) because, taken together, they substantially rework the principal mechanisms contained in the bill for ensuring that the Canadian Judicial Council makes public information about the process, and these amendments do so in a way that risks disclosing information of a personal or confidential nature.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, which proposes reforms to the judicial conduct process. There is no doubt that these reforms are necessary. On Tuesday, the Chief Justice of Canada noted the importance of passing the bill quickly and I hope all members here take his advice to heart and that we proceed quickly.

Before moving to my prepared remarks, I would like to thank the Chief Justice of Canada as well as the Canadian Judicial Council and the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association for their work on this bill. I would also like to thank my very able parliamentary secretary, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke; as well as the members for Fundy Royal and Rivière-du-Nord. Obviously, as well, I would like to thank the hon. senators who put a lot of work into this bill, including Senator Pierre Dalphond.

Before discussing the central elements of Bill C-9, I would like to remind the hon. members of the process that got us here. As members will recall, the current judicial conduct process originated in 1971 when Parliament amended the Judges Act to create the Canadian Judicial Council, which was vested with the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct against federally appointed judges.

More than 50 years later, Canada's judge-led model for overseeing the conduct of a federally appointed judiciary remains a forerunner in the world, but the main characteristics of Canada's process have remained unchanged. This is despite fundamental changes in the field of administrative law and changing social values and public expectations that help to inform norms of judicial conduct. As a result, the structures and processes currently in place under the Judges Act are outdated. Worse still, in some recent high-profile cases, they have proven ineffective, jeopardizing the public trust that they were meant to inspire.

The current process for reviewing allegations of misconduct against federally appointed judges is seriously flawed. If left unaddressed, those flaws risk undermining public trust in the process and, by extension, our judicial system.

That is where Bill C‑9 comes in. For the purposes of our consideration this evening, I would like to focus on the main objectives of the bill, namely, to make the judicial disciplinary process fairer, faster and more cost-effective, without compromising the rigour of the investigation, all with a view to ensuring greater accountability to the Canadian public. The bill meets these commendable objectives by proposing a set of reforms that take into account the many competing factors that come into play in a complaint process such as this one.

The bill, as passed by the House, will replace the current process with a streamlined one that includes an internal appeal mechanism that will ensure the fairness and integrity of findings against a judge, rather than allowing the judge to step out of the process and initiate multiple court challenges that can interrupt and delay the case for years, as we have previously seen. The decisions of the internal appeal panel will be final, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, with leave.

The bill therefore strikes the right balance to ensure that the most serious and complex cases are not only reviewed as thoroughly as necessary, but that they are also completed in a timely manner. What is more, rather than treating all cases as though they could necessarily warrant the judge's removal, the new process will make a wider range of possible sanctions available. This will allow certain complaints to be resolved both quickly and fairly, avoiding, in many cases, the need for public hearings.

Finally, through the reform process, the bill involves members of the general public at key decision-making stages where appropriate and ensures transparency and accountability to Canadians, while balancing the interests of complainants and judges.

Bill C-9, as adopted unanimously in the chamber, is a balanced, carefully considered and meticulously crafted bill that was born of extensive consultations with judicial and legal stakeholders, as well as members of the general public.

It benefits from the support of cornerstone judicial institutions, most notably, the Canadian Judicial Council, which stands at the very heart of the judicial conduct process that the bill seeks to reform.

As Bill C-9 made its way through this chamber, I was delighted, but not surprised, to see it benefit from significant approval and ultimately receive unanimous support. Once again, I thank the critics from all parties in every part of the House. However, the other place has adopted several amendments to Bill C-9, the majority of which simply cannot be accepted. While I am grateful for the thorough deliberations of the other place with regard to this bill, I am disappointed to see the results of their second thoughts.

Allow me to begin my overview with the amendments from the other place on a positive note. I propose that we support the amendment that would strike the qualifier “As far as possible” from the current text of proposed section 84 in clause 12 of the bill. This provision requires that the Canadian Judicial Council make best efforts in ensuring that the roster of laypersons and puisne judges from which the decision-makers for various stages of the proposed new processes are drawn reflect the diversity of Canadians. The amendment helps to bolster the message sent through our legislative texts that our government, as well as all parliamentarians and, indeed, all Canadians, value the great diversity of our nation and are committed to ensuring that this diversity is reflected in our institutions, including the decision-making bodies of the new judicial conduct process.

We also welcome the amendment that would add complaints alleging sexual misconduct to the types of complaints that cannot be screened out by a screening officer and that must be reviewed by a member of the council. The two other types of such complaints are those that allege sexual harassment and those alleging discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The spirit of this amendment aligns with the overall objectives of the bill and does not otherwise undermine the operation of the proposed new judicial conduct process. While it was unlikely these allegations would be screened out, it being clearly laid out in the text does not undermine the legislation or any ongoing process.

This brings me to the remaining amendments. We cannot support them because they substantially undermine the bill's excellent solution to chronic delays in the current process in two ways. First, it has been proposed to make the decisions of appeal panels reviewable as of right by the Federal Court of Appeal instead of by the Supreme Court of Canada with leave. I remind everyone that the appeal panels provided for by this bill are designed to be the equivalent of an intermediate appellate court to give the judge the same rights and the public the same level of transparency as a court like the Federal Court of Appeal. By making this change, the other place has added a second intermediate level of appeal to the process, giving a judge accused of serious misconduct a second kick at the can, as it were, at the intermediate appellate level before trying to do the same thing at the Supreme Court of Canada, something no other Canadian gets.

This change would reintroduce a substantial portion of the costs and the delays that plague the current process and that this bill was in fact intended to excise. It completely undermines the most central objective of this bill, making the process faster and less costly while maintaining its fairness. I would note that a similar effect was deemed out of scope by our own justice committee.

Secondly, the Senate proposed to add laypersons where they should not bring their perspectives. This would undermine the effectiveness and fairness of the new process in the bill, and it would particularly undermine the appeal mechanism. It is undeniable that laypersons can make a meaningful contribution and add great value to a process such as this.

That said, as with the other aspects of this bill, it was important to strike the right balance between factors conducive to the inclusion of laypersons and the inherent limits to their participation. Involving laypersons is certainly appropriate and useful for increasing public confidence in the fact-finding stages of the process. This is precisely where their involvement is provided for in Bill C‑9 as passed by the House.

The Senate's proposed changes jeopardize this carefully established balance by proposing to include laypersons in appeal panels while, in these processes, the appeal panels deal primarily with correcting errors in law. In the context of the judicial conduct process, laypersons are defined as people with no legal knowledge, such as people who do not have the training required to address matters of law.

The Senate is proposing to add laypersons to two other stages of the process where training will be required or considered an important asset. The Senate's proposed changes represent a fundamental redefining of the role of laypersons as set out in the bill adopted by the House at second reading. Accordingly, I believe that they are simply not consistent with the stated purpose and cannot be retained.

The amendments proposed by the other place also undermine the bill's sensitive balancing of confidentiality considerations with the need for transparency. Here again the amendments in this respect go so far as to be out of scope.

As it stands, Bill C-9 includes transparency guarantees that reflect the broader public interest in open proceedings. However, the bill rightly situates the public's interest in open proceedings by building in adequate confidentiality safeguards that protect the complainants and judges who are the subject of the disciplinary proceedings. The other place's amendments would unravel this delicate balance by requiring, for example, ongoing disclosure, even when proceedings have yet to conclude. Perhaps most significantly, the other place's amendments lack safeguards to ensure that the council can protect the identity of complainants who fear reprisals from the subject of a complaint.

In the same vein, the final set of amendments require the collection and public disclosure of an unwieldy amount of information that would be gathered for the purpose of informing the Minister of Justice in deciding whether or not to recommend to the Canadian Judicial Council that new judicial education seminars be established on this information. Since the minister can speak to the council at any time about judicial education opportunities, such amendments are quite literally unnecessary and, as amendments whose primary objective is the establishment of new judicial education opportunities, they are also out of scope.

Hon. members, we have reached a critical stage. As I have reiterated throughout my remarks, Bill C-9 is a bill about balance, balancing interests that are in tension with one another: confidentiality and transparency, fairness and efficiency, independence and accountability. Bill C-9, as adopted in this chamber by all parties, has struck the right balance, a balance these amendments would upset in arbitrary ways that run counter to the bill's central objective of restoring public confidence in the judicial conduct process. As a result, these amendments, quite simply, would defeat the purpose of this bill. Bill C-9 is critical to ensuring nothing less than continued public confidence in the independence of our judiciary and, by extension, in our system of justice.

I look forward to working together toward the common goal of ensuring that this important bill passes at the earliest opportunity. I will again note the urgency raised by the Chief Justice of Canada with regard to passing this legislation and I encourage all of my colleagues in this place to make this happen.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to respond on behalf of the government.

This afternoon we will continue debate on Government Business No. 26, concerning amendments to the Standing Orders. When debate concludes later this evening, we will consider Bill C-35, respecting early learning and child care, followed by Senate amendments to Bill C-9, concerning the Judges Act.

Tomorrow we will consider Bill C-42, respecting the Canada Business Corporations Act, at report stage and third reading, and Bill S-8, respecting sanctions.

The priorities for next week shall include Bill S-8, on sanctions; Senate amendments to Bill C-18, respecting online news; Bill C-40, concerning the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's Law; and Bill C-33, which strengthens the port system and railway safety.

Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Finally, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

I am very proud that Bill C‑9 received the unanimous approval of the House. That sends a very clear signal. We take our responsibility toward our justice system very seriously.

The changes our government proposed to the Judges Act will strengthen the process for handling complaints against federally appointed judges. The changes will ensure that the judicial misconduct complaints process will reach final decisions in a fair and timely way and at a reasonable cost to the public purse.

We will work with the other place to get this bill passed—

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know that our justice system is fair, accessible and efficient, and that includes the judiciary.

Can the Minister of Justice explain to us why Bill C‑9, which recently received the unanimous approval of the House, is a crucial step toward achieving that objective?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. We will continue our discussions about when the House will adjourn for Christmas. This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion.

After that, we will vote on the adoption of the supply for the current period. Tomorrow, we will be begin debate at report stage of third reading of Bill C-9, the judges bill.

Next week priority will be given to Bill S-8, the sanctions legislation; Bill S-4, COVID-19 justice measures legislation; and Bill C-18, the online news act.

Justice and Human Rights

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Today, we are here debating Bill C-20, an act that would establish the public complaints and review commission and amend certain acts and statutory instruments.

First, I want to recognize a first-year law student at Thompson Rivers University where I used to teach. I want to thank Najib Rahall, who is about to start contracts class, which I appreciate. He is now in Hansard. I thank him for turning in my wallet this weekend. He is taught by my friends Professor Craig Jones, K.C. and Professor Dr. Ryan Gauthier. I am sure he is also getting a first-class education.

I also want to recognize somebody else who is a constituent. He was also a colleague at the bar and at my work, maybe even taking my position as a Crown prosecutor. I want to recognize my friend, Anthony Varesi, on his new book on Bob Dylan. It is his second book. He wrote the first one in law school. I am not sure how he did that.

On the matter at hand, it seems the Liberals have been discussing this issue well before I arrived at Parliament. From what I can see, this matter has been discussed for about seven years. The bill was first tabled in the 42nd Parliament and died in the Senate. It was then tabled again during the 43rd Parliament. We all know what happened at that point. Despite Canadians clearly signalling they did not want to go to the polls and despite the fact there was a lot of work to be done, the Prime Minister coveted majority government and, with all candour, let that get in the way of the work of the House.

Having been here for a year, I am still learning, but what I can see is that there is a lot of work to be done. The work on this bill in the 43rd Parliament was interrupted by what amounted to a small seat change in hopes that the Prime Minister would get what he wanted. He was ultimately denied that, but there was a seat shuffle, and I am proud to stand here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as part of that seat shuffle.

Now we have this bill tabled a year into the government's mandate. As I was preparing for this speech, I reflected on why it took the government a year to do this. The election was about 14 months ago. I am wondering whether this was a priority. In fact, I asked my Bloc colleague a question about this. This is an important matter to discuss.

Canada has what amounts to the longest undefended border in the world. I have had countless interactions with the RCMP and with CBSA officials, some of them in my personal capacity and others in my professional capacity. These interactions likely number into the hundreds, and all but one have generally been cordial or favourable professional interactions. That is why we are here, because not all interactions and not all things go as they should both personally and professionally.

I will take a moment to recognize the work of peace officers, civilian members and staff with the CBSA and with the RCMP. In my riding, there are detachments with the RCMP, like Clinton, 100 Mile House, Clearwater and Barriere. There are three detachments also in Kamloops, being Kamloops City, Tk'emlups rural, which is situated on the traditional land of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc, and Kamloops traffic. All of these detachments cover 38,000 square kilometres of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am grateful for the sacrifices of those who put on the uniform to keep us safe, with their backup officers often being an hour away through staffing or resource difficulties. They are there to keep people safe whenever they are in that area. These members see terrible things.

I was speaking to a bill I authored, Bill C-291, last week. I authored the bill and it was sponsored by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, and I thank him again for doing so. The bill proposes to change the definition of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”, because what is occurring is not pornography, it is sexual abuse, and we should be calling it what it is.

One of the things I pointed out was that police doing this job were often at a constable level and they were reviewing horrendous images, images of unspeakable horrors. Usually, in my prior work, I did not have to view this sort of evidence, but police officers did, and they are not paid enough to do so, frankly, given the work they do. I thank them for that.

Let us face it, most peace officers, people and frontline workers doing the job just want to make it home. They do not want to hurt anybody. A lot of police officers I know would love to go through a shift without having to arrest anybody. That is often not something most police officers do. At the end of the day, people in the RCMP and CBSA have a mandate to keep us safe. They are expected to do more with less resources. While this is not always fair, it is the reality of our situation.

When it comes to our frontline officers and workers, we expect leadership. We expect them to engage professionally, to do their jobs, to be equipped and to be professional in all that they do. I wish I could see the same from the RCMP commissioner at this time. It seems to me that the commissioner is not always modelling that professionalism, being vulnerable to inappropriate influence from the former Minister of Public Safety. It is ironic that Bill C-20 talks about the overseeing of frontline officers, mainly constables, but I question whether senior Mounties or, in this case, the senior Mountie is herself immune from the oversight that is required.

I point to what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said in committee in questioning the minister. I will do my best to paraphrase her, because I cannot be nearly as eloquent as the member. She noted that the commissioner was either influenced by the government or completely bungled the investigation into the mass shootings in Nova Scotia, a terrible incident, She asked why she had not been fired. This is the professionalism, oversight and leadership that Canadians want.

At the end of the day, we are here to talk about who oversees the overseers. This came up when we were debating Bill C-9 at committee in the past week or two. That bill proposes changes to the Judges Act that are long overdue.

Before I came to Parliament, I was unaware that there was no independent oversight for CBSA. Let us not forget that these are frontline peace officers. Oftentimes and typically, they will be people's first human point of contact once they get off the plane or at a land or sea border crossing. The provisions would require the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to interim reports, reviews and recommendations within legislative timelines. This is quite important because we require, in my view, a consideration of some measure of independent oversight.

Most people here know that I come from a legal background. In my world view, the rule of law is obviously sacrosanct. Sometimes, we can have heated debates in this place, as we should, about how that should manifest itself. We may agree to disagree, but at the end of the day I think we can all agree that the rule of law is important. In fact, it is written into the preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the courts, the rule of law is maintained in two ways, typically through an appellate function but also through ethical guidelines, for instance, the ethical guidelines that are being revised in Bill C-9. The overseers are overseen on legal matters by these two mechanisms.

The one question I do have when it comes to Bill C-20, and this came up in Bill C-9, is the question of consultations. I believe my colleague for the NDP raised this. I am not sure what, if any, consultations were done, but this obviously needs be explored at committee, if the legislation successfully passes on second reading. Let us face it that governments of all stripes often fail on these issues. We have seen it on the extreme intoxication bill. I call on the government to make this a priority.

CBSA has extraordinary powers, detention, arrest and search. These are sweeping powers where charter rights are often diminished. This bill would replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP with the complaints and review commission.

Let us examine the backdrop in which peace officers within the RCMP and CBSA are expected to do their job. It is important to evaluate that backdrop as we consider the independent oversight for peace officers doing their job.

My constituents frequently complain to me about what they have termed, and others have termed, catch and release. I hear about this from police officers from across the country. This is why I put forward Bill C-274, because our bail system must be reformed.

I have compassion for police officers doing their job and arresting the same person again and again, only to know that this person will be released shortly.

The government, though it is dealing with the oversight issue in Bill C-20, has not addressed key bail decisions in the last few years, which has led to a catch-and-release system. It is in the interest of all Canadians that the government do so.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. This is not lost on this side of the House. We have Bill C-5 and Bill C-21. The word “victim” is not in either piece of legislation.

It saddens me to say, and I am surprised to be saying this, that drive-by shootings can now result in a community-based sentence. That does not feel right in my heart, but, more important, from a legal perspective, it is not logical.

The Regina v. Nur decision struck down mandatory minimums for section 95 of the Criminal Code, possessing a restricted firearm with readily available ammunition, in this case a handgun. In that instance, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the appropriate sentence, as I recall, would be 40 months in jail.

That is what it said the appropriate sentence would be for a relatively young man. I believe the accused in that case was 19 or 20 years old. We are here debating, not long after Nur was struck down, whether that should actually result in a jail sentence when our highest court, which has frequently struck down these cases, said that this should have been 40 months in jail.

On the one hand, we have Conservatives who have often advocated for mandatory minimums. It was the Harper government that passed many of the mandatory minimums. On the other hand, we have, across the aisle, people who say that there should be no mandatory minimums.

I would advocate for a middle-ground approach, one that has mandatory minimums that operate in a constitutionally compliant manner. I have stated this to the Minister of Justice, that this is the appropriate middle ground. Unfortunately, he did not heed my exhortation to do so.

Police and CBSA officials are operating within an environment that has 124,000 more violent crimes than last year. This would make up almost my whole riding. Canadians are tired of this. Also, there were 789 homicides in Canada last year and 611 in 2015, which is a 29% increase.

Police and CBSA are in situations in which gun crime is a concern. I recall reading in the news a couple of years ago about a shooting of a teenager who was innocently driving with his parents. There was a person in my riding, a case of mistaken identity, who was shot down at a hotel. This is the situation our police are operating within. These were sons, brothers and friends.

There has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015, yet when we come to the House to debate legislation on public safety, the debate is whether or not to relax these types of penalties rather than make them more stringent so that gang-related homicides would ultimately go down rather than up.

If members ask anyone in the system, I anticipate they will tell them that organized crime is so difficult to investigate. That is why they call it “organized”. There is intimidation, often a layer of distancing, money and organization.

If I were a police officer or a CBSA officer, I would be concerned with the proliferation of firearms. I remember one of the first cases I dealt with which involved now staff sergeant Kelly Butler, one of the best police officers I have encountered. She pulled a vehicle over and what was revealed inside the driver's jacket was a loaded sawed-off shotgun. I remember holding that firearm when it was in evidence. The firearm was illegal. The stock and the barrel had been cut off, so it was probably about 10 to 12 inches long. That is the environment our peace officers and CBSA officers are operating within.

Our border is porous, and there is a concern of what to do about it. The public safety minister has earmarked, as I recall, $5 billion to target law-abiding gun owners who are not accounting for crimes. Bill C-5 and Bill C-21 will be targeting that. Where could $5 billion be spent when it comes to our border and enforcement of illegal guns? I ask that question rhetorically because I have some pretty good ideas.

There has been a 61% increase in reporting sexual assaults since 2015. I have two bills on sexual offences. We obviously had the #MeToo movement in that time, which is always important. My wife was telling me that she saw a sign recently that said, “No means no”, but we have to go one step further and say, “Only yes means yes”. Only consent itself is consent.

To conclude, this proposed act would create an obligation for the RCMP commissioner and CBSA president to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. The report would inform the minister of actions that the RCMP and CBSA have taken within the year to respond to recommendations from the chairperson.

This is great, but one thing I learned in my first year in Parliament, while sitting on the veterans affairs committee is that, just because a recommendation is made, does not mean it will be acted upon. My hope is that, when these recommendations are made, they will actually be acted upon, otherwise they are worth nothing more than the piece of paper they are written upon. It is easy to use words, and we have frequently said that, but I call on the government to act.

Government Business No. 22 Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

I will answer the question the Conservatives asked about having quorum in the House and it being in the Constitution. The unfortunate reality for the Conservative member who asked the question is that he should know that he has participated in unanimous consent motions in the House to waive that provision in the past. He has already set the precedent himself, so has the Conservative Party and, as a matter of fact, every single person in the House has set the precedent to waive the requirements for quorum.

We cannot be selective as to when we want to interpret the Constitution to our benefit, which is what the Conservatives are trying to do now. The reality is that there has been a long-standing precedent to waive the requirement for quorum under certain conditions, and that is exactly what we are seeing in this motion. There is the same consistency that comes with that.

However, I think what we really have to do with this motion is get to the heart of what is going on. At the heart is the Conservatives' partisan interest and allowing that to supersede the needs of Canadians. That is exactly what is going on here, and I will demonstrate in my speech today how they have routinely done that, not over the last seven years of my being in the House and watching it, although they have done it over the seven years, but five examples just in this fall session alone when they have done that. They have done it on multiple occasions using multiple different tools.

Any individual who has participated in or is well versed in how the Westminster parliamentary system works knows that the one tool the opposition has is to delay. That is its sole tool, and it is important for the opposition to exercise the use of that tool when it can to garner support, or whatever it might be, when they find those issues to be so important. When the opposition feels the issue is the hill it will die on, it will fight, delay and filibuster if it has to, because it feels something is not right.

That is the main tool opposition parties have in a parliamentary system like this. The problem is that Conservatives are using it all the time. They are using that tool for everything. They are saying absolutely every piece of legislation that comes before the House is a hill they will die on, and the problem is that this diminishes the value of the tool they have. It also affects directly, and this is what I do not understand, their credibility on the issue. When they stand up to delay things they are fully in support of, do they not understand that the public sees that? They are doing the same thing, and their partisan interest in seeing the government fail is more important to them than actually providing supports for Canadians.

Let us review some of the legislation from this fall alone. With Bill C-29, the truth and reconciliation bill, the Conservative Party blocked a motion to sit late to try to pass the bill at second reading before the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is what the government, and I think all Canadians, would have loved to have seen. It was not until pressure was mounted on them by the public that they backed down from that position.

Another one was Bill C-30, the GST tax credit. This is a bill that needed to be passed in a timely manner to get real supports to Canadians. They were real supports for Canadians that needed to be done in a timely fashion to line up with when the GST payments were made. The Conservatives, again, blocked a motion to sit late on the second reading of that important piece of legislation. They only backed down again and changed their minds on how they would vote on that particular piece of legislation based on public criticism and the public holding them accountable for playing the games they are playing. That is the reality of what we are seeing.

Bill C-31 is the bill that afforded very important measures regarding dental care and housing supports. The Conservative Party, again, blocked the adoption of the legislation to help the most vulnerable, forcing the government, with the help of the NDP, to have a programming motion to get it passed, and this is what we see time after time.

The next is Bill C-9, which would amend the Judges Act, and I will remind members this is all happened during this fall session alone.

We had technical issues with interpretation with that bill. The Conservatives are always standing up and using the interpreters as one of their arguments for making sure we have the best quality of debate in the House. When there was a problem with interpretation, which delayed the debate of the bill, the Conservatives refused to support a motion to add time to the debate that day.

The Conservatives say that they want more time to debate. We literally said that we lost 30 minutes of time because of a problem and we had to temporarily suspend, so how about we add that 30 minutes onto the end of the day. The Conservatives said no. This is the group that is now sitting before us saying that they are in favour of doing absolutely everything to increase democracy and that they want more speakers on every issue.

The one glaring example of this happening in this fall session was with Bill S-5. The bill is on environmental protections, and it is a bill everybody in the House supported. It was unanimously adopted. Conservatives put up 27 speakers on it. I want to provide a comparison for those who might be watching. Compared to that number, Liberals put up six speakers, the NDP put up four speakers, the Bloc put up five speakers and the Green Party put up one speaker.

What is even more telling is that, if someone goes back to look at Hansard or watch the videos—

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's question gets to the core of a matter in front of us, which is that, if we are direct with each other, tell each other exactly how many speakers there are going to be and how much time is needed on a particular bill, then maybe we will need additional hours or maybe we will not. I will be very direct. Oftentimes, it has only been the Conservative Party from which I have not been able to get straight or clear answers on how much time is needed.

What does that mean? Let us look at Bill C-9, which was a technical bill that was supported by all parties, and for days we ended up debating this bill, with no clarity on when it was going to end. Then, when we had an issue with interpretation and lost 20 minutes, we asked for that 20 minutes back and the Conservatives said no, meaning that we had an entire other day of House business that was wasted. Every day of House business is critical, and it needs to be used for real issues.

We are saying we should focus on the real priorities that we have and, if and when we have unanimity, we do not need to chew up enormous House time.

Government Business No. 22—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will use the first few moments of my remarks to continue with the point I was making, because it really is astounding to hear that member.

On a personal level, as House leaders, we all get to know each other a little. We have extra meetings throughout the week to talk about the business of the House, things like the Board of Internal Economy and other aspects about the place. I have always found that my counterpart on the government bench has been decent to work with, and I want to say that off the bat. We all come from different political perspectives, we are all human beings here, and I do appreciate that about him. However, to listen to a representative from the government talk about misinformation, divisiveness and the battle for the heart and soul of Canadians, this is a government that has been caught telling blatant falsehoods time and time again.

I want to share with the hon. member that when I referenced the scriptural part about “Go and sin no more” would I ever presume to hold myself up to that standard. I can assure him that I make no pretensions whatsoever. However, I will let the member in on a little secret. In a couple of hours we will have question period, and we will hear misinformation and falsehoods coming from the government side. We will hear the Prime Minister deny that he has a role in inflation.

We have a Prime Minister who has directly caused the worst inflation Canadians have had in 40 years, and on a daily basis he gets up and he denies that. He gets up and tries to say that it is all these external factors, that it is kind of like the weather, that inflation is just happening to us, so we better bundle up, add another layer and shove some twenties in our pockets as those prices will get us if we are not looking carefully. It is just nonsense. We know that his money printing and deficits caused the Bank of Canada to bankroll his out-of-control spending, a good chunk of which had nothing to do with COVID. That is why we have inflation, but we do not hear that. Instead, we hear misinformation and falsehoods, with the government trying to blame everybody else for the inflation we see.

There is an expression many people are probably very aware of, which goes something along the lines of “Your poor planning does not constitute an emergency on my part.” The government House leader referenced a couple of examples of legislation that his own government is responsible for the delay. He talked about Bill C-9, which sat on the Order Paper for six months before the government called it. When it did call it, the Liberals were surprised that members wanted to speak to it, that they wanted to point out some of its deficiencies. They do not like that.

The member also talked about Bill S-5 needing six days of debate, as if six days is a long time. Bill S-5 is comprehensive legislation that would amend several acts, has a whole bunch of new regulations as it relates to the chemical industry and all kinds of interrelated aspects. Members of Parliament need to draw out, in their time in the House, some of the flaws in that bill to raise awareness. Many stakeholders and industry groups will be affected by that legislation.

When we come to this place, we do that due diligence and we take our time to highlight that. We allow time for people who are affected by the legislation to react, to educate their members or their colleagues or to educate us. Sometimes we start debating legislation and all of a sudden our agenda gets booked by people wanting to meet with us to tell us what the impact would be if the legislation is or is not passed, and all that takes time.

The government does not give every single Canadian a heads up as to what it is doing. There is no daily Canada Gazette email to Canadians that says that in four or five months this is what the government will be doing so let it know what they think. There is a small notice period where the government tells the House what it is going to do and then tables it at first reading, and often we are on to the second reading debate the very next day. Many Canadians are getting that information for the very first time, and it takes time for people to inform their members of Parliament as to how they will be affected.

Acting as if six days in the House before a bill gets to committee is an inordinately long period of time is ridiculous, especially when we consider that two of those days were one-hour debates. The government called the debate for second reading on short days. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the NDP critic for the legislation on Bill S-5 had to wait until the third day to conclude remarks because of that. If the government is saying that it does not want to listen to the NDP members give speeches, I have some affinity for that and some sympathy, but I do not think it is proper to ram through a motion like this and, as a result, not allow for enough time for NDP members to have their say.

I certainly believe in hearing all points of view and all voices before the House takes a decision, so this is just a completely false and bogus argument altogether. There is nothing to it; there is no justification for it.

What is it akin to? The government House leader spoke a lot about the need for the House to get things done. I think a lot of Canadians would agree with that. They see us in this chamber. We know the issues that are affecting them on a daily a basis and they want some action. They want their elected representatives to tackle those issues. However, they also do not want the government to have a completely unfettered hand.

Every democracy tries to put in place not only mechanisms for decisions to be made, but mechanisms for those who oppose those decisions to, at the very least, have an impact and to limit the unfettered power that the executive branch may have. In Canada, we have some checks and balances. Other countries have more. Other countries make the inability to get things done a feature of their system. Many people might look to the United States and see a very complicated process that takes a lot of time and requires a political party to have control in all three branches of the government with respect to both houses, congress and the senate, and the presidency to really make ambitious changes. They might look at that and say it is a flaw, which it may very well be at times. The system may have been designed to make it difficult to get things done.

The Canadian system was designed to make it easier for the government to implement its agenda, but it is not without checks and balances in and of itself. We have a second chamber in our Parliament, the Senate, that provides many of the same rights and privileges that many members of Parliament have. It goes through the same process. Once a bill leaves the House and goes to the Senate, it has its three readings. It has committee study. There have been occasions in Canadian history where the Senate has held up government legislation when acting as that kind of check.

The calendar and the daily program is also a check on the government's power. The Prime Minister cannot come in and start moving legislation, have it rubber-stamped and sail it through. The government has to prioritize. It has to look at the calendar and the number of sitting days and prioritize its legislation. If it brings something in that the opposition has no intention of supporting, because it is poorly drafted or will have terrible consequences, then it has to understand that the House will take longer to pass that kind of legislation, which will have an impact on other bills it wants to pass.

Therefore, by the government giving itself the power to extend these sittings, it really does take away a very important check on the unfettered power of the Prime Minister. It is going to weaken the ability for the House of Commons to put the brakes on some of these terrible ideas we see coming from the government side.

The Conservatives will make no apology for fighting the government's inflation-causing agenda. Yes, we absolutely will go through pieces of legislation to ruthlessly scrutinize whether they will add to the cost of government, because we know the cost of government is driving up the cost of living. There is a direct correlation between the massive deficit spending that the Prime Minister has put Canadians through over the past years and the record-high prices Canadians are paying at the grocery store and the fuel pump.

Therefore, every time the government brings in legislation, that is our first and foremost lens. The Conservatives get out the sharp pencils and the extra scraps of paper and we start to ruthlessly scrutinize it to see if it will add to the cost of government, if it will grow the obligation the state has to pay out of taxpayer funds or if it will add extra compliance costs to industries that are already suffering under some of the biggest regulatory and tax burdens among our major trading partners. It takes time to do that. It takes time to not just do that research, but meet with those stakeholders.

I have been a shadow minister responsible for infrastructure. Among my colleagues today, I see many shadow ministers from a wide variety of portfolios. I know that I speak for all of us when I say that, when we get legislation, our speech in the House of Commons, the 10 or 20 minutes of analysis we provide, is just a small fraction of the work we do. We instantly start meeting with the people who will be affected by the legislation, to hear directly from them.

The government talked about Bill S-5. I have never been in the plastics industry, but I sure as heck know a lot of people who are, and they know exactly how this legislation would affect them. I know people who work in various aspects of manufacturing, distributing and retail who would all be affected by some of the regulatory burdens in Bill S-5. We have to meet with them, take what one groups says and weigh it off against what another group says, and use our intelligence and wisdom to sift through all of that information before we make a determination as to whether or not we are going to vote yes or no.

Debate in the House of Commons acts as a check on the government, preventing it from being able to ram through its agenda, and that is really important in today's context because the Canadian people have refused to give the Liberal Party a majority government in two elections. We all know that is very disappointing to the Prime Minister. He was hoping that an election might have cleansed his reputation after the corruption his government was involved in came to light with the SNC-Lavalin scandal and his own personal acts of racism, when he committed racist acts by putting on blackface so many times he has lost count.

We know the Prime Minister was hoping to get a majority government to have a palate cleanse of those things and to redeem his reputation, but Canadians did not give him that. Canadians do not want this party to ram through its agenda. They want those checks and balances to make sure there is a lot of oversight and a lot of scrutiny on what the government is doing. Extending the hours on a selective basis is going to allow the government to ram through more of its agenda. It is trying to avoid that accountability by stealth.

It is also very hypocritical. I am not using unparliamentary language when I quote the government House leader who called himself a hypocrite. I have to say that he has some justification for that when it comes to the government's excuse for this measure. He is talking about the fact that there is not enough time to get through the legislation when it was the party that prorogued just to get out of a corruption investigation scandal.

For anybody watching who might not be up to speed on all the fancy words we use in this place, proroguing is kind of like a big reset button. It is like cancelling the rest of the House's sittings for a period of time, and it resets everything. It is like a big eraser on a whiteboard of all the bills. The government is saying it has to now sit late to enact all of the bills that had been completely cancelled and had to start from scratch. We did not do that. The opposition party cannot prorogue Parliament. There is only one person who can, and that is the Prime Minister. That is what he did. There is only one person who can call elections in this country, and that is the Prime Minister.

The previous Parliament had a very similar makeup to what it does now. We had an election last year just because the Prime Minister decided that he wanted one, just like when he prorogued Parliament during the WE group of companies investigation. Do members remember that? In the early days of the pandemic, when Canadians were still suffering through some of the harshest lockdowns around the world and being told they could not visit their loved ones in hospitals, when children were being told that they could not go to school, and when young and healthy athletes were being told they were not allowed to play sports or finish their year, what did the Prime Minister do? The Prime Minister never misses an opportunity to take advantage and reward his friends.

While Canadians were focused on their health and trying to save their businesses after these punitive restrictions prevented them from earning a living, while Canadians were all focused on the very horrifying impact on their lives in so many ways, what did the Prime Minister do? He took the time to take out the chequebook that is written on the taxpayers' bank account and reward his friends at the WE group of companies by giving them an untendered half a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money.

When he got caught, he pressed the big reset button. While that investigation was going on, he took out the big whiteboard eraser and—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

(a) until Friday, June 23, 2023, a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m., provided that it be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted;

(b) on a sitting day extended pursuant to paragraph (a),

(i) proceedings on any opposition motion pursuant to Standing Order 81(16) shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday, 6:30 p.m. on a Monday or 1:30 p.m. on a Friday, on an allotted day for the business of supply, except pursuant to Standing Order 81(18)(c),

(ii) after 6:30 p.m., the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request,

(iii) motions to proceed to the orders of the day, and to adjourn the debate or the House may be moved after 6:30 p.m. by a minister of the Crown, including on a point of order, and such motions be deemed adopted,

(iv) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Orders 33(2), 45(7.1) or 67.1(2);

(c) until Friday, June 23, 2023,

(i) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day of each supply period, pursuant to Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates,

(A) all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,

(B) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage,

(ii) a motion for third reading of a government bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage;

(d) on Wednesday, December 14, 2022, Thursday, December 15, 2022, or Friday, December 16, 2022, a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, January 30, 2023, provided that the House shall be adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment;

(e) on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, Thursday, June 22, 2023, or Friday, June 23, 2023, a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 18, 2023, provided that the House shall be adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment; and

(f) notwithstanding the order adopted on Thursday, June 23, 2022, and Standing Order 45(6), no recorded division requested between 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 15, 2022 and the adjournment on Friday, December 16, 2022, and between 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2023 and the adjournment on Friday, June 23, 2023, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division requested in regard to a Private Members’ Business item, for which the provisions of the order adopted on Thursday, June 23, 2022, shall continue to apply.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to get an opportunity to speak to this motion. I want to start at the outset by thanking my colleagues, the hon. House leaders, for the areas in which we have been able to find co-operation. There have been a number of different areas in which we have been able to work constructively together. The intention of this motion is to be an expansion and not a reduction of that.

I am going to speak very briefly to some of my concerns with respect to the legislative agenda we have and some of the challenges that currently exist with that, and then I am going to speak more broadly to the state of discourse and our engagement with one another in this place politically.

It is my hope that this will provoke more dialogue among the parties to make clear what exactly our respective intentions are in terms of the number of speakers and length of time taken with each bill. It has been a source of frustration to not know how many speakers are going to be put up, specifically by the Conservatives, and that is, frankly, obstruction by stealth. I will give specific examples.

Bill S-5, which this House voted for unanimously, took six days of House time just to get to committee. This is something that was voted on unanimously. More specifically, let us take a look at Bill C-9, which is a very technical bill on judges. That bill, again, was supported unanimously. However, when there were interpretation issues in the House and we asked for an additional 20 minutes so we did not need to spend an entire additional House day dealing with this bill, which was unanimously supported, that was rejected by the Conservatives.

Although most times we have not been told how many speakers there will be, we have been told that the Conservatives want more speakers on this bill. This motion would provide the opportunity to do that. I have heard the hon. House leader for the Conservative Party indicate concern with committees. I share those concerns and want to work with him to make sure committees are in no way impeded and may conduct their business without interruption, so both committees and the House can do their respective work.

I have just a couple of comments, though, because this is an inflection point and we have a choice as to the direction we take right now. If there is upset about sitting later hours, there are solutions. Simply give us the number of speakers and have a frank and honest conversation about how long is reasonable for a bill to take. Let us have that conversation understanding no one party here has a majority, which means no one party should be able to dictate to all the other parties that something does not move forward.

It is totally fair to oppose something. It is totally fair to vote against it. It is totally fair to disagree with it vociferously. However, if a majority of the House wants to move forward, then the fair question is how many voices need to be heard from those who are not in the majority to allow the House to do its business. Giving no answer is not an acceptable response and is not something that can be worked with. Most reasonable people would see that.

This is really a call or a provocation for a conversation. In that conversation, I want to invoke a dear friend, who was the deputy leader of the government in this place. His name was Arnold Chan. I go back to the speech Arnold gave as he was mustering the last of his energy in his last days of life to speak to this chamber about how we need to work with one another.

Arnold was one of my best friends in the world, and watching him die was profoundly painful, but his words always echo in my ears. One of Arnold's chief frustrations was that this chamber, this place that was so important to him, was often reduced to just reading talking points with one another: us saying how wonderful we are and the other side saying how terrible we are, and them saying they are wonderful and us saying they are terrible. Of course, in that back-and-forth, the truth of the situation and the difficulty of what we are going through is lost. In difficult times, we lose the opportunity to genuinely hear each other.

Let us be straight about where we are. These are the most difficult times the planet has faced since World War II. People across the world are scared. They are watching the price of their basic necessities of life rising, be they groceries, rent or any of a myriad things. They are watching a war in Ukraine. They are watching horrors in Iran. They are seeing climate change ravage their communities, and they are hungry for answers.

The truth is that in really hard times, often we do not know all the answers. In fact, if any one of us was to stand in this House and say we know what the world is going to be in six months, we would be lying. We live in incredibly turbulent times, and I am looking forward to hearing the hon. House leader's speech soon. We live in a time where we have to be straight with each other about what those hard things are and what the solutions are.

I really love New Orleans. I had the opportunity to go down there, and sometimes it is easier in another country to reflect on the state of their politics than it is on our own, but when I had an opportunity to talk to a young Black lady in a store about the state of being Black in America, how unjust it was and how hopeless she felt, she did not think that anybody was really speaking truthfully about the situation she and her community were facing.

That makes me think of the people we represent on both sides of the aisle, who are suffering in so many different ways that we do not always have the answer to, whether it is somebody who walks into our office who is finding they cannot afford to pay rent or somebody who walks into our office who is facing the horror of some unimaginable terror that is happening in another part of the world. When we look at them and try to give them compassion and answers, too often we all, and I will own this, have been prone to exaggeration and to having more solutions than we actually have. However, what we do in that exaggeration, on both sides, is that we allow them to think we do not really see the picture for what it is.

I will give a very specific example. On that same trip, when I walked into Studio Be, an art gallery of Black artists who are talking about the experience of being Black and the terrors they face, it was a deeply uncomfortable experience for me. It is not my country, and a lot of the horrors that were being written about are not happening to our citizens, but the injustice that has been visited upon Black people in our own country is very hard to look at and very hard to respond to. That place, though, met all of that injustice with such love, compassion, truth and forgiveness that it calls on all of us to do the same. We can yell at each other. We can deride each other, but there are old lessons that are being forgotten in that.

We look at old wisdom from something like The Lord's Prayer, something we have said so many times. It says, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Let us think about that as a covenant, that we cannot move forward unless we can truly understand the suffering of somebody else and understand their position.

I think, and I maybe I am Pollyanna to believe it, that we have to have more compassion for one another. I think that compassion, empathy and forgiveness are not weaknesses, but the bedrock foundation of civilization and the only things that have ever held us together. I think that in the darkest hours, and let us not lie to each other, we are in dark hours as our hospitals fill up with children, as we worry about whether key surgeries can move forward, and as we worry about the state of our planet, we need that compassion and empathy for one another, and we need the realness in our dialogue. Why do we need that realness? It is because, when we live in an environment of “gotcha” and playing games, we distort the truth.

That same woman I talked to in a shop, who was talking about the horrible conditions that she felt existed for her community, told me the world was run by 12 people. She is a deeply intelligent woman, but she believed in conspiracies because people did not speak what was true and because they attempted to take an opportunity to play games with it.

I look at the hon. House leader for the Conservatives, who is laughing right now, and I say to him—

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is always a chance. I hear the member opposite saying there is a chance. Although we have many and great differences, there is always hope for us, and I look forward to that hope.

I am very pleased to say that this afternoon, we are going to complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care and rental housing. Tomorrow, we will finish second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act. On Monday, we will continue to the fifth day of the second reading debate for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Tuesday, as members will be happy to note, is an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act (COVID-19 response and other measures). On Thursday, we will call Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. For next Friday, our plan is to start second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

I would also like to inform the House that next Wednesday during Routine Proceedings, under ministerial statements, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be pleased to deliver a statement for Remembrance Day.

Bill C-9—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a rare opportunity for me to speak to this kind of motion and follow up on something the minister said.

I think we all agree that we would like to see the smoother operation of this place. I have had the honour of working in and around Parliament Hill for a number of decades. We used to have more co-operation among the House leaders. We used to have better scheduling of debates so that bills that had virtually unanimous support, like Bill C-9, did not need to have repetitive speeches.

I put to the hon. member, as I have before in this place, the solution is not closure motions, but to fully use the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracy and not allow the reading of speeches, which will then have a very salutary effect on the number of members who are prepared to stand up and speak to an issue. They would have to know it well enough to speak without reading a written speech and especially not a written speech prepared by somebody else.

I urge the hon. minister and all members of the front bench of the government to strongly consider working with the Speaker and other House leaders to find ways for this place to work better through co-operation and respect for our rules.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, very recently, the Canadian Judicial Council implored this House to pass the Bill C-9 amendments to the Judges Act. I wonder if the minister could outline the need for this act, the urgency, and why there is a delay in its passage, given that we have had a number of days of debate on this bill.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the irony today, as we are now debating Bill C-9, is that we see the government invoking closure when this legislation could have already been in place. Had we not had an unnecessary pandemic election, it most certainly would have been in place.

While the minister is here, I want to ask a question with respect to our justice system and the recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. There are many victims and their families who have spoken out about the need to respond to the ruling that values each and every life that is taken when there is a case of mass murder in Canada. These cases are rare, but they do happen. The families of victims have said they do not want to go through the burden and retraumatization that is involved with parole hearings.

Sharlene Bosma appeared at our justice committee and spoke eloquently about how she was grateful that her daughter would not have to attend parole hearings to keep her father's killer behind bars, where he belongs, having killed three individuals.

I would ask the minister if he has consulted with the families of victims on a possible government response to this very unfortunate ruling.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-9—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C‑9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all day long, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have been trying to dodge the issue. They say it is not the right time to talk about this and we should talk about inflation and fighting the pandemic instead.

Over the past few weeks, however, we have talked about bills C‑3, C‑5, C‑9, C‑20 and S‑4, none of which have anything to do with inflation or fighting the pandemic.

Does my colleague think we waste our time in the House every day? Should we talk about nothing but inflation and the pandemic? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the member opposite, my hon. opposition House leader, is that the government will continue to be introducing legislation that helps Canadians with affordability and makes their lives easier in these globally difficult and conflicted times.

With respect to the immediate term, I can tell the House that tomorrow we will turn to Bill C-9, which concerns the Judges Act at second reading. On Monday, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence with the second reading debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, related to COVID-19 response and other measures. On Thursday, we will deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, with respect to dental care and rental housing.

We also hope to make progress next week on Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me echo the comments of my hon. colleague. Thanksgiving is one of my favourite times. It is an opportunity to be with family and friends. As the hon. member said, we have not had that chance in a very long time, so it makes this a very special Thanksgiving. As the member correctly stated, and we should reflect on this, we really do have an enormous amount to be grateful for in our country. It is a special occasion to give thanks and to be with the people I love. I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family and friends, and with their constituents, over the upcoming constituency week.

With respect to the member's question about when we come back, I will be talking about what we are going to be doing, but first, in answer to this question, we absolutely cannot, and I will say it every time he asks me this question, give up on action on climate. While we take action to make life more affordable, and in a minute I will talk about what we will do over the next coming weeks, we cannot afford to make pollution free again.

We cannot allow pollution to be something that spews into the environment without consequence. We will continue to return that money to Canadians. Eight out of 10 Canadians will see more back. We can fight climate change, we can do affordability and we can do those things at the same time.

I am proud to say that our agenda to make life more affordable for families continues. It continues tomorrow when we take action, again, on the environment with Bill S-5, making important amendments to the Environmental Protection Act to improve and protect our environment, and at the same time take essential action to move forward with Bill C-31, which would provide families right across Canada the opportunity to ensure they have dental care, that this is not something, as life gets globally more challenging, that is left to the wayside. We know how important dental care is to health. I hope the member opposite will be supporting us in that as it comes forward.

On the Monday, when we return from our constituency week, we will continue with debate on Bill C-31, as I referenced earlier, with respect to dental care and support for housing.

On Tuesday, we will move forward with Bill C-22, the Canada disability act, which is critical support to help lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are disabled out of poverty. This is essential action to help them, and I hope the Conservatives would support that. I know other parties are.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill S-5.

Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Friday, we hope to make progress on Bill S-4, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, COVID-19 response and other measures. We also look forward to advancing Bill C-9, with respect to the Judges Act.

Last, I would like to inform the House that the Wednesday, following question period, there will be a really important opportunity to pay respects and tribute to our friend and former colleague, who we are all mourning, the late Bill Blaikie.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by echoing the comments of thanks by the opposition House leader. To all those who serve the House and for everything they have done, particularly over the last year, I offer our deep and sincere thanks. The opposition House leader rightly named all those we rely on to do the jobs on a day-to-day basis that we do in serving Canadians.

We will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act this afternoon. Tomorrow, it is our intention to call Bill C-11 on online streaming at report stage.

On Monday, we will be returning to the second reading debate of Bill C-21 respecting firearms. In the afternoon, we will go back to Bill C-11 for debate at third reading. We will also focus on finding a way to expedite the bill currently on notice concerning the self-induced extreme intoxication defence standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.

Finally, we have had discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, with regard to the participation in the proceedings of the House and its committees, the provisions related to the COVID-19 vaccination be suspended beginning on Monday, June 20, 2022.

Justice

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, six years ago, in 2016, the government conducted consultations on reforming the judicial complaints process. After inexcusable delays, we are finally starting to debate Bill C-9, which has the potential to increase confidence in the judicial system. This is long overdue.

This bill would replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council and would enable a judge to be removed from office for reasons including infirmity, misconduct or failure in the due execution of judicial office. By modifying the existing judicial review process, a straightforward process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office would be established.

Our justice system needed this piece of legislation to be implemented years ago. Canadians must be assured that our judges need to be held accountable and perform their duty in the best interests of our society and our country. I urge all members in the House to support this bill.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indeed reminds me that Conservatives, whether inside or outside the House, seem to have fallen in love with blocking and blockades.

We are here because we have many other pieces of legislation, including a budget. There is not just Bill C-8, which, as we have mentioned, has had 12 days of debate and obstruction and concurrence motions and everything else that the Conservatives can throw up in order to delay it, but also Bill C-7, which we have not debated yet, and Bill C-9, which we have not debated yet. There is Bill C-18 and there is Bill C-19.

There are all kinds of things that we have yet to debate, as well as the budget, and that is because the official opposition simply wants to run out the clock; delay, delay, delay; and use every tactic at its disposal to throw this government off its agenda. Canadians do not want that. They want us to work together.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we were hoping to deal with Bill C-8 and then hopefully deal with the judges after that legislation, Bill C-9.

My point is that, because of this particular concurrence motion, we are not able to deal with things such as the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars for rapid testing or air ventilation for students in our schools. I do not want to take away from the importance of this particular report, but I can tell members that there are many reports that our standing committees are going to bring forward. I would hope that we would think in terms of the other possible venues in which they can be discussed.

The only advantage of the report coming here for concurrence is that I get to speak to it, and I appreciate that members want me to address the important issues of the day. Having said that, at the end of day when I hear some of the comments, such as “de-identification of data”, what is it? I think that for most Canadians there would have to be some sort of an explanation.

When I turn on my cellphone and make phone calls, I have a basic understanding of it. I make a phone call and my cellphone goes to the closest tower, and it is truly amazing how much information that tower collects, such as my name and where I live. There is all sorts of information no doubt at one tower. Now, if I happen to be driving at the time, and we should not talk on a cellphone when driving but maybe I am a passenger, and if I am going from one tower to the next, it starts to add up. They can track where I am. I can understand why some in society might be concerned about that, but what is done with that information is what the real concern should be.

We have legislation and we also have offices. The Privacy Commissioner's office is not just there for government but also for the private sector, so that if we find that there is a company out there that is inappropriately using the data being collected, then there is somewhere we can go to express the concerns we have. I would like to think I would be at the beginning of the line, whether it was Telus Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Minister of Health or possibly members of the committee dealing with ethics and privacy-related issues. There are opportunities for us to ensure that the data being collected is not being abused, and there is a need.

I understand the Privacy Commissioner came before the committee and made a presentation. I am absolutely convinced that, on a one-on-one discussion with the Privacy Commissioner or anyone else who is affiliated, such as the critic from the Bloc who is an expert in this field, there is a need for us to take a look at the laws we currently have. I can appreciate that there is a need for change and amendments. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity where we will be able to bring in such legislation, and the same concerns that we are hearing here today and in committee would allow for that type of legislation to pass if, in fact, the opportunity is there to bring it forward.

Through technology, things change rather rapidly. I know there are members of the committee who are here today and if I am wrong in my assertion that the Privacy Commissioner does not believe that there is a need for some of those changes to occur, please let me know. However, I heard more than one member today talk about “consultation” versus being “informed”. Yes, I recognize that there is a difference. The Privacy Commissioner was informed of it and aware of it. If there were some outstanding concerns, directly or indirectly, those likely would have been expressed to the stakeholders who needed to know.

I am not absolutely convinced that every action the government does has to go through the Privacy Commissioner. I have not heard that argument being made. I think there are certain situations where some departments, more than others, may have a higher need. Some departments may have a whole lot more expertise in that area, as I pointed out with the Health Canada agency. I would be very reluctant to make a general statement or to take a brush and apply it to every department and every situation where there is some information that is being drawn. Take a look at Stats Canada. I have received emails from Stats Canada. I am sure other members have also received emails from Stats Canada. There is all sorts of information being collected.

Would you apply the same principle of getting the Privacy Commissioner involved in every agency that the federal government has? Should we be expanding the Privacy Commissioner's office to take that into consideration? I am concerned about governments, whether they are provincial, municipal or federal, whatever they might be, and how they might be using that data, especially on issues of health care with everyone having a health card. All different provinces have that. There are driver's licences. There are endless examples, such as passports or you name it.

I am equally, if not more concerned, about this issue in the private sector. That is where I think we need to be spending more of our time and energy. I would like to think experts would acknowledge that.

When we talk about consent and getting a better indication or more clarity in terms of what consent really is, absolutely, but let us not be completely naive about it. I remember when we were talking about organ transplants in the province of Manitoba, talking about allowing MPI to have an opt-out, or to have it in some sort of a taxation policy, again I am going back to the province of Manitoba, and allow people to opt out without making an assumption. There are ways in which it can be done in a reasonable fashion.

I will go back to what I stated earlier, that Telus needs consumers more than consumers need Telus. If Telus were to violate in any way the privacy of Canadians, there would be a consequence to it, a very serious consequence. If Health Canada or the agency were to violate the privacy of Canadians, we would hear about it. I do not want the privacy of the constituents I represent to be violated, but I understand the importance of mobility data, among many other types of data sources out there.

What we are talking about is the coronavirus, COVID-19, and having a sense of mobility and of where people are going. We are not asking who people are and we are not listening to telephone conversations, which was pointed out, or anything of that nature. We are talking about raw data that will enable people who work in the sciences, the health experts and the health agency to ultimately make good, sound public policy. That is what Canadians expect.

At the end of day, I would have much preferred, which is hard to believe, to be debating Bill C-8 today so this issue could go back to the committee for further discussion.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments made by my hon. colleague on the other side. We fiercely disagree on many things. The debate we have is important, and dissent is important, but the way we do that is extraordinarily important. I want to echo what he said. We have been able to find a good tone in this House as we disagree with one another and fight on the issues of the day, and do it in a way that respects the roles we have as parliamentarians in this place.

For the week that is forthcoming, this afternoon and tomorrow will be dedicated to the second reading debate of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures. On Monday, we are going to commence debate on Bill C-9, which seeks to amend the Judges Act. Lastly, Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.