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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Judges Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise before you today to move third reading of Bill C-9. I am pleased not only because of the importance of this piece of legislation in ensuring that we maintain a robust justice system, but also because of the unanimous support it received at the end of October when we last debated this bill.

I thank my esteemed colleagues for their contributions. I am grateful to all those who shared their opinions on this bill, which made it possible to delve deeper into the issues it raises and consider them from every angle. It was really a collaborative effort, and I am proud to have played a role in it.

It is clear from our previous discussions on this bill that, regardless of our political differences, we all share the common goal of protecting the independence of the judicial system. We are supporting that fundamental goal today by implementing a rigorous, tailored process for dealing with disciplinary complaints against judges.

Given the stage Bill C-9 is at in the parliamentary process, I assume that everyone is aware of the context that gave rise to this bill. That context has been very well explained, which helped guide our recent discussions. The merits of the bill have also been debated at length in previous sittings. Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to go over a few key points.

At the outset, it is important to emphasize that the modifications to the judicial conduct process proposed by this bill are substantive and far-reaching. They are not mere adjustments meant to update a process in need of updating.

I will begin with two important elements concerning judicial conduct in general before touching upon the principal areas of reform.

A robust mechanism for governing judicial conduct is critical in upholding public trust in the justice system as a whole. This is so for two closely related reasons. First, the existence of such a regime is essential even where, as in Canada, the judiciary is long established and well respected. Second, protecting judicial independence does not mean insulating judges from the consequences of misconduct. I will briefly cover each point in turn.

The impetus for amendments proposed by Bill C-9 is not a crisis of judicial ethics. It is quite the opposite. Misconduct by judges in Canada is rare. Allegations are thankfully infrequent, with findings of misconduct rarer still. We Canadians are privileged beneficiaries of a truly excellent judiciary, whose quality is widely recognized both at home and abroad. This does not mean that a strong judicial conduct regime is not necessary. It is. Maintaining the solid foundation of public confidence on which the excellence of our judiciary rests requires a robust mechanism for dealing with complaints against judges. Such a mechanism is essential to ensuring continued confidence in both the judiciary itself and the justice system overall. Canadians must be confident that instances of judicial misconduct will be addressed.

A well-functioning judicial conduct regime therefore remains critical, even when allegations of judicial misconduct are infrequent. Protecting public trust in the administration of justice demands that a mechanism be in place and be ready to respond appropriately to complaints against members of the judiciary as they are made. This is a tangible guarantee of accountability. It helps preserve confidence that allegations are taken seriously, all while respecting principles of procedural fairness.

A judicial conduct process that would serve to insulate judges from the consequences of misconduct could be just as harmful to public confidence as the complete absence of a conduct process.

That is why the provisions of Bill C‑9 propose a responsive approach seeking to ensure that allegations are addressed as fairly and effectively as possible. The proposed mechanism respects both the people filing the complaint and those who are the subject of the complaint. By providing a legitimate avenue for the careful review of allegations, we have the assurance that there is some oversight over the conduct of judges and that they will be held to account when necessary. At the same time, this promotes confidence in the administration of justice on a broader scale.

It is important to point out that the careful development of a judicial conduct process is not at all incompatible with the fundamental principle of judicial independence, guaranteed under paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the provisions on the judiciary in the Constitution Act, 1867. In fact, they go hand in hand.

That being said, we must be careful to strike a delicate balance between these two important considerations. The process we put in place to conscientiously address allegations of judicial misconduct must not contravene the constitutional guarantees that seek to ensure judicial independence.

We can be confident that this bill strikes the right balance. Canadians can trust that their judges are making independent and impartial decisions and, at the same time, they can rest assured that the judges' conduct remains subject to review. Ultimately, this will improve trust in the administration of justice, both with respect to individual judges and on a broader scale.

Let me now provide a brief overview of the legal and constitutional foundations of the judicial conduct process. At its core lies the Canadian Judicial Council, or CJC, the body responsible for receiving, reviewing and investigating complaints against members of the federally appointed judiciary. It works at arm’s length from the executive and legislative branches of government.

The Judges Act requires the CJC to submit a report to the Minister of Justice containing a recommendation on whether the judge whose conduct is at issue should be removed from office. It is for the minister to then consider whether to advise cabinet that the matter of the judge’s removal should be put to the houses of Parliament. In order for a judge to be removed from office, both the House of Commons and the Senate must vote in favour. If they do so, a request is made to the Governor General to remove the judge from office.

As I have previously noted, this process requires a counterweight in the form of constitutional protections for judicial independence. One aspect of judicial independence is security of tenure. More specifically, the requirements of security of tenure prevent a judge’s removal from office except in cases of proven incapacity or misconduct. As a further safeguard, a hearing is required, at which the judge has an opportunity to be heard and to test and adduce evidence. These imperatives lie at the heart of any judicial conduct process. They are the keys to ensuring all stages of such a process are free from undue influence from the other branches of government.

It follows that any healthy system of justice finds its roots, at least in part, in the framework established to handle allegations of misconduct by its judges. All of us would expect to be treated fairly if we were involved in a matter before the courts. The same requirement for procedural fairness applies to judges in the review of their conduct. While not in and of itself a court process, it must necessarily mirror some of the key elements of court proceedings, namely, fairness throughout while ensuring any resolution is appropriate to its context. The process must function efficiently in terms of both time and resources, producing final outcomes in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

These elements are core to the reforms proposed by Bill C-9. While our current judicial conduct regime served us well for many years, helping to create the preconditions needed for the strong justice system we enjoy today, it is now in need of improvement. As I have already stated, this is not change for change’s sake, nor is it prompted solely by the need to update a half-century-old process. Fundamental changes in the legal landscape coupled with evolving societal norms have occurred, revealing specific shortcomings to the existing process. These could be addressed through the reforms proposed by Bill C-9.

Bill C-9’s proposed amendments target the following key areas: efficiency, accountability and procedural fairness. All three are crucial determinants of public trust and would be met by this bill. An efficient process would optimize both time and financial resources. Timely resolution of matters would help provide certainty to those involved. On a broader scale, timeliness and efficiency would foster confidence the process functions as it should, with allegations addressed promptly and effectively.

Currently it is possible for judges to initiate judicial review of CJC decisions at multiple stages. Each of these judicial reviews, begun in the Federal Court, can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and, potentially, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Even if such proceedings are commenced for all of the right reasons, the lifespan of a matter can too easily become stretched out unreasonably. Efficiency is also, of course, related to cost, as timely resolution of allegations helps avoid ballooning costs.

In combination with the possibility of unduly extending proceedings over many years, public confidence in the process can suffer if its costs appear excessive. A key aspect of the new regime proposed by Bill C-9 would be its improved flexibility and responsiveness. It proposes a more refined tool for the resolution of judicial conduct matters not serious enough to warrant removal: a suite of potential sanctions that would allow for the imposition of a sanction that is more contextualized and appropriate for remedying the misconduct in question.

There is only one sanction expressly available under the current regime, and that is removal from office. It is therefore both potentially overbroad and underinclusive. Consider conduct that, while recognized as inappropriate, should warrant something less than overruling judges’ constitutionally protected security of tenure.

Even exposure to the required full-scale inquiry without actual removal can cause irreparable damage to a judge’s reputation. The CJC has told us it often struggles with the application of these stark either-or alternatives, that is, between recommending the most serious penalty or none at all. In either case the public may perceive injustice.

It is also important to highlight the idea of justice being done, as well as being seen to be done. Public trust in the judiciary relies not only on judges being held accountable, but also on judges being seen to be held accountable. By providing for options other than removal from office, such as participating in an education program or issuing a formal apology, Bill C-9 would provide a more balanced approach that reinforces accountability to Canadians at all levels. It would be an important step forward in continuing to foster the confidence of the public in our justice system.

It is essential to remember that our system of law exists to serve the public. It operates because we have confidence in its legitimacy, trusting in the capacity of its members and mechanisms to administer justice. This is no accident, but rather the result of sustained and concerted efforts over time. Here in Canada we are fortunate to have a strong foundation upon which to build. This requires ongoing attention, however, by ensuring measures are undertaken to safeguard public trust.

Bill C-9, for example, would introduce greater transparency and public participation into the judicial conduct regime. Members of the general public who are neither lawyers nor judges would participate at two crucial stages of the proposed new process.

First, they would be members of review panels charged with determining whether less serious misconduct has occurred and what sanction, short of removal, would be appropriate in the circumstances. Second, a layperson would be a member of full hearing panels that determine whether serious misconduct warrants a recommendation for removal from office.

These changes would respond to feedback received during extensive consultation across a wide range of groups, members of the public included. Along with accountability to the public, the regime would seek judicial accountability.

Critical to the process’s legitimacy is that judges would be held accountable for their behaviour in both fact and public perception. As I have mentioned, the perception that the system operates as it should is equally as important as the fact that it actually does. Expanding the options for addressing instances of inappropriate judicial behaviour would improve both. Consequences tailored to each circumstance could be deployed, meaningfully addressing a wider range of misconduct. This amended framework would also encourage creativity in approaching resolution and sanction, with a view to imposing the most suitable remedy for misconduct that warrants a response short of removal.

The final element relating to accountability is financial. As I noted earlier, the current regime can easily spiral into excessively long and expensive proceedings, undermining public trust. In addition to the reforms I have already discussed in relation to efficiency, Bill C-9 proposes a more stable funding mechanism and new controls for the use of public funds.

More specifically, funding would come from two sources. Some funding would be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund, while the rest would come from the commissioner for federal judicial affairs' budgetary appropriation, obtained through the regular budget cycle. The consolidated revenue fund would only be used to cover costs that inevitably arise from the requirement to hold public hearings when a complaint reaches a certain stage in the process. These costs are both non-discretionary and unpredictable. The more predictable day-to-day administrative expenses would be paid out of funds obtained by the commissioner for federal judicial affairs as part of the budget cycle.

Additional safeguards have been put in place with respect to disbursements from the consolidated revenue fund. There is a policy that limits the amount that can be charged by lawyers representing judges who are the subject of a complaint. Bill C‑9 also proposes that the commissioner for federal judicial affairs be more involved, both to review other procedural expenses and to work with the Canadian Judicial Council on the five-year review of costs borne by the consolidated revenue fund.

The Canadian judiciary's performance is exemplary in every regard. I am proud of our judges, both past and present, who were and are dedicated to serving their fellow Canadians to the best of their ability. However, despite the high standards to which we hold judges, and which the vast majority of them achieve, misconduct inevitably occurs. As I explained, even though such incidents are rare, having effective mechanisms in place to address them is a crucial determinant to maintaining the public trust.

Just as each individual allegation of misconduct presents an opportunity to bolster public confidence in the judiciary, so too does this bill. We have the unique privilege of taking concrete action toward strengthening the administration of justice. I was heartened by our collaboration earlier in the process, particularly at committee, that has enabled Bill C-9 to arrive at the stage where it is today. Let us continue in that spirit and send this bill on for consideration by our colleagues in the other place.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and I concur with his comments.

I support the bill. However, this bill is cold comfort to my constituents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, whose son Brian was murdered by a co-worker. That co-worker shot Brian and three other co-workers point-blank in the back of the head. That killer was the first person to have a consecutive parole ineligibility period imposed on him by a trial judge.

Mike and Dianne were absolutely devastated with the Supreme Court's decision in the spring to strike down that law. They were even more disappointed with the minister's response, which was to say that he respected the decision and would not take any further steps to respond to it or fill the void left as a result of the court decision.

Respectfully, what can the minister say to Mike and Dianne?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support on this particular bill. It is important that we move on this bill expeditiously. I appreciate the support he has given personally, as well as the support his party has given, at all stages of this bill. I thank my critic as well, the member for Fundy Royal.

I would say to Mike and Dianne that the eligibility for parole that the Supreme Court has imposed in the Bissonnette case is not automatic. It does not mean that the person convicted in this case will be granted parole. It merely means that the consecutive life sentences stand, but there will be a possibility of parole after a fairly long period of time.

It was an unequivocal Supreme Court decision. The court clearly said, in a unanimous decision, that parole ineligibility could not stand. I have never rejected the possibility of acting. I am always open to good ideas, as the hon. member knows and has known throughout my period as the Minister of Justice. I will continue to reflect on that case.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I always enjoy hearing him speak.

He went on at length about how Bill C‑9 will maintain the public trust, and he also talked about the separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, which is just as important and is also maintained in Bill C‑9.

However, if there is one thing that makes us question that balance upon which the public trust relies, it is the judicial appointment process that precedes the potential removal of a judge from office, which one hopes would be a very infrequent occurrence.

I would like the minister to comment on the possibility of revising the appointment process to make it as non-partisan and transparent as possible, thereby bolstering public confidence in the judicial system.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

In 2016, we established a non-partisan and transparent judicial appointment process that ensures exemplary quality and greater diversity among judges across Canada, including in Quebec. I can tell this House that the Barreau du Québec and Quebec lawyers are very pleased with the quality and diversity of the individuals appointed to the Quebec Superior Court.

We have already appointed 10 judges to the Quebec Superior Court this year, and we still have nine vacancies. The process is ongoing as we continue to fill these positions. I hope to have good news very soon.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his remarks on what I think is an important bill.

There is an obvious tension, always, between the independence of judges and the right of the public to have transparency about the conduct of judges. In this bill, it is very clear that we are going to make a significant improvement over the current situation, in which neither the complainants nor the judges complained about are served well. I wonder if the minister thinks that with this bill, we have finally reached the right balance between the independence of judges and the rights of those who may have complaints about judges.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work at committee and with respect to collaboration on justice issues generally. We have a very high degree of collaboration among all the parties in the House, and I am very proud of that fact.

I think we have reached the right balance here. I point out to the hon. member that the substance of this process was elaborated on by the Canadian Judicial Council, which is led by the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, who is the Chief Justice of Canada, and chief justices across Canada, in collaboration with superior court judges across Canada. I think there is an important developmental part of the bill that was undertaken by the judiciary.

We had a high-profile case of judicial misconduct over the past number of years in which dilatory tactics were used, and it ended up costing the taxpayer time and money. The people who suffered the most during that process were the judges. They felt that their reputation was being impugned by the actions of one of their members. Therefore, they had a very strong incentive to participate in the process and to elaborate on a process that they believed was fair.

Then the bill came here and there were good recommendations at committee. There were not many, but they were important ones. Therefore, we have taken on our role responsibly to work with justices, maintaining independence on each side and coming up with a process that will serve Canadians. That is ultimately what both the judiciary and parliamentarians do.

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

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice would be aware that at the justice committee, Conservative members put forward a common-sense motion. It was a proposal to amend Bill C-9 to include an automatic right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, not the trial court, and that was rejected by the other members of the committee. They argued that the Supreme Court of Canada is already there for appeals. However, we know that is only a faint hope, because it is unlikely that any case coming out of the CJC will ever make it to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like his comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, this is probably one of the reasons we are here.

I mentioned the case of Justice Girouard over the past number of years, in which there were a number of judicial reviews to the Federal Court and appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal from those judicial reviews. It ended up ballooning the process in terms of cost and rendering the process much more complex, and it took years.

I know that serious discussions were undertaken by the CJC and the chief justice discussing the mechanism, and appeals to the Federal Court were considered. What the judges came up with was a transparent process to hear and provide for appeals within the system in a linear fashion with, finally, the possibility of seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

I think the hon. member is correct to say that leave to appeal to the court is not meant to be frequently obtained, but there has been a sufficient degree of attention paid within the linear system of vetting, hearing and rehearing cases so that there is a sufficient degree of protection put in the system for someone to challenge a first ruling and move from there. We have built a good balance that maintains efficiency and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There is time for one last question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to the issue of public confidence in the judicial system. The minister made reference to those high-profile cases where a judge is being judged by the public, if I can put it that way, because of a particular ruling and questions of doubt are planted.

When I look at the legislation, one aspect is important to recognize: We assist in ensuring public confidence in the system when we put in the checks we are putting in today. Could the minister provide his thoughts on the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would like a very brief answer from the hon. minister.

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

Madam Speaker, at the outset, if there is a doubt about a ruling, there is an appeal process. When there is a substantive question, one can go to appeal.

What we are talking about here is when a judge perhaps makes a remark or is engaged in an activity that impugns the conduct of the judiciary. One of the main things we have done here is allow for disciplinary action to be taken in minor cases with concomitant consequences.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. Before I do that, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, this legislation would reform the process by which the Canadian Judicial Council undertakes reviews of complaints brought against judges for alleged misconduct. The judicial complaints review process was established more than 50 years ago, in 1971. It has a number of problems in that it can be timely, cumbersome and costly. These problems have been publicly recognized by the Canadian Judicial Council, which consists of 41 members, including all chief justices and associate chief justices of federally appointed courts. For years, there have been calls to reform the process.

The process, as it currently stands, can involve up to three layers of judicial review: the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and, upon leave being granted, the Supreme Court of Canada. That process can take years and, in some cases, even as long as a decade. This bill seeks to address that by streamlining the process, although, I would submit, it does so somewhat imperfectly from the standpoint of ensuring procedural fairness. Nonetheless, the process the government has come up with is supportable, notwithstanding some shortcomings that Conservatives raised at committee.

The bill also seeks to enhance transparency by requiring that the Canadian Judicial Council, in its annual reports, to publish the number of complaints and how those complaints were resolved.

The bill would enhance accountability. Under the current process, where a judge's misconduct is not at a level that would warrant their removal from office, such cases can be settled behind closed doors with really very little transparency. This bill would change that by providing for mandatory sanctions. Those sanctions could range from requiring the judge to issue an apology to requiring the judge to undertake counselling or professional development training with regard for the nature of the misconduct and circumstances of the case.

The bill, on the whole, would protect the independence of the judiciary, which is vital to our democracy and integral to the rule of law, which is something that, unfortunately from time to time, the current government has not respected. In addition, with some imperfections, the bill would maintain procedural fairness, both from the standpoint of the complainant as well as for a judge whose conduct is being questioned by way of a complaint.

It is good that this bill has been brought forward. It is a bill that is the product of consultations that took place in 2016, the substance of which have been incorporated into this bill, on which there is generally consensus. However, I will say that it did take the Liberals five years after those consultations ended to get around to introducing a bill. Moreover, when the government finally got around to introducing a bill in May 2021, it went nowhere because of the Prime Minister, who called a completely unnecessary and opportunistic election. Following the unnecessary election, the Liberals reintroduced the bill in the Senate last November and then suddenly decided one month later to pull the bill from the Senate.

The Liberals then reintroduced the bill, Bill C-9, last December in the House and proceeded to let it languish for months on end. For six months, they sat on their hands only to finally bring it up for debate at second reading in June, just before the House rose for the summer, and here we are at Christmas still dealing with the bill.

I highlight the process to underscore how dysfunctional the Liberal government is. Here, we have a bill around which there is general consensus, and it has taken the Liberals three bills to proceed. While the bill would enhance public confidence in the judicial system, and judges are central to that system, the same cannot be said more broadly about public confidence in our justice system, as a result of the policies of the Liberal government, policies and actions for which the government gets a failing grade.

For the Liberals, it is always about the criminals and never about the victims. This, after all, is a government that allowed the position of victims ombudsman to be left vacant for nine months. Finally, in September, the Liberals got around to filling that vacancy. It was not the first time they left that position vacant, the federal advocate for victims, the ombudsman. They left the position vacant for nearly a year in 2017 and 2018. By contrast, when it came to the prisoners ombudsman, when that position became vacant, the Liberals saw fit to fill it the very next day.

That is quite a contrast. When it comes to an ombudsman for prisoners, the vacancy was filled the next day. When it comes to the ombudsman for the rights of victims, the government has presided over leaving that critical position vacant for nearly two years out of the seven years it has been in office.

This is a government that just passed Bill C-5, the do-no-time, soft-on-crime bill, as it has come to be known, which eliminates mandatory jail time for serious firearms offences and for serious drug offences, including trafficking and production of schedule 1 drugs such as cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. This is at a time when we have an opioids crisis. When 21 Canadians a day are dying as a result of that, the government's priority is to let those who put that poison on our streets serve their sentence at home, instead of behind bars where they belong.

That is a government that has failed to engage in that dialogue, which is so critical between Parliament and the courts. The minister failed to respond to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the very reasonable and just law passed by the previous Harper government to give judges the discretion to apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods for mass murderers, including the mass murderer responsible for the murder of my constituent Brian Ilesic. His parents, Mike and Dianne, are very deeply troubled by the inaction of the minister, and I am glad that today he at least acknowledged he was open to reviewing that decision. That is the first time he has said that.

In closing, I will just say that the bill is a supportable bill, but it is cold comfort for victims and their families who, time and again, have been abandoned by the government.

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

Madam Speaker, one cannot help but recognize, in many of the spins the Conservatives like to put, as though they are tough on crime, is that they seem to want to marginalize the true value of our judicial system, in particular, our judges. They do that by saying they do not have confidence in judges, and therefore, they need to not only support the minimum sentences of today, along with the many problems that are a part of that, but also would like to see additional minimum sentences.

Does the member not believe that judges are in a better position to be able to give a disposition, rather than instituting or putting on them minimum sentences in every situation?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the courts have not struck down minimum sentences across the board. Mandatory jail times have always been a part of our Criminal Code, or have been for many decades, and continue to be. In fact, none of the provisions, I believe, in Bill C-5 were struck down by the courts, certainly not by the Supreme Court.

It was a choice made by the government to remove those mandatory jail times because, for the government, it is always about putting the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims. The Liberals provided little rationale on why they picked those specific provisions, which involve serious firearms offences and serious drug offences.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill, and I listened to the speeches given by my other colleagues.

One point that kept coming up from the Conservative side was about protecting victims. It was pointed out that, in the review process, victims' views were perhaps not sufficiently taken into account in cases where a sanction was warranted, but not necessarily removal.

However, an amendment adopted in committee would allow for victims to at least be notified of the reasons why their complaints were not successful.

Does my colleague think this is a step in the right direction? Could Bill C-9 not have done a little more to protect victims?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I believe that amendment is an improvement to the bill.

Any time there is an opportunity to have input from the victim, it is a step in the right direction. That is important, and we must continue to do work to ensure that victims are heard throughout our court process and, in this instance, a judicial complaints process.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard for me to thank the member for his speech, which was essentially a long recitation of the Conservative's commitment to tough-on-crime policies, which have clearly failed. However, my real disappointment with his speech is that we have done some work in this Parliament, particularly on the study on the rights of victims where parties have worked together to try and improve the justice system.

My question is about the bill and confidence in the judicial system. I wonder whether the Conservatives actually believe that the justice system and judges, in particular, have to look more like the face of Canada for the public to have confidence in that system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, to answer the member's question directly, yes, I agree with him.

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

Madam Speaker, I am here to talk about Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

In the end, the Michel Girouard case was not even about whether Justice Girouard had purchased cocaine from his former client, a known drug dealer. The Canadian Judicial Council panel hearing the case found that there was not enough evidence on a balance of probability to find that the judge had been dealing in drugs.

There was a video recording, which, unfortunately for him, captured an exchange between him and his client, with money going one way and a package going the other. The judge said that exchange was not about drugs; it was about pornography. Clearly, this judge had a bad habit or maybe two bad habits, but I am willing to concede to the panel's finding that there was no drug dealing. In the end, it was the cover-up that torpedoed this judge's short time on the bench.

The panel's report reads, “[He] deliberately and intentionally attempted to conceal the truth during the hearing.” After that, they recommended his removal. However, Judge Michel Girouard of the Quebec Superior Court was a very good judge. He was certainly a very smart judge. He was a very competent lawyer too. He had a good track record as trial counsel, and he knew his way through the legal court system probably better than anybody did. He used the experience he attained during his career as a lawyer to his full advantage.

Here is a short history. In 2010, he was appointed to the court. In 2012, there was a complaint launched against him relating to drug dealing. In 2014, the Canadian Judicial Council undertook a full investigation, and at the end of that, it recommended his removal to the minister of justice at the time.

I will give a brief explanation of how the Canadian Judicial Council works.

It is a body of judges that is appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Judges Act to review judges' complaints against judges. This is judges judging judges. The idea behind the structure, as with all administrative bodies, is to take specialized cases out of the regular court system. The idea is to be more fair, more transparent and more efficient.

Generally, this works, but it can be abused, as it was in the Girouard case. That case was dragged through the Canadian Judicial Council appeal processes and then through the court system under judicial review procedures. All of these tools were available to Justice Girouard under the governing legislation, the Judges Act, which we are reviewing today. Along the way, he found some courts that were actually sympathetic to his position. The case went back and forth, and it finally ended up at the doors of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2019, which refused to hear the appeal.

The end of the story is that Justice Girouard resigned, mercifully for all of us, but not until after eight years of dragging the case through the court system while he had full pay, even though he did not have to show up for work. His pension also accrued during that time.

Although the Supreme Court of Canada decided not to hear this case, the chief justice had this to say, not specifically about this case but generally: “If the judge has to be removed, he has to be removed quickly and without too much cost to society. We need reforms. Parliament should find a way to make sure that these matters don’t drag for too long and aren't too expensive.”

That is why we are here today to review Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. I do not want to leave the impression that Bill C-9 is Parliament's response to the Girouard case. It is not. I took up that case only because it is high profile and a good example. It illustrates why reform is necessary.

The Canadian Judicial Council is busy with many files. It oversees the work of almost 1,200 federally appointed judges. The vast majority of those judges are very competent, fair, judicious, respectful of the people who appear before them and respected by their profession and in their communities. The CJC's judicial conduct oversight role is part of its general mandate to keep the judicial system efficient, uniform and accountable, and in large part, it does that work effectively.

I do not want to get into the details of Bill C-9; we do not have time for that. A general overview is that it expedites the inquiry process and simplifies it, while also keeping it fair to judges. It also aims to secure the public's confidence in our court system. Importantly, it keeps cases out of the court system.

The council's recommendation to the Minister of Justice will be the final decision, except in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a faint hope because most applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are turned down, as in the Girouard case. It did not make the cut. Most cases coming out of the Canadian Judicial Council, I am sure, would not make the cut to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Not everyone is going to be happy with that. In the Girouard case, for example, which made it to the federal trial court in its long and winding history of eight years, the judge had something to say in response to the Canadian Judicial Council's arguments that only the council had any jurisdiction over the oversight of judges and that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction at all. This is what the federal trial judge said:

It is undeniable that a report recommending the removal of a judge has a serious impact on that judge, professionally and personally, and on his or her family. It is inconceivable that a single body, with no independent supervision and beyond the reach of all judicial review, may decide a person's fate on its own.

If the judge who wrote that paragraph were sitting here today, he would be voting against Bill C-9.

At committee, as stated earlier in debate with the Minister of Justice, the Conservative members of the justice committee put forward a common-sense motion to amend Bill C-9 to allow for an automatic right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. This is not to a trial court, where things could get bogged down, but directly to the Federal Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, the other members of the committee voted against that.

All that said, despite that flaw, which I think is significant, this legislation is good and sound. It stands in line with other judicial reform legislation of recent years and we support it.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the issues I have raised is confidence in the judicial system, in particular the public's confidence. I think it adds value to public confidence when we get legislation like this that is supported unanimously in the House.

My understanding is that the Conservative Party will be voting in favour of the legislation. Can the member provide his thoughts on the importance of having legislation of this nature, which reinforces public confidence in the independence of the judiciary?

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

Madam Speaker, of course, judicial independence is extremely important. It goes to the core of our society and our judicial system, and the public must have confidence in the judicial system.

I think we can celebrate that Canada's judges are highly professional, highly ethical and very considerate of the people who appear before them. They are highly regarded by the community as well. There is a lot to celebrate. Bill C-9 brings that a step further to expedite the system for reviewing judges' behaviour.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting speech. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑9, just as he does. The legal community has called for it and we commend this bill.

I would like to ask my colleague about the judicial appointment process. We know about the “Liberalist” scandal of the past few years. The government used its party's membership list to appoint judges. The government has said that it is no longer using the list, but the judicial appointment process still falls primarily to the government.

Does my hon. colleague agree with my party's position that there should be an all-party committee with greater transparency to appoint judges in order to increase trust in the process?

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree that the appointment of judges must be non-partisan altogether, whether or not that is done through a multi-party body that oversees the appointment of judges. I would take it a step further and say that politicians should not be involved in it at all. It should just be done on a very non-partisan basis, based on the lawyer's ability to be a good judge.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing Canadians feel strongly about is the independence of the judiciary. In the United States, we see the overtly political Supreme Court creating political discord because of a lack of confidence in its decisions.

Rona Ambrose, the former Conservative member who was a very strong voice for women and justice in the House, talked about the need for mandatory training. There have been a few cases of judges who made really disturbing decisions based on sexual assault and the treatment of women.

Does my hon. colleague agree with Ms. Ambrose's position that we need to make sure the judges adjudicating these cases have a good understanding of victims' rights and women's rights in terms of sexual violence?

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

Madam Speaker, we voted in favour of Bill C-3 in the previous Parliament, which originated as a private member's bill from the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I completely support it. I know there was some debate about whether Parliament telling judges they must get educated interfered with their independence. I do not think it did. Judges, like everybody, should be fully educated and informed on the topics they have to address.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, which will only last 90 seconds.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you. I was not sure whether you were going to give me a few seconds to start my speech, which I will be pleased to continue after question period.

Since the end of this parliamentary period and the holidays are approaching, I want to take a few moments to recognize a few people. We will, of course, recognize those who work with us in the House in the coming week, but I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of my team, which is something that we perhaps do not do often enough. The work of an MP is only as good as the work of those who support them in their riding office. I therefore want to thank Dave, Diane and Hugo, as well as our new recruits, Philippe‑Olivier and Huguette, for their great work, unwavering support and top-notch service.

That being said, Bill C-9, which is before us today, seems to have almost unanimous support. I had the pleasure of rising to speak to this bill last June. Generally speaking, the questions asked in the House as part of the debate were not so much about the bill itself as they were about the broader aspects of the justice system review, which shows that the bill's content is not very controversial.

In fact, the bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I think it would be a good idea to stop there and resume debate after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that I have about 18 and a half minutes left. I will do my best, but I cannot promise that I will use up all of that time. I am just pointing that out for the benefit of the person who is speaking next.

Now that all the Christmas wishes and greetings have been sent, I want to come back to Bill C-9, which I spoke about in June, as I mentioned. It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at third reading for a number of reasons. One of them is that the community has been calling for this bill for quite a long time. It has been calling for a review of the system for removing judges who engage in conduct unbecoming of the profession.

This bill will also help shorten the process and, incidentally, reduce the cost associated with assessing judicial misconduct, while still maintaining sufficient procedural equity that a judge who is facing sanctions can make their case and ultimately exercise their right to full answer and defence. In a way, this bill is streamlining a process that, in the past, was unfortunately inconsistently applied and abused, as in the case of Judge Girouard, who has been mentioned quite a bit in the House. It took nearly a decade to come to a final decision on the acts he was accused of.

It is worth mentioning that this bill introduces a mechanism to deal with less serious complaints that would not necessarily require removing a judge who has committed wrongdoing. This mechanism would still allow the judge to be punished for their actions. It is no longer a purely black-and-white system where there are only two possible outcomes to a sanction: either to reject the sanction outright or to remove the judge from office, which is the ultimate sanction for misconduct. Under the old law, there was no in-between. The new bill allows for a slightly fuller range of options, with different shades of grey—not that I am naming a particular book—in terms of the sanctions that can be imposed.

Realistically, we cannot expect Bill C‑9 to change much on a day-to-day basis, because not that many judges face possible sanctions, which is a good thing. My colleagues have said that about eight cases have come under the microscope. This is not something that happens very often.

However, the bill will affect the way people perceive the justice system. If a judge is put under the microscope, we can expect the process to elicit far less criticism and complaint from the public, because it will presumably be much more effective.

As I said, we will vote in favour of the bill. Based on what my colleagues have said, most if not all members of the House will do likewise. The only real criticism we heard during members' speeches had less to do with the content of the bill than with the timeline of its passage, which should take place in the coming days.

This is not our first time studying a bill like Bill C-9 in the House. We saw a previous version, Bill C-5, which ended up dying on the Order Paper because the government decided to call a basically useless election in August 2021, so again, this is not the first time we are indirectly talking about Bill C-9 in the House. However, there is so much consensus on it that, hopefully, this will be the last time.

Bill C-9 upholds a principle that is absolutely critical in our democracy, namely, the principle of security of tenure for judges. This principle is set out in section 99(1) of the Constitution. I think section 99(1) bears quoting.

It states:

the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

With respect to this aspect, Justice Dalphond, who is now a senator, spoke to Bill S‑5. He said the following:

By imposing a process that makes it the responsibility of judges, first and foremost, to deal with allegations of misconduct against a judge, the Judges Act protects judges from acts of intimidation or retaliation by the executive power or litigants. In addition, since the act provides for parliamentarians to exercise their constitutional power to remove a judge only after having received the report and recommendation of the council in this regard, Canadians can rest assured that this measure, intended to be exceptional, will only be taken when it is truly justified.

This essentially separates the different branches of democracy, namely the executive, legislative and judicial branches, by ensuring that if a judge is removed, it is not for purely political reasons, for example.

Although the current system for removing judges in cases of wrongdoing is recognized as one of the best in the world, there was room for improvement. I will name a few of the drawbacks that have been identified.

As I mentioned, the current process can be extremely long. Along the way, there is always the possibility of countless appeals and judicial reviews. Under the act, the review panel was seen as a sort of administrative tribunal that opened the door to using the regular court system, meaning filing an appeal, reviewing a decision or applying for a judicial review. As a result, some cases dragged on for over a decade.

One of the problems that was identified is that a judge who may be at fault could have a financial interest in dragging out the proceedings with stalling tactics, because the judge still gets paid while the process is underway. They can keep contributing to their retirement fund, so the benefits continue to add up. The judge therefore has an incentive to make sure the final decision on their alleged conduct does not come out too quickly.

That is something that has been corrected through proposed section 126 of the new bill. Proposed subsection 126(1) states:

For the purposes of calculating an annuity under Part I, if a full hearing panel decides that the removal from office of a judge who is the subject of a complaint is justified, the day after the day on which the judge is given notice of the full hearing panel's decision is the day to be used to determine the number of years the judge has been in judicial office and the salary annexed to the office held by the judge at the time of his or her resignation, removal or attaining the age of retirement unless

(a) the decision is set aside by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, or by the decision of an appeal panel if the appeal panel's decision is final;

(b) the Minister's response under subsection 140(1) provides that no action is to be taken to remove the judge from office; or

(c) the matter of removal of the judge from office is put to one or both Houses of Parliament and is rejected by either of them.

Should the complaint be rejected, the judge could retain all benefits associated with their office. From now on, pension and benefits accumulation ceases as of the day on which notice of the decision is given. That removes any incentive for a judge to draw out proceedings.

As I also mentioned, one of the benefits of the bill is that it now offers a wider range of sanctions than was available under the old act. The act did not, for example, allow for mandatory sanctions, so it made them seem like half-measures. The parties could make them mandatory by mutual agreement, but there was no real possibility of imposing anything. That is no longer the case. There is now a range of different measures.

Let me read some more of the bill. Proposed section 102 of the new bill provides as follows:

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:

(a) issue a private or public expression of concern;

(b) issue a private or public warning;

(c) issue a private or public reprimand;

(d) order the judge to apologize, either privately or publicly, by whatever means the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances;

(e) order the judge to take specific measures, including attending counselling or a continuing education course;

(f) take any action that the panel considers to be equivalent to any of the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e);

(g) with the consent of the judge, take any other action that the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances.

It uses the word “order”. That means it would be mandatory, and the panel has a lot of latitude.

There are plenty of measures that can be taken to improve the quality of a judge's work in the future, without having to resort to the extreme punishment of removing their right to sit on the bench. The bill improves what can be done within the system while also reducing the burden of what is required to make the review process work.

In the past, under the Judges Act, no fewer than 17 judges might be needed to convene a review panel to examine a case. There is currently a shortage of judges. The courts are operating at a slower pace. If a judge were to be accused of something, we cannot afford to take 17 judges out of the system when there is a shortage everywhere.

Under the new version of the act, a panel can be formed with slightly fewer judges than what was required in the past. The bill also creates an internal appeal process, which will limit reliance on external courts and therefore limit the possibility of invoking the legal system for disciplinary matters involving judges.

I am making an aside on this aspect because the issue of tying up courts and judges cannot be solved by Bill C‑9 alone. We had a discussion about Bill S‑4 and the possibility of making greater use of virtual tools to hear cases. This debate may continue in the days to come. That would help, but even if we add the option of virtual hearings, if there are no judges to hold these hearings, it does not matter that platforms like Zoom are available because the system will not work.

That is why, in addition to Bills C‑9 and S‑4, it is important that the Minister of Justice quickly appoint judges to fill vacancies. Currently, there are nine vacancies. The chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court is even recommending that a dozen judges be added to those currently sitting. This would increase the minimum number of justices that can sit on the Quebec Superior Court. Let us hope that this message will be heard by the Minister of Justice.

Basically, Bill C‑9 is about improving people's trust in the judicial system. However, as I said, it may be relatively limited in scope, because most people will not read the contents of Bill C‑9. If a judge were to commit a wrongful act, people might be interested in this new process that exists to reprimand judges.

Beyond the possibility of reprimanding a judge who has already been appointed, if we really want to improve public trust in the system, we must also address the issue of judicial appointments. Some work has been done. The Liberals have mentioned that they are going to abandon the infamous Liberalist, but that may not be enough. The process is still potentially partisan. The power to select and recommend who will be appointed as a judge is still in the hands of the executive branch of government.

That is why the Bloc Québécois recommends creating a truly all-party committee tasked with evaluating candidates for judicial positions in courts under federal jurisdiction, such as superior courts.

This is what Albania did in hopes of joining the EU. It had to change a lot of its judicial practices to meet EU standards and bolster public confidence in its institutions.

At present, Albania's justice minister has no power over judicial appointments. An independent committee is in charge. The justice minister's primary responsibility is to oversee sound administration of the courts. The minister monitors statistics to ensure that hearings are progressing without wait lists or undue delays, but is not actually responsible for appointing judges. That allows for true separation between the powers of the executive and the judiciary. The House may consider following suit as it develops a different judicial appointment system.

It is on this wish that I will end my speech. Bill C‑9 is a good thing. It is an improvement that has long been called for. It may have taken a long time for it to come to fruition, but we commend the initiative nonetheless. There is still work to be done on the judiciary. The Bloc Québécois will always be a very approachable partner when it comes to improving the legal system. I think that begins with a review of the judicial appointment system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the importance of the passage of the legislation. It is encouraging to see the type of unanimous support the legislation is receiving. That speaks well of the legislation itself. It also adds value to what I have made reference to in the past, which is public confidence in our judicial system and its independence.

Then the member started to talk about the appointment process, which has always been of keen interest to me. Where I disagree with the member is that she seems to think the appointments are political appointments when in fact they are not. I truly believe that about the judicial appointments that have been made to date.

The member mentioned that there are some other countries looking at it, and I expect there are a lot of countries looking at it. Can she cite a country with which she feels comfortable in the way a judge is appointed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned Albania because we had a discussion with Albania's justice minister. He said that the process for selecting judges is not just the responsibility of the government. It is an independent committee that is in charge of appointing judges.

The parliamentary secretary mentions that there is no risk of a political appointment being made by the government. More than that, what matters is that there is no appearance of a risk. That is what a committee made up of parliamentarians from all parties represented in the House would allow.

I think that is a solution that would clearly improve public trust in the process and at least deserves to be studied. We are not asking for more than that. I more than welcome the opportunity to have this debate at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the justice committee, the Conservative members put forward what we thought was a common-sense proposal to amend Bill C-9 to allow one appeal directly to the Federal Court of Appeal, not to the trial division where things became bogged down with the Girouard case. This proposal was made because we thought there should be some judicial overview on the work of the Canadian Judicial Council.

I wonder if my colleague would have a comment about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very specific and interesting question.

I reviewed the work that was done in committee, the recommendations that were retained and those that were not. When we look at the proposed structure, we see that there are nevertheless many possible appeal processes.

From the very first level of appeal by the review panel, there is the possibility of appealing to the reduced hearing panel. That is the first option. Next an appeal can be lodged with the appeal panel, which is set out in the bill. Thus, there is a second possibility of appeal, and after that, a third, but only by leave of the Supreme Court. The process already provides for three stages of appeal. I think that should be enough to respect procedural guarantees and fairness.

There are already three levels of appeal as is the case in regular courts. Would it be appropriate to add another to ensure procedural fairness? I believe that, with the process that has already been put in place, there are sufficient guarantees to ensure respect for the rights of judges under review.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats support the modernization of the complaints process and the adding of alternative remedial options beyond the current sole option of removal of the bench. As we have heard, the bill would allow for varied sanctions, including counselling, continuing education and other reprimands.

In contemplating this, I recall a situation that I dealt with in Hamilton with Justice Bernd Zabel who wore a “make America great again” hat into the courtroom the day after the U.S. election. This created quite an outcry within our community. When people tried to engage in the complaints process, it was made very clear that unless it was something so egregious that it would result in the removal of the justice, it would be very unlikely anything would happen.

I would like the hon. member to reflect on the importance of maintaining a process that would ultimately hold justices responsible for ensuring that they are not influenced by partisan interests, that they maintain their objectivity and that they shall not in any way discredit the bench through any perception of bias or prejudice toward any party or interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to talk about a bunch of things that stand out from that question.

With regard to the review process referred to by the hon. member, one of the amendments adopted in committee was that, if the complaint is dismissed, the person who made the complaint should at least be informed of the reasons for dismissing it. This implies that a minimum of work must be done to explain why the complaint is not being pursued any further. This seems to have been a concern in the case my colleague mentioned.

As for partisan appointments, having a transparent committee to select judges is already a step in the right direction, in order to ensure that judges are not always Liberal leaning, for example. This is what we have unfortunately seen in the past with the “Liberalist”.

However, if we want to go a little further, there is one thing we must also consider: What happens to judges once they have completed their term on the bench? Many of them go to large firms, but others go to work for lobbies or for groups that are a little more partisan.

Perhaps we should also review the possibility for judges, at the end of their term, to work in the private sector in businesses, groups, companies that may be considered more politically oriented, for example?

There is work that could be done throughout a judge's life, from appointment to retirement, to ensure greater impartiality, generally speaking, and greater public confidence in the system.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, justice is important, but the appearance of justice is just as important. In Quebec, they say that the Supreme Court is like the leaning tower of Pisa. It always leans the same way: against Quebeckers.

I wonder if Quebeckers' declining confidence in the Supreme Court is due in large part to the secrecy and long-standing lack of transparency we see over and over in judicial appointments.

The noncommittal answers and wishy-washy suggestions we have been hearing from the government side lead me to believe that the Liberals do not really understand the magnitude of the task before them with respect to the appointment process.

Does my colleague think they are taking this seriously enough?

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

Mr. Speaker, if, every time we talk about reviewing the judicial appointment process, the government basically systematically closes the door on it when all we want is for the issue to be examined or considered, then, of course, that will likely not help with transparency and the public's confidence in the justice system.

It is important to remember that judges rise through the courts. When a judge is appointed to a superior court, it is possible that they will one day serve on the Supreme Court, but it is rare for a Supreme Court justice to be appointed without first being appointed to a lower court.

Taking a bottom-up approach would involve starting with the appointment of judges in the superior courts of Quebec and the provinces, and reviewing that process from the bottom up would likely lead de facto to better confidence in the rest of the process and in the path that judges may take to the Supreme Court.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when individuals reflect negatively on the system, that in itself feeds the answer the member provided to me the last time around. In other words, if we have a system to which other countries look to see how Canada manages things, then I think we set a very good example. I challenge the member to indicate which members of the judiciary, any judges, she believes this government appointed as political partisan decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's question is exactly why people are cynical. That is the issue. They want us to identify people and they say that we should not question the judicial system because that could undermine it. I say we must question it. There is always room for improvement.

I do not believe for a second that the best way to bolster public confidence in the judicial system is to close our eyes. I think it is better to be as transparent as possible and as open to improvement as possible. That does not seem to be an approach the Liberals embrace.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill.

I know that for many people in the public, an act to amend the Judges Act is not the most exciting thing they can imagine for a Friday afternoon, but the bill deals with things that are fundamental to our system, even if they are not exciting. Things like the rule of law and an independent judiciary make sure that our democracy can continue to function. We have to have a citizenry that has confidence in our institutions and confidence in the judges, and the bill is about making that confidence more apparent.

I have to say that I am troubled by exchanges like the one that just took place between the Liberal and Bloc members. It is true that we have to be able to question our institutions, but the kind of exchange that takes place where someone asks for someone to name a judge who is political is not helpful when it comes to keeping confidence in our judiciary. A blanket charge that the appointments that are taking place are political is not helpful either, so if we want to talk about the system, let us talk about the system and how it functions, but the wild charges do not contribute to confidence in our system, and I say “a pox on both your houses” for that, frankly.

One of the things I will give credit to the Liberal government for, on which it has done better than any previous government that I have seen, and as a former criminal justice instructor I have been watching this system for more than 30 years, is the diversity of appointments to the bench. Diversity is an important thing, because if Canadians do not see themselves reflected in the legal system, it is hard to have confidence in that system.

I will point to two things that I think were quite historic this year in and of themselves, but that also contribute to confidence.

The first, of course, was the appointment of Judge O'Bonsawin to the Supreme Court of Canada. I was very pleased to see her take her seat this fall. It really broadens the perspective of the court to have the first indigenous woman sitting there, and I think the court will make better decisions because of that diversity.

The second, which is sometimes overlooked, also took place this fall, and that was the appointment of Justice Shannon Smallwood as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, so an indigenous woman as a Supreme Court chief justice for the first time.

What does this mean for the public? I do not think it means very much, but in the judicial system it means a whole lot, because as a chief justice she takes her seat on the Canadian Judicial Council, which is the body that is in charge of the discipline of judges. Therefore, for the very first time we are going to have a racialized woman sitting in the group that makes decisions about whether judges have acted fairly or discriminatorily. I think these two appointments are extremely important.

I will also say that the current government has done a good job of increasing the number of women appointed to the bench. Again, my belief is that the more diverse the group that is making decisions, the better those decisions will be and the more confidence the public will have in those decisions.

We are happy to support the bill. There is no doubt that the current system for dealing with complaints against judges is long, complicated, costly and non-transparent. The bill before us would be a significant improvement in how we deal with complaints against judges.

The main way I see an improvement here is not just with respect to the cost and the complicated process, but by providing for some intermediate, I guess I would call it, sanctions. We are stuck with a system right now in which, if someone misbehaves on the bench in what I would call a minor manner, or if it is a correctable problem, there is no choice but to recommend that they either stay on the bench or be removed from the bench. The bill is a significant step forward in allowing the Canadian Judicial Council, other judges, to say that a judge may need some remedial training. They may need a time out, just like with kids, a suspension for a while, or other things that do not result in removal of the judge from the bench.

Now, in committee there were a few amendments, two of which I put forward, to address transparency, and I just want to point out one of the odd things in our current system. There are two points at which complaints currently can be dismissed, and they are at the initial screening level and then after a decision by a review panel. The current system, before being amended by Bill C-9, maintained this curious practice of saying, “We're going to give you a summary of our reasons for our decision, but we're not going to give you the reasons. If you want the reasons, you have to file an appeal.” What is the first thing that happens when someone files an appeal? They are given the reasons. Anybody who looks at that with a basic sense of logic and fairness would ask, “Why do we not release those reasons?”

Two amendments were adopted by the committee that reversed that presumption. The presumption now, going forward, will be that unless there is a public interest or a privacy concern, complainants will get the reasons for complaints against judges being dismissed. That is very important for the individual complainants and their confidence, but it is also important for confidence in the system as a whole.

The two other amendments I put forward were rejected, and I will take a minute to talk about both of those.

One of those was brought forward by the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I think it raises a very important concern, but unfortunately other parties on the committee did not share my view of the council's suggestions. It said that at the initial stage, the reasons listed for dismissing a complaint would be that it does not amount to discrimination. The council's concern was that in law, discrimination has a very narrow definition, so cases could get dismissed without being investigated.

Therefore, the council put forward the proposal that we add in that section, “discrimination or actions substantially similar to discrimination”. Because it is the gatekeeping function at that first step, it was suggested that we broaden that a bit more. I was disappointed that the other parties did not agree to that suggestion. With respect to that one, I was moving the amendment on behalf of complainants who wanted there to be a broader look at those complaints before they are dismissed.

With respect to the other amendment, I was on the side of judges. There is still a significant flaw in this bill, although we will support it because it is an improvement. I put forward an amendment saying that the appeal for a judge on the decision of the Canadian Judicial Council should not be to the Supreme Court of Canada, but rather to the Federal Court of Appeal. Let me explain that very obscure difference. What we are dealing with here is judges judging judges when it comes to complaints. The Canadian Judicial Council is composed of judges. If the appeal is made to the Supreme Court, there is no right of appeal. The Supreme Court accepts only applications for leave to appeal, meaning it will decide if someone's case is important enough, and it has a very high bar for hearing cases. The Supreme Court has said it will hear only cases that are of substantial national importance or that raise important constitutional issues. It hears only about 8% of the requests to hear cases, so in fact, we are leaving judges to be judged by their peers, with nobody from outside getting a look at that decision. I find that disappointing.

Some of my colleagues have said to me that the Court of Appeal is also judges. However, there is a different function. When the Canadian Judicial Council makes a decision on complaints, it is defending not just the complaint, but the whole confidence in the judiciary and the whole integrity of the judicial system. It has a bit of a different function. If a complaint is referred to the Court of Appeal, its appeal court judges look only at that case and the procedural fairness for that judge. Fortunately, there are very few of these cases. I am prepared to support the bill, but I am concerned that we have not left an effective appeal mechanism against what I will call at this moment the closed club of the Canadian Judicial Council.

Having said that, I would like to have seen those two amendments added. They were not. It is still a good bill. It is still something we should proceed with.

I have to say, and cannot let it pass, that this could have been done before the last election. It could have been done in the last Parliament. Sometimes I just do not get why my colleagues on the Liberal side are so slow to get things done that have broad support within the House of Commons. However, I am glad to see it here. I am glad to see it moving forward. I am glad to see we are going to get this done. It will contribute significantly to confidence in the complaint process by being more transparent and by being quicker, but it will also contribute to the overall confidence in our judiciary while still protecting the independence of judges.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I serve on the justice committee together. I see that the NDP members are claiming credit for putting forward a motion around the Federal Court of Appeal. It is true that they did that, but so did the Conservatives. We supported that amendment. Because he and I are in full agreement on it, I suppose it would not really make a lot of sense for me to ask him a question about that.

Therefore, I will ask the member this question a little more generally. Does he feel that with Bill C-9 the independence of our judiciary, which is so crucial to our justice system, would still be fully protected?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right and I apologize for failing to mention that the Conservatives had supported the amendment on the appeals by judges. I got mine in first, and that is why it was the one considered, but honestly, I appreciate their support and I think we share that same concern. Maybe, in our attempt to get a faster, more efficient process, we took it a step too far when it comes to those appeals.

Do I think the independence of the judiciary is protected? Yes, I do. I think it is protected, but again, to me, there are other things besides independence and confidence in the complaints process that are important. I am going to say again that I think the work the government is doing to make sure we have a judiciary that reflects the face of Canada is also important.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the work that he did in committee that he mentioned in his speech. It is always interesting to see what arguments were presented there.

First, for the record, I want to confirm to my colleague that I am not suggesting that there are judges who are impartial because of the appointment process, but rather that we must ensure that the appointment process itself does not give the appearance of partiality.

With regard to the addition that he wanted to make to the bill of the possibility of appealing to the Federal Court of Canada, we know that not all appeals in the justice system are appeals as of right. Did my colleague want the appeal to the Federal Court to be an appeal as of right?

If so, would that not be opening the door to unduly lengthening the proceedings?

If he was talking about an appeal with leave, which is mostly the case at the Supreme Court, one must, at the very least, show that there are grounds for appeal, rather than just using this as purely dilatory measure.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that I respect the work the member for Saint-Jean does in this chamber. She is a very diligent and thoughtful member of Parliament, and I respect her contributions.

I will extend my same caution: Whenever we talk about the impartiality of judges, we need to keep our focus on the system and not on the individual judges. We inadvertently do damage, both to the judiciary as a whole and potentially to individual judges, when we talk about the appointment process in individual terms. I agree with her that we have to be able to question that process, but I urge us to keep our focus on that process.

As for the appeal and the fact that the Bloc did not support my amendment to make it to the Federal Court of Appeal, I would just say again that the Supreme Court is likely never going to hear an appeal regarding a judge's disciplinary complaint, because of the very high standard it has set for leave to appeal to the court.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. Every time he stands in this place and speaks on his knowledge about the justice system in this country, I learn something. I am grateful for the work he has done and for his thoughtful interventions in the House.

Today he spoke about the fact that the bill could have been brought forward sooner, that there is cross-party support, and that there are still some flaws in it, but that it is, by and large, a good bill. He also spoke about the importance of diversity in the appointments of judges and the work that has been done in that area. I have been hearing some worrying concerns about the diversity of appointments in Alberta, my home province.

Can he speak about how we could improve that system even further? How can we ensure the system is appropriate across the country?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her question, because it is a serious concern. Unfortunately, what happens in our systems is that the funnel starts removing diversity very early.

If a person is ever going to be a judge, they have to go to law school. The ability of various communities to get their kids into law school is highly differentiated. Certainly we are talking about Black Canadians and indigenous Canadians. The number of people who are represented at the law school level is far below what it should be. We start narrowing the funnel at law school.

Then someone has to practise law for 10 years. We have a time factor. Even if we improve the diversity in law schools, which we are doing, it is going to be a 10-year time lag before someone is eligible for an appointment to the federal judiciary. That funnel is narrow, and it takes time.

I do not know the details of Alberta. Being a British Columbia MP, I have not looked at the appointments in Alberta, but I am hopeful that the initiatives of both law societies and law schools to get more women and people of colour into law school and into the profession will eventually produce a more diverse judiciary.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to speak to Bill C-9 today. I know this is always an interesting topic, and I have spoken to it at the other stages along the way.

I commend the Liberals for taking on the issue of judge accountability. It seems like an interesting topic for me, given the fact that Conservatives are often critical of the decisions made by judges across Canada. We find their leniency to be annoying. We find the overturning of the mandatory minimum sentencing to be frustrating, and all of those kinds of things, therefore we think there needs to be accountability for judges along the way.

Then there is the issue of comments made by judges in public. We have seen that become an issue. There are also the actions judges may take in their personal lives that are beyond the pale. It is frustrating to the public that folks in a position of authority and a position of stature in our society would behave in such a manner. These are all areas in which we need to have a level of accountability.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke talked about the independence of the judiciary. That is an important principle, and the bill would maintain that, for sure.

The bill does a good job around personal behaviour accountability and accountability for comments made by judges outside of their role. It would not necessarily deal with accountability in terms of making judgments and things like that, so I would suggest perhaps there is an opportunity to go forward from here.

We will be supporting the bill. It is a good first step. We have heard from folks across the country around the appeals process. Conservatives put forward recommendations to not make the Supreme Court the final appeal process, but to make the Federal Court of Appeals the final appeal process, and I would have supported that as well.

Ensuring accountability for judgments is an interesting and more complicated area. For as long as I have been here I have been trying to come up with a solution for not only maintaining the independence of the judiciary but also having some sort of accountability for judgments made that are not in line with what the Canadian public agrees with. We have seen this very recently around sexual assault and people who are intoxicated. We have seen horrendous judgments from judges in that respect.

I understand there is the notwithstanding clause here, so that Parliament can pass legislation to clarify a judgment. However, we have seen how the Liberal government has been loath to use the notwithstanding clause and has condemned other governments for using it. The notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure, and it also comes with a five-year renewal process. I do not think that is necessarily a good process.

One of the more fascinating items that has come to my attention, and I throw this out there as more of a possibility, is around judge selection by having a panel of judges put forward. As I understand it, cases are generally assigned to particular judges along the way by a chief justice of sorts. There are jurisdictional regions from which cases come that are assigned to particular judges.

There might be an opportunity for the movement of culture within the decisions that are made by judges to put forward a panel of judges rather than one particular judge. Similar to jury selection, both the prosecution and the defence would then agree upon a particular judge. If three judges were put forward in a particular case, out of the three, the prosecution and the defence would have to agree on a particular judge.

That may in fact be the free market of judges, so to speak, a selection process that would ensure judges' accountability. Judges who were making poor judgments would not get as many cases, therefore it would be a kind of corrective action. I am not a lawyer. I am an auto mechanic, so there may be huge holes in this argument, but it seems to me that it is one way of providing judge accountability without going after the independence of the judiciary.

If this place deals with judges and their inaction or their overturning of laws, because there is an interface there, that would be problematic. Putting politics into the judiciary would also be problematic. We want an independent judiciary, and that is very important. I want to reinforce that. I just put forward the idea around the panel of judges and the judge selection process as a possible opportunity for another mechanism for judge accountability.

I am now going to turn my focus to more broader justice issues in this country. We saw the lowering of sentencing across the board in Bill C-71 and now in Bill C-5. We see how the removal or reduction of sentencing has led to an increase in violent crime across the country.

Folks come to me often about rural crime in their communities and how that seems to be on the increase. Some of it is not so much to do with the laws. The laws have not changed a great deal over the last seven years, but the attitude has. That is really what frustrates me about the Liberals. The Liberals' lack of emphasis on justice and their emphasis on the rehabilitation of the criminal but not on aid to the victims or survivors are the kinds of things that have really frustrated me. There is also the lack of taking seriously the crimes that happen in our communities.

I totally understand that there is a host of things, from our prison system to our justice system to our laws, that come into play. Then there is the administration of all of it. When people feel that the system will work, that their cases will be heard, that justice will be had and, if they are victims of crime, that the person will be taken out of their communities or their property will be returned to them, then there is an appetite to participate.

If none of that is seen to be happening, there is an increasing issue of people not being interested in participating in the justice system. That goes in either of two directions. It goes to desperation in terms of not feeling like their country cares for them, but it also goes to vigilantism, where people take things into their own hands.

The Liberals have completely failed in the administration of justice. It is mostly an attitudinal thing. It is not about the particular laws or the system. It is a lot about where they place their emphasis. We have seen, since the Liberals have taken power, that rural crime and violent crime across this country have been on an upward trajectory. That is because victims do not feel that they will get restitution for the problems they are facing. Criminals do not feel they will be held accountable either.

Constituents contacted me about some pickup truck rolling into their yard. They went outside and there were people stealing scrap metal or copper right out of their yard. They confronted them, and the criminals said to call the police and asked what they were going to do about it. That is exactly what is happening in our communities. It comes from the tacit support for the movement to defund the police, from the lowering of sentencing across the board and from the lack of concern for the victim.

It is not a funding issue. We hear the Liberals saying all the time that they have more funding for all of those issues. It is not the funding that is the issue. It is the attitude. We see it over and over again.

The case in point is probably the border security issue that is tangentially attached to this. Under the Conservatives, we spent a lot less on border security. We also did not have a big problem with people coming across the border illegally. People understood that if they came across the border illegally, we were turning them right back around. When the Conservatives were in government, that was the case. That is my major frustration.

Last, I will talk a little about the firearms situation in Canada.

The Liberal government has let the veil slip. It has been trying to ban, confiscate, make illegal and criminalize firearm ownership in this country, full stop. The Liberals always deny that. They always say they are not doing that. However, they have now let veil slip and have put in an amendment to Bill C-21 that includes hundreds of hunting rifles. They were caught, and now they are saying they did not mean to and did not understand.

The Liberals are the ones who say they know how to define firearms. They are the ones telling us they have the experts on their side. They are the ones who said they paid for all the studies.

If they have done all of that hard work, how come hunting rifles are ending up on the list? They are ending up on the list because the Liberals have let the veil slip. They have been after everyone's firearms, not just the handguns, which we were fine with. We said that if they were going to do this, they were going to do this. We do not think criminals should have firearms.

However, when it comes to hunting rifles and farmers having the tools of their jobs, that is where we have drawn the line. We now know what the Liberals' plans are when it comes to firearm ownership in this country. They want to ban it. They want to criminalize it. They want to confiscate the firearms of everyday Canadians. That is extremely worrying.

This particular bill is about judge accountability, and I commend the Liberals for it. I did not think they had it in them to bring forward a bill on judge accountability. I am happy they have. I think judge accountability is something we need to ensure continues in Canada. I have put forward another mechanism for judge accountability, and I am looking forward to having more discussions on that as well.

However, I am concerned that the issues this country faces around justice and law and order do not come from the particular laws and systems that we have in this place, but from the soft-on-crime attitudes of the Liberals and their lack of concern for public safety. This has caused a dramatic decrease in the safety of everyday Canadians, with the running wild, the unaccountability and the lack of fear that we see from criminals in this country as they operate on the streets of Canada.

That is what I hear more and more from Canadians across the country. Criminals operate with impunity. People ask me about this all the time. Why do these criminals operate in broad daylight? Do they not fear the police? They do not.

We hear from Canadians over and over again that these criminals fear nothing in Canada. They do not fear the judicial system. They do not fear our police. We need to ensure that our police forces have the political backing to do what they need to do to take these guys off our streets. We have to make sure that the justice system takes these criminals off the streets and puts them away for a long time to ensure that our streets are safe. If we do not have safety in our communities, we do not have anything. That is the reality.

Safety and security are the fundamental building blocks of a stable and strong country, and we must maintain that as we watch other things fall apart in this country. That starts with the justice, law and order issues in this country, not to mention the inflation issues, the border security issues and the inability to get a passport. There is a whole host of other things that are falling apart.

We need to ensure that our justice system works and that we feel safe to walk around the streets of Canada. Therefore, I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to questions and comments.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly know the member has done incredible work on human trafficking. I was hoping he could share more of his insights and experience regarding the incredible work he has done with respect to the content of the bill.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the fight against human trafficking here in Canada, I am working hard to have Canada declare zero tolerance for human trafficking. I know that in Canada we have a national strategy to end human trafficking and modern-day slavery, which was put in place by a Conservative government back in 2012. It was not funded from 2016 to 2019. The Liberals have re-funded it now.

I have a bill that I just put on the Order Paper, Bill C-308, which would mandate a national strategy to end human trafficking from now into the future. It would also require the Minister of Public Safety to issue an annual report on what the government is doing to fight human trafficking with measurable deliverables.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, a man died recently on Mirabel airport property after Aéroports de Montréal prohibited its firefighters from responding to a fire.

I wonder if my colleague is comfortable with the fact that today we are reviewing legislation dealing with sanctions for judges and calling for more accountability for the judiciary, while non-profit organizations like Aéroports de Montréal, which act like a state within a state, which lack transparency, which endanger the lives of the public and the health and safety of their employees, are in no way accountable to taxpayers, to Quebeckers and Canadians.

Am I the only one here who finds this is abhorrent and thinks there should be more accountability in many other areas, including Aéroports de Montréal?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the accountability of the Montreal airport authority is something I know very little about. That sounds terrible. I am generally in favour of less government and more democracy. That would be my take on this. I am not really familiar with the specifics of what the member is talking about, but what I can say is, I think this bill is a good first step with respect to the accountability of judges. However, I have put forward some other recommendations on judge accountability, and I look forward to having discussions about that as well.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, in Bill C-9, there is a strengthened review process where allegations are made against judges regarding sexual misconduct. That is a good thing, but this is the same government that just passed a bill, Bill C-5, to allow criminals convicted of sexual assault to be able to serve their sentences at home, perhaps next door or down the street from their victims.

What does that say about the current government's priorities?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was precisely the point of my entire speech, that the attitude of the Liberal government around crime is causing an increase in crime across this country.

Bill C-5, which the member mentioned, also allows human traffickers to be placed under house arrest rather than spend their time in jail. Many human traffickers are able to control their victims from inside prison, never mind when they are inside the very same community they were operating in before. Many of them operate from their homes and are able to control their victims through a multitude of means. Not taking these people out of society to do their time and rehabilitate them is a complete failure of justice and leads to the reasons why Canadians do not report crime when they see it and why criminals feel that they can operate with impunity.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was very bothered recently to see, in the city of Calgary, that the Louise Dean school for pregnant teenagers is being shut down and moved to another school in a different location.

I know that the member has taken an interest in this issue as well and has done some local advocacy on this issue. I was hoping that he might give his thoughts on the decision by the CBE school board to move these women from an environment that is more supportive to their situation as individuals to a less safe and less supportive situation.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Louise Dean school has been a gem in Alberta for a very long time. It has helped thousands of women who have found themselves to be pregnant while still in high school. This school has a long track record. It is widely loved by the community. The decision to shut that particular school down is atrocious, and I certainly hope that the decision will be reversed. I know that the member for Calgary Midnapore has a unique relationship with that school as well. I look forward to hearing from people from across the country who are concerned about this kind of action being taken by the Calgary school board.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. deputy House leader.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that if you canvass the House, I am sure that you will find consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.