Bill C-9

An Act to amend the Judges Act

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

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the last member asked the question that was on my mind.

In the course of the debate this morning, I certainly heard the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke say out loud that we should get this bill passed quickly.

As we approach the end of a session, I do not know why we hold the whip over ourselves as though we do not get summer vacation and it would be so bad if we stayed and worked. That is something we are supposed to do, stay and work. Let us use the end of June momentum to suggest that Bill C-9 should get unanimous consent to pass it expeditiously this week.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely agree with the hon. member. Whatever I could do as one parliamentarian in this House, I would be happy to do to get unanimous consent to move this forward.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to support Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

This bill proposes to overhaul a process that is essential to maintaining public confidence in our justice system, namely the mechanisms used for examining allegations of judicial misconduct.

If there is one class of legislation that everyone in the House should be able to agree on unanimously, it is laws having to do with our justice system.

In the time I have been in the House, I have been really pleased to see the non-partisan ways that members have been able to work together on justice-related issues on many occasions. I am going to outline one that just happened last week.

My hon. colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton proposed a private member's bill to carve out an exception to allow jurors to speak to mental health professionals about what happened during the time they were in deliberations. Up until now, the Criminal Code has prohibited jurors from doing so, thus creating a problem where a juror who is profoundly affected by what happens in deliberations is unable to speak about it to somebody who can counsel them on their mental health.

At the justice committee, we heard from jurors. We put forward a package of recommendations in the 42nd Parliament related to how we should improve the lives of jurors. My colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton worked with a colleague in the Senate. They put this forward in both Houses and were able to secure the unanimous adoption of a bill that will profoundly change the life of jurors. That is the way we should do things in this House more frequently.

This bill is another excellent example of where there has been profound collegiality. There has been a lot of consultation and there is a general consensus that we should move forward. I echo the comments of my dear friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands that we should find a way to pass this before we have any type of summer break.

That being said, one of the things that I think is really important in this country is the respect for our institutions. We have wonderful federal judges who have been appointed in this country, people of great distinction in their field. When people go before the courts, they need to have confidence that the judges are impartial and fair and that judges have the ability to fairly adjudicate their case. This means we need a process that the public can trust for judges who are accused of misconduct.

There are things in this country we should not question. We should not be questioning the central bank. We should not be questioning the justice system. We should have profound confidence in these national institutions no matter our party or our political leanings. Therefore, it is up to us as parliamentarians to create laws that provide that confidence. This bill does that in three essential ways.

On the first point, I am going to use the example my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke used earlier, of when a judge is photographed between the time the judge finishes judging a case and the opinion is published and there is a picture of the judge with a group of people who are a party to the case. That does not necessarily warrant that judge's removal from office for life and an act of both Houses of Parliament to remove the judge. Right now, there are no sanctions below removal that are available to the Canadian Judicial Council. This bill offers us alternatives such as training, an apology in public and other things a judge can do to excuse behaviour that does not rise to the level of warranting removal.

Second, we have seen a misuse of the system. There are judges who have been accused, but there have been very few because our judges are a very distinguished, excellent group of people. I do not want anything I say in this speech to be considered a slap in the face to the federal judiciary which is made up of excellent people. There are always some people who are alleged to have committed and do commit some misconduct. The idea that people can tie this up in knots for years and years with appeal after appeal until they are able to get their pension does not make any sense.

I am very pleased that we now have a process with a panel of three to five people to start, if the relationship is extremely troubling, and that its decision can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. There will be no appeals to the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal. The process will be much faster, and I believe that this is very important.

There is something else that is important, and that is transparency. At present, the Canadian Judicial Council is not required to prepare an annual report of all complaints submitted. It will now be required to disclose annually that it has received such complaints and to explain how they were addressed. That is also important for transparency.

I would also like to mention that there has been a lot of discussion in the House about the importance of the rights of victims. Let me say that when it comes to all parties and every parliamentarian, there is a profound respect for the rights of victims and the need for victims to feel they were fairly served by the justice system. It is very important to respect the rights of the criminal defendant, but it is also important to make sure victims are considered throughout the process.

This process that would be in place would be a faster process. This means people who were alleged to be victims of misconduct would have their final decision much faster than they would otherwise have had it. That also is important.

I am going to sort of make a clarion call. Especially at the end of the session, there is often a lot of partisanship and anger shown, but as a group, we can do so much good. I know this from experience, having worked with Conservative colleagues, like my friend from Sarnia—Lambton, and my colleagues in the NDP. I have worked often with the member for Edmonton Strathcona, as well as my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands and members of the Bloc.

We all worked together to do constructive things. If we use the next week to pass bills we agree are constructive, I believe that we will accomplish a lot. I am therefore asking my colleagues in the House to work together to find a way to pass this bill before the end of June. I believe that it would be a great thing for Canadians.

This would allow us to show Canadians, who are discouraged when they see the acrimony floating around, that parliamentarians really can work together and accomplish things. I think that confidence in our national institutions is so important to restore.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the member talk about victims. Of course, that is some of the premise of this bill.

I want to ask him a question on the topic of victims. The position of Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is still vacant. That position has been vacant now for approximately nine months, so someone to speak up for victims and hear their voices is not at the table.

I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on that and if he can provide us any information today as to when that position might be filled.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide any information as to when the position will be filled, as I am not involved in that process. I can say that I share the view of my colleague that it is very important to protect the rights of victims of crime, and I am certainly hoping the position will be filled at the nearest possible opportunity.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague likely knows, we agree on the principle of the bill. I completely agree that it is crucial that people be able to trust their justice system.

We have heard all kinds of allegations, especially regarding the judicial appointment process. We have heard about the Liberalist database and the possibility of political interference in appointing judges.

Does my colleague think the government should review the judicial appointment process sometime soon?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my friend from La Pointe-de-l'Île.

We made some great changes to the process following the 2015 election. We created regional committees made up of Canadian Bar Association members and people who know the community and can tell the Department of Justice whether or not a person is qualified before their name is put on the judicial appointment list.

I followed the process launched in western Quebec, and I am very pleased that the Minister of Justice can now only appoint people who are on the lists approved by these committees. That said, the process can always be improved.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always learn a great deal listening to my colleague and have enjoyed working in this place with him.

I agree with him that, when we stand here and listen to speeches from all members in this place, we hear the total agreement on moving this piece of legislation forward. What other things would he suggest we could do to encourage this bill to go forward as quickly as possible? Would he be willing, as a member of the government, to bring forward a unanimous consent motion so we could push this bill forward and give people the confidence that this Parliament can get things done?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly support a unanimous consent motion. Right now, it is up to all of us to speak to our House leaders and make sure they can agree to that. Maybe after question period, we will all be delighted to see one.

Again, we should all go and speak with our respective House leaders in the next few hours.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite always does a great job on his speeches and, with his experience in the past, he always gives good detail.

I did like hearing that there are measures in this bill, other than just getting rid of a judge, that would address issues at a lower level. There are things like training and apologies in public. I wonder if the member could elaborate on the whole suite of options that are available there.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the first female engineer elected to Parliament, my hon. colleague comes from private industry, as I do. Therefore, she knows that it would be ludicrous for the human resources department to be limited to firing an employee for any type of misconduct they happen to engage in at work. There is a whole gradation of potential sanctions ranging from a verbal warning to a written warning to suspension to an apology to training, which is obviously very important training. Now, instead of having to just remove a judge, there would be a three-member panel that would be able to recommend multiple options for a judge who has committed a lesser offence.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-9, which is an act that would create a complaint mechanism for judges. We have certainly heard from all sides today that everyone thinks this is a great idea. This is not to say judges do not do a good job, because we know we have great judges in this country who work hard, but as with any career discipline, there is always the odd thing going on that is not good.

I remember when I was the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women we talked about some of the things that were happening. In one sexual assault case, a judge actually asked the complainant, “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” In another sexual assault case, another judge said, “she was drunk” in the taxi.

Rona Ambrose brought forward Bill C-337 to try to get at this issue of judges who do not have experience in sexual assault presiding over those cases. Although that bill unfortunately did not make it through under her private member's bill, the government brought it back, and we passed it earlier in the session. This would offer judges training, and in fact, it would offer lawyers who want to be judges training as well. That is the kind of remedy we want to see.

I was very pleased to hear the member for Mount Royal, who just spoke, talk about what this bill would allow. Other than just the extreme option of getting rid of a judge for whatever behaviour was complained about, there is a whole realm of possibilities, including verbal warnings, letter warnings, public apologies, training and multiple other options. This is something very good about this bill.

I do have a concern about the state of judges in our country since the Liberal government was elected. I started in 2015, and at that time we were missing I think 60 judges who needed to be appointed. Because of that, and because the Jordan decision, there were numerous examples of murderers and rapists who went free because there were not enough judges to handle the workload in a timely fashion.

There was an attempt made to put in a process. The government wanted to increase the diversity of the judges being selected, which is great, because one of the things that will make for a healthier democracy and rule of law is to have diverse thought and diverse representation of the population.

Unfortunately, what happened is the government used the Liberal fundraising database to figure out which judges should be picked from the lawyer pool. There were also fundraisers going on with the minister of justice at the time, which caused a big scandal because lawyers were paying $500 to meet her, and they all wanted to become judges. We know that is certainly not in keeping with conflict of interest rules in the House. The scandal went on for quite a while.

It is important to have diversity of thought with judges so they can check one another. If people are all in a group and they think together, it can be a bad thing. We have seen some of the Supreme Court decisions that came out recently that have caused concern across the country, such as the one that says, if a person is intoxicated, it could be a defence for murder, sexual assault, etc. Canadians in general would reject that and say no. The person is the one who chose to keep drinking or doing drugs until they became that intoxicated, and there needs to be an ownership of the behaviour. Those judges all together did not have enough diversity of thought for somebody to say that decision might not be a good thing.

I would suggest, from a Conservative perspective, that when somebody has killed multiple people, consecutive sentencing gave a lot of comfort to victims. The Supreme Court decision on that is another example. Parliament has a duty to review those decisions and have the discussions about whether that is really where we want to go on those topics. The whole purpose of having judges is that they are the executors of the rule of law in our nation.

I am very concerned that, in the last seven years, we are not seeing more rule of law. We are seeing more people committing crimes. The crime rates are increasing, including gun crime and violent crime. However, when I look at the response from the government, it looks like we are seeing a continual erosion of the rule of law.

The member who spoke previously mentioned that I am the first female engineer in the House, and we have an expression in the engineering world about a frog in a pot. Gradually the temperature in the pot increases until eventually we boil the frog, but the frog is not able to sense that the temperature is going up because it is so incremental. I would argue, with respect to the rule of law in Canada, the temperature is going up.

We had Bill C-75, which reduced the sentencing to fines or less than two years of time in jail for crimes such as abduction of a person under the age of 16, abduction of a person under the age of 14, arson for fraudulent purposes, marriage under 16 and participation in the activity of a terrorist group. There are a number of offences there, and I did not see the justification for that. We have heard from police chiefs that, although in some cases they agreed, in many cases there are serious crimes happening that now have only a slap on the wrist, which is not sending the right message about the rule of law and the importance of it.

In this parliamentary session, we now have Bill C-5 coming forward, which would remove mandatory minimums on robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of offences; trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing, exporting, or possession of serious drugs; and production of these serious drugs, which are killing thousands of Canadians. Also, Bill C-5 would allow some of these sentences to be put down to house arrest, including that of sexual assault.

Somebody could victimize someone in their community and then serve the time there. I do not think that is something that we should leave to the discretion of judges, when we have seen in the past a judge ask, “couldn't you just keep your knees together?” There is a naivete if we think we can leave it to chance. Yes, in the majority of cases, judges will judge with wisdom, but it is the every now and again that we want to prevent and what our laws should prevent.

Abduction of a person under 14 could become a house arrest sentence. This is unbelievable. We have a huge human trafficking issue in this country, and this not only sends the wrong message, but it is also not going to fix things because, when people are left with a potential house arrest, those who are committing crimes can commit them out of their house. It is the same thing for someone trafficking drugs who gets house arrest. How convenient is that for people to stop by and pick up drugs?

These things make no sense to me, and so I am very concerned when I look at the erosion of our rule of law. At the same time, there is an erosion of protection for victims. We had Bill C-28 in the previous Parliament on victim surcharge. It used to be that there was some recompense made for victims who had suffered and had to travel distances to go to parole hearings and that kind of thing, but that was taken away.

This is a soft-on-crime government, and while I support Bill C-9 because when judges do not get it right we need to fix that, but I am very concerned that we are having this continual erosion of the rule of law. We have heard many speeches in the House that have said that there is a high rate of reoffending. People are committing crimes, getting out, committing them again and being put back in, and there really is no rehabilitation happening. That is not to say that there should not be, but the situation today is that there is not. If we know that people are going to reoffend and go out on the street, we have to protect the public, and we have a duty to do that.

The mechanism in the bill is to make sure that judges are doing their due diligence. We would have mechanisms, not just an extreme one, but progressions, that would allow us to take corrective action and manage the judicial system to ensure its integrity. This will preserve the rule of law, although the concerns I have expressed do remain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, and I want to go back to some of the comments she made at the beginning of her speech.

We have seen some horrific judgements that women who suffered sexual assault have faced in the courts, with judges who have had some horrific opinions, not judgements but opinions, on the women. However, Rona Ambrose did come forward about the need to have judges properly trained so they actually understood these files in reference to sexual assault and abuse against women.

I would ask my hon. colleague if she feels that the mechanisms within the bill would allow us to address some of the serious problems we have with judges who just do not understand the sexual assault culture facing women.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the bill that Rona Ambrose brought forward had training as the main measure, training so that judges would understand sexual assault.

With Bill C-9, we actually have a plethora of things that can be done to match the severity of the situation, whether it was an idle comment or a photograph that was taken prior to the sentence being made public. I think there is enough flexibility in this bill, and that is always going to be better. We do not want someone to be fired on a first offence, but we want to make sure there are a suite of actions that can be taken so that the punishment essentially fits the crime.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague talked about was the erosion of the rule of law at the same time as the erosion of the protection of victims. We have seen, time and again, a real soft-on-crime approach by the Liberal government.

I want to bring this to her attention. In my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, the City of Kelowna just released a report, a couple of weeks ago, called “Community Confidence in Justice: Advocacy Paper”. It talks about the increase in crime in our community, and it has a number of different suggestions and advocacy on protecting the public and moving forward with different policy ideas and guidelines.

Is the member seeing a similar increase in crime where she is from, such that we really need to look at both the rule of law and the protection of victims in her community as well?