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

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the member's thoughts. As my colleague from the Liberal Party suggested, this is a time when we are in this House and we all agree on something, which is nice. I would like to see the bill fast-tracked so we can focus on really important issues.

I have been talking a lot about the toxic drug crisis. I know my colleague cares deeply about this as well. The expert task force on substance use made it unequivocally clear that criminalizing people who use substances causes more harm. BIPOC Canadians are impacted more than other Canadians. Reforms to the justice system would help eliminate systemic racism.

Does my colleague agree that we need to fast-track this bill and get on to these really difficult challenges that we can address by working together?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's deep-found concern, empathy and sympathy for all Canadians who are unfortunately addicted to substances across the country. I have certainly seen it in our towns of Port Hope and Cobourg, the havoc it can wreak, not just on the individuals who are addicted to these substances but on their family members. It would give me no greater joy in life than if we could get good people off this terrible stuff.

Getting back to the bill, although it is not contentious, there are several issues. As I said, I brought this up for debate, such as the reduced hearing review panel, which would have a bit of an unusual impact, the way it happens. Our justices receiving rebukes or dismissal is a serious issue. Although it is not contentious, I do want to build this collaboratively and I do believe it merits discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we are enjoying today, in this debate on Bill C-9, a remarkable degree of unanimity. To the extent that there is hesitation, it is not unreasonable, obviously. This is a piece of legislation that many of us have not studied before, but it is not contentious. It is updating a system that has been overdue for an update, to streamline it and make it more effective. I think my hon. colleague will agree that there are many areas that we want to see streamlined in this country. Let us get at one of them.

My question is more of a comment. If we do get the opportunity for unanimous consent to get Bill C-9 out of here and done, we know how much that will help us get on to other issues, like the urgent opioid crisis, the urgent climate crisis and many other issues. Let us get Bill C-9 passed, if we possibly can. If it comes forward for unanimous consent, I urge the hon. member to consider just saying “okay”.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has a long track record of speaking in this House about the importance of debate. I would call upon those comments. I know her comments are made with the best of intentions, but I still believe this bill deserves additional study and conversations.

Whether it be the appointment of an individual screening officer versus the executive director, or whether it be the exact prescription of the sanctions that are potentially put on justices, including a public rebuke, I think having some parliamentary conversation about that could be important and I think it could improve it. Although not contentious, it is still very important. How we resolve judicial misconduct is an important issue. We saw that in Rona Ambrose's bill and everything she brought to light.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member who spoke previously was slightly tongue-in-cheek. We all know what is going on here. The same question that I asked was asked by the NDP and then it was asked by the Greens. The question was, why will the Conservatives not just let this go? Why will they not just let it collapse?

For those who are at home and wondering what this madness is, I will explain it to them. What is going on right now is that we have a bill that everybody in this House agrees on, more or less, I should say. It will definitely pass when it comes to a vote, but the reality is that the Conservatives will just not let that happen. They do not want to see a vote on it. Why? It is not because they are against it or they do not want to see the work happen. They want something in return. Their whip's desk is saying that they do not want to let this pass, because if they let this pass, they are giving something to the government without getting something in return. Unfortunately, that is how petty this place has become. On an issue that we are all passionate about and want to see move forward and go to committee so that it can be studied and come back to this House, an issue we know is long-standing and outstanding, we are now literally seeing it deadlocked here because the Conservatives will not let this debate collapse.

In that vein, I have a speech here, but I am not going to bother reading it, because I do not think it is important at this point. I think what is important is that we move on and get this to committee.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

That is all I have to say.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad my colleague did not take up some time to actually explain his position on this bill because that is what the floor of the House of Commons is for. I will ask him about the pettiness he referred to. We are attentive, and we want to hear what he has to say about this bill. That is not petty at all. It is about understanding what the legislation is for.

If he is going to rise above his pettiness, can he please address his concerns about the bill? A lot of people think there is some good stuff in this bill, and we would like to hear about it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do think this is a good bill. I want to see this bill move forward. My reference with respect to pettiness had nothing to do with the bill or the content of this bill, but indeed with the actions of the Conservative Party right now. I am trying to be as respectful as I can about this, but the reality is the Conservatives will just not let this go forward because they want something in return. They are holding this hostage right now, even though everybody wants it, just so they can use it as a bargaining chip to get something in return.

This bill is a very important bill, and it is important it moves forward. It needs to go to committee. Am I an expert on the content of this bill as the previous speaker is? Of course not. However, I do know this is in the best interest of Canadians. I take great comfort in knowing it is unanimously supported in the House. Therefore, it is, at the very least, worthy of going to the next stage, which is for the committee to study it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand my colleague's eagerness to finally get this bill to committee. It makes sense because that is where amendments can be made, and amendments are improvements.

In fact, speaking of improvements, a lot of people say there are no separatist judges because a separatist judge would not promote Canada. I understand that too. The problem is that any separatist who goes to court could say that they do not want a particular judge to hear their case because the judge would be biased.

How can we make sure judges are unbiased?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously has a greater perspective on it than I do. Just the fact she is asking the questions means that it means something to her. I interpret this to mean she wants to work on finding a solution to ensuring that independence still occurs, even if it is a judge who fits the description she had.

That is exactly what the committee can do, and that is the place where those kind of questions are going to be properly addressed. If indeed an amendment is required, the Bloc Québécois can put forward that amendment at committee. That is the perfect place for that to occur.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member who just spoke. It is very rare there is a bill that comes to the House for which everybody largely has consensus. We want to see the work get done, so hopefully we can do that. It is unfortunate he feels there is a power struggle between his party and the Conservatives.

I am just wondering if the member could talk about what might be more important to talk about. In my riding, I can think of people who are desperately looking for housing. The cost of housing is exploding in ways we could have never predicted just a few years. There are so many people who are experiencing life without a home because of the realities we are facing.

Is that not something we should be talking about in the House, rather than what we are talking about right now?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we could be talking about housing, pharmacare and climate change. The list could go on and on. I am not suggesting for a second this is not very important. What I am suggesting is we already know the will of the House with respect to this. It is very clear, if one has been sitting here since 10 a.m., as I have, what the will of the House is on this.

I am just suggesting that it is time for the House to move on to talk about housing. I would like to talk more about housing. The irony is that, while the member was asking that question, a heckle came from across the way telling me to thank her for her hard work, as if somehow the member for North Island—Powell River and I both believing that housing is an important issue means we are somehow in collusion. That is how the Conservatives interpret it. Yes, I am willing to collude with this member as it relates to working on housing issues and making housing more affordable for Canadians.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. I am not a lawyer or a full subject matter expert on this bill, but having read the bill kit, I have put together a few words. It seems there is some unanimity and some good work has been done by our government. Hopefully this bill can be sent to committee for study by the learned members that have the honour and privilege of sitting on the justice committee here in Parliament.

It is, as always, great to see everyone this afternoon. I hope everyone is doing well, and that their loved ones at home are doing likewise.

I am here today to discuss a matter of crucial importance to our judicial system. The Canadian judiciary has a solid reputation and has long been respected here at home and abroad, which is one reason it enjoys the confidence of Canadians and the admiration of societies the world over.

There is a reason for that. Our judicial system is strong. It has been reinforced and improved continually over time thanks to the decisions rendered and measures taken by the people who make the system tick. Our system gets better and better because of the skill and hard work Canadian judges bring to every case, along with their unimpeachable character and exemplary conduct.

This is why allegations of misconduct against a judge can have such a corrosive effect on the bright enamel of our justice system. While these allegations are rare, they are highly significant for the judges and the individuals concerned, and they have deeper importance for public trust in the integrity of justice. It is critical that the public have confidence in a system for investigating judicial misconduct allegations that is scrupulously fair, effective and, most important of all, guided by the public interest at its heart.

The minister and the parliamentary secretary have eloquently provided context for Bill C-9, as well as presented its key features. To complement this, I wish to focus on the theme of accountability. In the context of judicial conduct reform, this concept has three important dimensions: First, there is accountability as applied the public. Second, there is the accountability of judges. Third, there is financial accountability. I will briefly touch on each.

As I have already said, public confidence in the justice system is critical. The law and the administration of justice exist to serve the public. The bill before us today is intended to strengthen that trust through a more robust mechanism for dealing with complaints against members of the judiciary. This mechanism will also ensure greater transparency and greater public participation.

Furthermore, the reforms in question were developed following extensive consultations. This inclusive approach, involving members of the Canadian public as well as academic experts, legal professionals, the Canadian Judicial Council and the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, underscores the government's commitment to strengthening public trust.

The consultations also revealed a strong public interest in a more transparent and accessible judicial disciplinary process, with increased participation from representatives of the general public who are not legal professionals.

Bill C-9 codifies a space for public representatives as part of the judicial conduct complaint review process. Whereas the existing model can be rigid and opaque, the proposed reform would inject responsiveness and transparency. Following the reforms contained in this bill, a panel made up of both public and judicial representatives would review all allegations of judicial misconduct that are deemed worthy of investigation. These panels would consider complaints through written submissions and be authorized to prescribe remedies short of removal from office where this is appropriate. Remedies could take the form of mandatory education or training, formal reprimands or the issuance of an apology. In this way, representatives of the public would be directly involved in ensuring the fairness and integrity of judicial conduct investigations.

The new regime would also require that a representative of the public serve on panels holding the most serious hearings, those that may culminate in a recommendation of removal from office. This properly reflects the fact that the public's wisdom, as well as its best interests, should feature centrally in addressing the most serious allegations against a judge. I have no doubt that this measure would enrich the quality and integrity of those hearings, just as it would provide an appropriate mechanism of transparency and public participation.

I will now turn to the issue of judicial accountability. Judges are the faces of the justice system. Their decisions and conduct make the law tangible, not only to those who appear in proceedings before them but also to the broader public as well. The extent to which the administration of justice is determined by the degree of confidence in those who make it work, judges included. Consequently, the conduct of judges is rightly scrutinized more closely and more critically than that of perhaps any other professionals.

Upholding this high standard relies on the integrity of the individual judges, as well as on the effectiveness of the system designed to address complaints. As I alluded to previously, in the context of public participation, a key indicator of the trustworthiness of a mechanism is its responsiveness. Currently, the Judges Act only empowers an inquiry by the Canadian Judicial Council to consider removal of a judge from office. This blunt approach is both too restrictive and too broad. Where the conduct at issue fails to meet the high threshold for judicial removal, public confidence is undermined by the absence of appropriate remedies for conduct that may nonetheless raise reasonable concerns.

Conversely, there is the risk that a lack of remedial alternatives causes lesser misconduct to be addressed through the full force of a public inquiry.

A more nuanced approach will help to meaningfully address a greater variety of allegations of misconduct in a way that will be both more efficient and cost-effective. The bill includes new opportunities for early resolution and for adapting procedures based on the seriousness of the allegations in question. This capacity to adapt strengthens the trust in the process and supports the integrity of the judiciary. We guarantee that every case of misconduct can be properly sanctioned and that no judge will fall through the cracks or be subject to procedures that seem disproportionate in the circumstances.

The responsibilities introduced by the bill are complemented by the accountability with respect to the funding of the process. More specifically, the legislation sets out a more stable funding mechanism, as well as protection measures and additional controls that will guide the use of public funds.

As such, the Canadian Judicial Council will be able to carry out its mandate to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct, a mandate that stems from the constitutional principle of judicial independence. Currently, the efficacy of the funding is compromised by the fact that the usual mechanism for obtaining funding simply does not meet the unusual needs related to the process.

Bill C-9 proposes a new funding mechanism that would actually separate the cost of the process into two components. The investigations will be paid for out of non-discretionary funds and the amounts required for fair and robust hearings will be paid directly out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Expenses paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund will now be more transparent and stable thanks to three main measures. First, a regulation will be adopted under clause 144 of the bill to limit the number of lawyers participating in the process who can charge for their services. Second, under clause 145, the policies for the regulation of other process-related expenses will be developed by the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, whose office provides key operational support to the Canadian Judicial Council and is ultimately responsible for all the costs of the process.

Judicial conduct review mechanisms generally receive broad attention only on those rare occasions when high profile allegations of judicial misconduct focus the public's mind on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was actually up in my office and I came down, because I was listening to the member for Kingston and the Islands speak as though there were some dirty little secret around here as to the way things operate. In fact, last night, through a unanimous consent motion, we actually moved Bill C-14 through the process.

It is the government that actually sets the legislative agenda in this place, and it is the government that put Bill C-9 on the Order Paper today as a matter of business in this House. This bill was introduced in October. These are the first hours of debate, and there are 338 members in this House, who represent millions of voices of Canadians across this country, who have things to say on this bill, maybe to make it a little better.

I am sorry if this taxes the patience of the member for Kingston and the Islands. Perhaps if he does not want to be a member of Parliament, he could go be the president of the local soccer association in his riding. We debate things in this place. This is Parliament.

Does the hon. member believe that the voices of Canadians are important in this place and that debate matters?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always important for all pieces of legislation to go through the scrutiny of being debated in the House and then looked at in committee, to go through the rigorous process where we call witnesses in and there is a good debate of ideas. We can always strengthen and improve legislation that obviously impacts the 38-odd million Canadians who are blessed to live in this country.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the process of how we handle complaints against federally appointed judges has not been updated in 50 years, so I am happy to see that we are all on the same page of finally doing this work.

Does the member not agree that we need to move forward on this and turn our attention to tackling issues like systemic racism in the judicial system or finally addressing the toxic drug supply emergency where people are dying daily?