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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation. Meegwetch.

I really had hoped to be allowed to ask the member for South Surrey—White Rock a question, and I will tell members why, because I think they might enjoy this.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock mentioned that she used to practise law, and I used to practise law. However, the member was actually part of the governing party when we were both first elected in 2011 when she helped me with a family law case. I just wanted to put that out there.

One of my constituents had a grandchild pretty much kidnapped by a non-custodial father who took the toddler to New Hampshire. I was going crazy, as were the mother and other members of the family, trying to figure out how to get the baby back. Speaking of judges I do not like, I would mention the family court judge in New Hampshire who thought that a court order from the Supreme Court of British Columbia for full custody of the little girl was something out of a Cracker Jack box that the judge was free to ignore. It was quite the case. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock gave me some very good advice, which helped me get the baby back. She is now 16 and living with her proper family, and so it all came out quite well.

I want to talk about Bill C-9, which would reform the Canadian Judicial Council.

As I was speaking of a U.S. judge, it reminded me of this whole experience when I was at Dalhousie law school. We had one professor who challenged us on a case one day. We spent hours trying to figure out the rationale for the judge's decision. It made no sense to us. Obviously, the judge had ruled it, and so we had to figure out the legal reasoning, because there must be legal reasoning. It was a contract case and it made no sense. After about an hour of us tearing our hair out and putting forward solutions, our professor asked, “Is it permissible to ask if the judge was bribed?” The judge was, which is why the decision made no sense, and he was thrown off the bench for it.

This was an episode for us in real-life judicial reasoning. Sometimes the judge is bribed. Now, I do not know if this has happened in Canada, but it might happen sometime, and this is why we need a judicial review process. This particular process has been in place since 1971, and there are good and real reasons that it needs to be fixed.

There is another real-life case that I found explanatory. For the general public who may be watching this debate today, it has been a little dry, so I figured I would give a real-life example, which some members may know.

The judge is from the Quebec Superior Court, Michel Girouard who, I think 13 days before being elevated to a being a judge, was caught on video buying cocaine. This is similar to a Netflix true-crime story. Judge Girouard was challenged in 2010 when there was a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council.

It is pretty clear that when a judge is caught on video buying cocaine from one of his clients who was then before the courts that we really do not want that particular gentleman on the court. If we want to talk about something that brings the justice system into disrepute, that would be it.

The case started in 2012 and did not end until 2021, when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Judge Girouard's appeal. At that point, he had managed to use every possible legal avenue to fight the finding that he was not qualified to be a member of the judiciary. He fought it, and for those of us who are trained in law can imagine, there are many ways to be creative and litigious, and this gentleman was very litigious. Not only that, under the previous law that we had, the people of the province, the taxpayers, had to pay all of his legal fees, because he was a judge and it was under the judicial complaints process.

I will point out one thing that Bill C-9 would do. We obviously learned a lot from that experience, and we do not want to have someone who is challenged dead to right who should not be a member of the bench, able to keep exploiting every possible appeal and then charge the taxpayer for the legal fees. Also, there should be a way of limiting how many accesses to judicial review through the federal courts someone in this situation should have.

Bill C-9 would do something quite straightforward that I have not mentioned yet today. If a judge going through this process wants to find ways to appeal, they are all in Bill C-9. The only court that a judge who is being challenged in this way can get to is the Supreme Court of Canada, at the very end of the process. The judge cannot keep finding a judge somewhere to hear some aspect of a complaint the judge is fighting.

Just to make it clear, under this legislation, there would be complaints, a screening officer, a reviewing member, and they can create certain kinds of review panels and hearing panels together, but they are not clogging up the regular court system. The judge that is the subject of the complaint is precluded from going to any other court, but at the very end, has the right to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The law also gets rid of the idea that the people have to pay for the legal costs of a judge. The opportunity to appeal to the courts under the new process, proposed section 158 of Bill C-9, specifically bars any legal challenges or other forms of judicial review. This is a very helpful change.

Everything about the way the bill has been constructed has been the subject of a great deal of consultation due to cases, and there have not been a lot of cases. Let us face it, in the 40 years since the Canadian Judicial Council was created, as far as I could find, and it was the same figure that the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke used, which means it is probably right, was that there were only 14 reviews in the last 40 years. This speaks to a very high level of ethics and integrity within our judiciary.

However, if someone does have a problem, there are very large stakes in getting this right. We do not want frivolous complaints from, for instance, people who have lost cases in front a judge and that disaffected previous litigant having the right to make a judge's life hell, to pursue them and subject them, in social media or wherever, to unfair charges. The judge subject to a complaint clearly has rights and has to be treated fairly. That side of getting the balance right is well reflected in Bill C-9.

The other aspect is we do not want public confidence in our justice system to be shaken by having someone serving as a judge who clearly does not meet the standards of ethical conduct, the way it is expressed in this new bill. The ones that used to be there are infirmity, misconduct, failure of due execution and, this is the new one that is relatively traditional, the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.

In the time remaining, I want to mention that all of us here should think about the benefits of this new approach. The system we are currently under really has a binary choice: The judge is off the bench or the judge is on the bench. This new system says that maybe the judge needs some training, some counselling or a warning. There is a different approach here, again something short of the kind of misconduct that says the judge must leave the bench altogether, that allows for help.

One can imagine these are stressful positions. Mental health issues affect everyone in every profession, so there could be conduct that is questionable, but, on the other hand, overall the person is a good judge. Bill C-9 would allow that judge in that circumstance to be treated fairly, but it also protects the public and the taxpayer from judges who would do absolutely anything to stay on the bench, even if, as in the case I cited, they have been caught on video buying cocaine.

With that, I hope we can expedite the passage of this bill. It has been around even longer than some members have mentioned, because it was Bill S-5 in the last Parliament in the Senate and died on the Order Paper when the last election was called. Let us get this bill passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Bill C-9 was first introduced and had its first reading on December 16, 2021, more than six months ago. Now here it is, just a couple of days before the summer break, and we the opposition are being urged to pass it without further debate.

If the issues are so important, why was it not brought forward to the House of Commons earlier so that we could have a full debate without feeling rushed?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, a place I am hoping to visit sometime soon.

It is always an absolute privilege for me to stand in this place and work for the people of Canada. That is certainly true today. I will also say that it is absolutely an honour for me to rise on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

I always like beginning my speeches with a quick summary of what a bill proposes to do and some of the key changes that are being proposed. Then I go into a bit more detail in my main speech.

Bill C-9 proposes amendments to the Judges Act to replace the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of federally appointed judges. It would establish a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office, and it would make changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice. This new process would also apply to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an act of Parliament to hold their office during good behaviour.

The proposed amendments to the Judges Act would do the following. First, they would amend and streamline the process for more serious complaints, where removal from the bench could be an outcome. Second, they would address the current process' shortcomings by imposing mandatory sanctions on a judge when a complaint of misconduct is found to be justified but not serious enough to warrant removal from office. Such sanctions would include counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Third, they would require the Canadian Judicial Council to include in its annual public report the number of complaints received and how they were resolved.

Indeed, Bill C-9 is unique. Let me provide a few more details about why, and at the same time elaborate on what Bill C-9 proposes to do.

Canadian judges are rightly held in high regard not just in Canada, but around the world. Their decisions carry great weight for individuals appearing before them, whose lives are so directly and meaningfully affected, and for society as a whole. Canadians rightly expect much of judges: to make decisions that apply the law correctly and fairly, and to do so in a way that embodies unimpeachable character and meets the lofty standards to which judges are held. The confidence of the Canadian public in individual judges and the judiciary as a whole depends on it.

We know that public confidence is well placed, but neither we as lawmakers nor Canadian society as a whole can become complacent. We all have a role to play to ensure that confidence in the judiciary continues to be merited. Part of that is making sure Canadians know there are avenues open to therm to make complaints about a judge's conduct and that appropriate recourses are available. For this reason, processes have been established that allow for such complaints about the conduct of individual judges.

At the same time, judges must be able to respond to complaints and be assured that they will be treated fairly and in a way that is in keeping with their judicial independence. For this reason, the Canadian Judicial Council, comprising the most senior judges in Canada, was created and has the authority to manage the processes by which complaints about judges are investigated.

Parliament also has a role to play. In 1971, Parliament established the Canadian Judicial Council and charged it with establishing and managing the process for investigating complaints against federally appointed judges. The legislative framework that Parliament set out for the judicial conduct process remains with us, largely unchanged, several decades later.

Today, we have reached a unique point in history. We have before us the opportunity to build on Parliament's past work by modernizing the judicial conduct process, ensuring that it continues to reinforce public confidence. I urge every member of the House to seize this opportunity.

The existing mechanisms used to review allegations of judicial misconduct are in urgent need of renewal. The current process was established more than 40 years ago. Since then, the administrative law landscape surrounding the process has changed. The values and standards that help shape expectations of judicial conduct have evolved too. The judicial conduct process, however, is largely the same. We know that it is out of date and that it demands reform.

The Canadian Judicial Council, with its decades of experience running the judicial conduct process, has called for such reform. The council's chair, Chief Justice Wagner, had identified this as a priority from the beginning of his time in his role. At his welcome ceremony as a new chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2018, Chief Justice Wagner noted the need to modernize the mechanisms for addressing complaints regarding judicial conduct.

Several recent judicial conduct cases have highlighted the importance of reform. They have shown us that under the current system, cases can be marked by exorbitant legal fees, lengthy delays and multiple inefficiencies. This is not a process that inspires abiding public confidence, but today, by supporting Bill C-9, we have a chance to fix this.

Bill C-9 addresses the shortcomings of the current process and launches the long-awaited renewal of the judicial conduct process. The reforms proposed in Bill C-9 would make the process more efficient by, in part, preventing parties from seeking judicial review of decisions that are made during the judicial conduct process. This would reduce costs and prevent delays. The bill would also increase accountability by establishing a more robust role for the public in the process.

The bill before us today proposes a set of carefully considered, well-informed and broadly supported reforms. These reforms come out of robust consultations and substantial engagement with the Canadian Judicial Council, which would remain responsible for carrying out the judicial conduct process, and with the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, which represents many of the federally appointed judges to whom the new regime may be applied.

In June 2016, our federal government launched public consultations on modernizing the judicial conduct process. Over the following months, we were pleased to receive multiple submissions reflecting the importance that this process holds for the legal community and for Canadians as a whole. We heard from individuals and organizations who provided thoughtful comments on the existing process and suggested meaningful reforms. The Canadian Judicial Council and the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association participated in these consultations, as did the Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and members of the general public.

These consultations sent a clear message that there is broad support for the reform and modernization of many aspects of the judicial conduct process. The process should be more efficient and more transparent and should provide for greater public accountability. The reforms set out in Bill C-9 embrace this message, responding to the concerns expressed in the consultation process.

Following the consultations, our government engaged closely with the council and the association on multiple occasions to develop and refine proposed reforms to the judicial conduct process. This close collaboration ensured that the reforms before us today are informed by the experiences of the people who work with the process directly, and the experiences and perspectives of Canadian judges themselves.

In conclusion, Bill C-9 sets out the changes that are required to modernize and renew a process that is key to public confidence in the justice system. The proposed reforms before us today address a long-standing problem. They were carefully developed. They are widely supported. They reflect the experience, wisdom and knowledge of the judiciary itself. More importantly, they advance the best interests of Canadians who interact with our justice system.

Fellow members, let us work together to strengthen and modernize the mechanisms for addressing complaints about the conduct of federally appointed judges, and reinforce and foster public confidence in our judiciary and our justice system. Let this bill and its passage mark an important point in the history of the judicial conduct process in Canada. I urge all members to join me today in supporting Bill C-9 and passing these long-awaited changes to the judicial conduct process.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like some others in the House and like my colleague who was just speaking, I am a lawyer, and the practice of law has been a large part of my life. My son and two of my daughters followed me into the legal profession, and it is a source of pride to me as they pursue their professional careers.

I continue to be grateful to have been appointed a Queen’s Counsel some 23 years ago, and to have been elected president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association the year previous. I have a deep appreciation and passion for the law and its unbiased application.

In the plainest of terms, Bill C-9 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 streamlined process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that do not reach the threshold for a judge’s removal from office, and the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice.

These provisions also apply to persons other than judges who are appointed under an act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour. This bill was previously tabled in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. The legislation before us is the result of consultations conducted by the federal government in 2016 on reforming this process. That is six years ago.

It is incredibly important that the judicial system be just and fair, holding accountable those who are both behind and in front of the bench. Increasing public confidence in the judicial system, while ensuring the independence of the judiciary, is necessary for the foundations of our justice system to continue to function as intended.

Many will recall that in response to comments from Justice Robin Camp at a sexual assault trial in 2014, former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose introduced a bill to require seminars on sexual assault be taken by federally appointed justices

At the time, the Alberta Court of Appeal panel ruled that Justice Camp seemed not to understand laws on consent and an alleged rape victim’s sexual activity, and that his acquittal of the man may have been coloured by “sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited.” Justice Camp’s ruling was thrown out and a new trial date set. Justice Camp went on to resign from the bench in 2017, after the Canadian Judicial Council ruled he should be removed from office.

Before this case, there were volumes of case law and newspaper columns about jurists who misapprehended sexual consent or post-assault behaviour, who then went on to preside in court and rule again on other such cases.

An earlier version of the bill received royal assent on May 6, 2021. This bill can be viewed as an attempt to increase confidence in the judicial system, which had been shaken by the words and actions of Justice Camp and others.

Fairly representing victims' rights is an integral aspect of the proper functioning of the judicial system. One important aspect of the court process is the submission of victim impact statements: written statements from a victim or victims that describe the physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss that the victim of an offence has suffered. Our courts take these statements into account when an offender is sentenced. This gives victims of crime a voice in the criminal justice system.

The government has not been prioritizing victims' rights, and it is failing Canadians and the integrity of our judicial system as a result. Inexcusably, the role of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime has been vacant since October 1, 2021, with the justice minister’s office saying it will be filled “in due course.”

The ombudsperson has a critical role in highlighting and reviewing systemic issues that negatively affect victims and emerging issues. This vacancy is simply unacceptable, and sends a message to survivors and Canadians alike that they will not necessarily be represented fairly in the justice system. Adding to concerns that victims of crime are not being heard is Parliament’s failure to complete a review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. The review was supposed to happen in 2020.

Canadians’ perspective of the judicial system reflects, in part, these failures. According to the Justice Canada studies, regardless of whether their cases did or did not go to trial, participants were asked to rate their level of confidence in the police, the court process and the criminal justice system in general.

Few stated that they were very confident. Indeed, approximately two-thirds of the responders stated that they were not confident in the administration of justice in general. This data is not coincidental. It is imperative that our judiciary system continues to adapt to effectively represent Canadians fairly.

A Department of Justice report stated that:

For the 2016/2017 fiscal year, 42% of all sexual assault case decisions (levels 1, 2, and 3) in adult criminal court resulted in a finding of guilt.

According to StatsCan, statistical evidence classified 14% of level 1 sexual assault incidents as unfounded in 2017. In comparison, the more serious levels of sexual and physical assault were classified as unfounded in only 9% of level 3 sexual assaults, 7% of level 2 sexual assaults, 3% of level 2 physical assaults and 1% of level 3 physical assaults. Why is there a difference?

This bill would modify the existing judicial review process and allow for sanctions such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Improvements in the administration of justice will result.

The bill states that the reasons a judge could be removed from office include:

(a) infirmity; (b) misconduct; (c) failure in the due execution of judicial office; (d) the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.

In the case of a complaint that alleges sexual harassment or discrimination, it would not be dismissed. The full screening criteria would be published by the Canadian Judicial Council. The minister and Attorney General may request that the Canadian Judicial Council establish a full hearing panel to determine whether the removal of a judge from the office of a superior court is justified.

The council would submit a report within three months after the end of each calendar year with respect to the number of complaints received and actions taken. This is a prudent measure that would ensure transparency and accountability from a senior group of jurists exercising quasi-constitutional duties.

Such provisions in this bill would enhance and strengthen the Canadian legal system as a whole. As a former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, I welcome this legislation. Bill C-9 is a move in the right direction. It is not the end of the journey, but the start of the journey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his speech. He was one of the first people to say hello and welcome me here when I was first elected back in 2019.

I listened carefully and, from what I understand, Bill C‑9 is important to him and to everyone here, and we are debating it now because it is so important.

What will it take to finally get this bill sent to committee so it can be studied and amended if necessary?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

It is an honour for me to be here today to engage in the debate on a very important topic, the reform of the Judges Act.

Bill C-9 introduces comprehensive reforms to the Judges Act. It introduces comprehensive reforms to the process through which judicial conduct is reviewed and sanctioned. The proposed reforms to the Judges Act aim to enhance the Canadian Judicial Council's capacity to effectively respond to all allegations of judicial misconduct. It is not necessarily highly contentious instances, but also instances of lower measure.

The proposed measures seek to promote procedural fairness in an independent, effective and efficient judicial conduct review process designed to minimize delays and to contain costs. The Canadian Judicial Council, under this new set of rules, this new legislation, will be able to respond to all allegations of misconduct. The process of the investigation and review will be streamlined. There will be new tools for procedural fairness. There will be fewer delays. Importantly, there will be funding to make sure that all of this is done in a cost-effective and efficient way.

Importantly, there is also procedural fairness for judges in their pensions in the event they are dismissed for misconduct, if that is ultimately what the finding is. Of course, we all want to be fair to our judges.

There will be new powers for the Canadian Judicial Council to make orders such as ordering a judge to make an apology publicly, or require that a judge undergo counselling, if that is the right response.

There will also be a capability for the Canadian Judicial Council to order that the judge undergo continuing professional development, something that we all agree with, something that judges and all professionals should engage in, as we all have to do. There are a number of members of the bar here. They have to undergo continuing professional development every year.

There will also importantly be a right of appeal for judges. My colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, went into some detail as to what all the new processes and procedures are. I will not read them into the record.

What is important here is that we want to be fair to judges, but we also want to be fair to complainants, people who feel they have been wronged by the conduct of a judge.

Very importantly also is that Canadian society wants judicial independence. This is so important to help Canada operate as a country. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our judicial system and indeed of our whole democratic system. We are a society that believes in the rule of law. Everybody is subject to the law. Everybody is equal before the law, including the judges who make the law and including politicians who make laws.

It is important that judges be free from political interference, that the whole justice system be free from political interference. Unfortunately, we have seen some bad situations, for example, with the SNC-Lavalin scandal a couple of years ago, where politicians tried to interfere with the judicial process, rather than allow it to operate the way it is supposed to under judicial independence rules. It is inappropriate for politicians to get involved in that.

It is also important to understand that judges must be free from political pressures. The superior courts are masters of their own scheduling, of their own operations. That is fundamental to the way we operate.

Courts are self-governing when it comes to judges' professionalism, competence, ability and conduct. This came up in the previous Parliament under Bill C-3. This was new legislation that was brought in requiring judges to undergo sexual assault training. At that time it was a deep concern to many members in this Parliament and previous Parliaments and to many Canadian citizens that not all judges were properly trained for sexual assault cases. We deemed it important that judges understand how sexual assault cases are different from other kinds of criminal cases.

The reason I raise that here is that judicial independence became an issue then. That was another bill where everybody was in agreement. We deemed it important that it be debated because the issues surrounding that were so important to Canadian citizens. There were, at that time, academics and jurists who said that Bill C-3 was going in the wrong direction and undermining judicial independence. Here again, it was Parliament telling judges what they had to do and saying that they needed to take a course in this and they needed upgrading in that.

After a lengthy debate, Parliament came to the conclusion that there is a balance to be found between integrity of the judicial system and allowing judicial independence. That bill, I submit, found that right balance. After a lot of debate, it went to committee. We heard from experts and we deemed that to be the right way to go with the right balance between judicial independence and ensuring that judges have proper training. The same is true here. It is so important for us to find that right balance.

I said earlier that one of the key cornerstones for judicial independence is that judges be free from political pressures and from outside pressures as well. Sometimes it is difficult for citizens who are not trained in the law to understand how judges operate and how they make decisions that are perhaps controversial.

One example comes to mind. It is going back a lot of years, but it is the O. J. Simpson trial in the United States. Mr. Simpson was charged criminally, but the jury found him to be not guilty, yet he was sued on the same set of facts in a civil court and was found to be liable. People did not understand how that worked and why one court could find him not guilty and the other one could find him civilly liable. That is the difference between the criminal benchmark for finding somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the civil courts where a judge or jury find that someone is liable on the balance of probabilities. That is just one of the important points of judicial independence.

That said, judges are also human beings. They are Canadian citizens. They know what is going on in the world, so we require them to be sensitive to community standards. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we saw recently in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bissonnette, where the Supreme Court of Canada found that consecutive sentences were unconstitutional. Many Canadians are having a hard time understanding that. This Parliament needs to look into that to ensure there is fairness according to common-law conditions, and also so that the citizens of this country know that the courts are operating in a way that values and understands community values.

In another case, R. v. Brown, just very recently, a person was found to be not guilty by reason of extreme intoxication and therefore he could not form mens rea, as we call it, which is the guilty intention to commit a crime. Again, Canadian citizens have a hard time understanding that. It needs to be reviewed as well by this Parliament, and I hope that happens soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know very well that there are currently problems with the process for appointing judges and that some judges have abused their power. There was a case in my riding. A judge who was appointed used all the provisions until the end of his so-called process, then retired without facing any consequences.

Will Bill C‑9 give more power to the Canadian Judicial Council to take action against a judge guilty of a serious or less serious offence?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member comes from a beautiful part of British Columbia.

I wholeheartedly agree with the member that we need to tackle Bill C-9, get it through and get it done. At the same time, there is the death toll that opioids have cast on this country, and how many thousands of people have died from opioids. Our government is seized with it. All Canadians are seized with it. All parliamentarians need to be seized with it. I agree we need to tackle those issues.

On systemic racism, obviously I was very disappointed to see the story come out from the Toronto Police Service on systemic racism against the Black community in Toronto, but I was also happy to see that an apology was issued. We need to work on that issue as well. Much work remains to be done to break down barriers, walls, whatever stands in the way of beating back systemic racism against any Canadian from any group in this country that we live in today.

[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, 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.

[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”.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be much debate on Bill C-9. It appears to have unanimous support.

However, my question for my Conservative colleague is about what comes next after this bill. Does he think that the next issue in line for amendments should be the process for appointing judges, so that we can improve the process?

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to where I left off on speaking to Bill C-9, this provision has many things that the Conservatives will support.

I was just outlining the substance of the changes to the judicial review process. Of course, if this bill passes, there will be a screening officer and then there will be a series of panels. We had gotten to the hearing panel, which would be the first review of the misconduct. The panel can direct it in one of three ways: One would be an outright dismissal; the second would be putting into place sanctions, which I outlined; the third would be sending it to a full hearing panel.

One of the unique features of this particular process is that if a sanction less than full removal is done, there is a secondary appeal process, which is called the reduced hearing panel. This panel actually brings in all new evidence, so in many ways it acts like an appeal process to the sanctions from the original review panel, but it is all new evidence and all new process. It does not even rely on the work, so even though it is an appeal process, it is a new judicial process as well.

What I find interesting, and I plan to ask about it at committee if I get the opportunity, is that what could actually happen is that, at the initial panel, the individual justice could be sanctioned, as I outlined earlier, to an apology or a public rebuke from the panel. The justice could appeal that and then be sent to a full hearing for the potential removal. Therefore, the appeal to get less of a sanction could actually go back and have more of an impact, and in fact eventual removal, which could have a chilling effect on justices who want to appeal the process. Perhaps I am misunderstanding that section. As I said, I look forward to potentially exploring that at committee.

At the initial review panel, if the charges are serious enough to justify a potential full removal, it would go to what is called a full hearing panel. That full hearing panel would have full evidence and there would be a presentation of the evidence by what is called the presenting lawyer or presenting counsel, in many ways a prosecutor, and they will conduct that.

From there, the process stems out and then it actually funnels all back in. Both the reduced hearing panel and the full hearing panel would then go back into one process, which would be a traditional appeal process, and the actual discussions and reasons are reviewed at that appeal process. If, in fact, that appeal process is unsatisfactory to either the presenting counsel or the justice subject to the complaint, there would be at that point a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Once all of those rights to appeal are exhausted or expired or waived, it would then go to the Minister of Justice, who can bring it in front of Parliament to potentially have that justice removed.

There are a couple of key elements to this, and I find this part quite well done. There is a move in here to increase the transparency. Much more of the hearings, the decisions, the reasoning, the discussions and the lawyers' debate would be public. Of course, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. On that as well, there would also be annual reports. Obviously, justices have an incredibly important function in our society and in our legal system. What is nice is that there would be a publishing of reports saying how many complaints there are, how successful they are and what the eventual outcome of those complaints is.

This is nice. This is a piece of legislation that is clearly designed. We will discuss it, hopefully pull it apart and make it even better at committee, but it is clear that it intends to improve government efficiency. When I look at the global landscape, I have to say that we are not winning when it comes to our government's effectiveness or efficiency. It takes us months to get passports. We have seen the SNC-Lavalin affair and the WE scandal. This continuous corruption and tiredness, this poor, antiquated system, the uncompetitive WE system, is holding Canadian business back and holding Canadian jobs back.

Perhaps this is the beginning of a new leaf for the government. Maybe it will move on from being a tired, corrupt, inefficient government and actually go forward and try to be better for Canadians. Quite frankly, we are in a global race and we are losing when it comes to government effectiveness and efficiency.

I always appreciate members on the other side trying to give me a helping hand. I look forward to having greater discussion. I would encourage all members to read Bill C-9. It is certainly not the most contentious piece of legislation we will read, but it is important.

As final words, I would like to thank all the justices who are out there working hard trying to protect victims, trying to keep our cities and streets safe, and trying to make Canada a better place.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.