Bill C-9

An Act to amend the Judges Act

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

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

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

(Motion respecting Senate amendments agreed to)

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

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

(Bill read the third time and passed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judges Act

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder what the minister would say.

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

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday shall be an allotted day.

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

Sitting Resumed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judges Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the review panel does not refer the complaint to the Council under section 101, it may dismiss the complaint or take one or more of the following actions if it considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances:

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

(b) issue a private or public warning;

(c) issue a private or public reprimand;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, the bill—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

Justice and Human Rights

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Shall amendment NDP-2 carry, as amended?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Similarly, shall the subamendment to amendment NDP-3 carry?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

As for amendment NDP-4, I have a ruling on that.

Bill C-9 amends the Judges Act by replacing the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. The amendment seeks to add the Federal Court of Appeal as an additional level in the process of appealing decisions on the removal from office of a federally appointed judge. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770 the following:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the inclusion of the Federal Court of Appeal in the appeals process constitutes a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Mr. Moore.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for allowing me to sit in for my colleague, Mr. Garrison. I'll do my best here.

NDP-1 is an amendment that Bill C-9, in clause 12, be amended by replacing the line 13 on page 6 with the following:

alleges sexual harassment or that alleges discrimination—or improper conduct that is substantially similar to discrimination—

I believe this was based on a concern brought to the committee by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which appeared before you as a witness during the consideration of Bill C-9.

The goal here, if I understand it correctly, is to avoid complaints being summarily dismissed at the screening stage. It's to ensure that complaints are heard and investigated through that first stage, to increase public confidence in the process. I think that's a summary of why that amendment was brought forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 41 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of October 31, the committee is meeting to begin its study of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

On our agenda today, we will be proceeding to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9. If time permits, we will try to continue in camera our progress on our study of the draft report on the government's obligation to the victims of crime.

On our first item of business today, we will have officials from the Department of Justice with us for any technical questions.

I would like to welcome Shakiba Azimi, counsel, judicial affairs section, public law and legislative services sector; and Patrick Xavier, acting deputy director and senior counsel, judicial affairs section, public law and legislative services sector.

If we're ready to start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9, I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing each one to explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted it. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment has been moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the short title, the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I want to thank all the witnesses in this study for the time they've given us. It's very valuable testimony.

That concludes the testimony part of this meeting.

I have a few matters that I want to mention. Witnesses are free to leave if they want to, or they can sit around with us if they would like to see this.

Members, we will be proceeding to the study of the draft report on the government's obligation to the victims of crime. You should receive a confidential first draft tomorrow in order to prepare for Monday's meeting. Hopefully, that will give us enough time. That's what the analysts have told me.

We'll have to adopt a budget to reimburse our witnesses who appeared on Bill C-9 and adopt the revised budget for the trip in March 2023.

I also want to remind you that you have a deadline to submit amendments to Bill C-9: Monday, November 28 at 6 p.m.

Finally, yesterday we received Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts regarding child sexual abuse material. We will have to find time to proceed to this study. It is Mr. Mel Arnold of North Okanagan—Shuswap who has presented this bill in the past. At the latest, we have to report the bill 60 sitting days after the date of the order of reference. That is April 26, 2023, so we have some time for that.

Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Devost.

Now I'm going to step away from Bill C‑9 a little to ask you if it would be useful to review the judicial appointment process based on the various criteria we're talking about today or other criteria.

Do you see any value in changing the way we appoint judges in Canada?

[Karine Devost]

Exactly.

The applicant who had been hired for the position had all the qualifications required to fill it. After the judge called the University of Toronto, everything fell apart for her. What the judge had done was exercise a form of lobbying.

When the complaint was made, the vice president determined that there might be suspected partiality and for that reason, the appointment process was to resume.

The lobbying by Justice Spiro was indirect, unlike the lobbying by Justice Donald McLeod, who met with ministers and members of Parliament on behalf of a non-profit organization. That's why we say that, however subtle, lobbying is still lobbying.

We want Bill C‑9 to take into account all forms of lobbying to avoid any differences in interpretation.

Does that answer your question?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. MacGregor, I will go to you now, and I'll come to your proposal on proposed section 84, which is the section you were speaking to. However, with the exception of that particular concern or that enhancement of the language that you want to see, I take it that you and your organization are supportive of Bill C-9 and the way it lays out the mechanism for judicial conduct.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

With the exception of these two suggestions, these two amendments that you are proposing, am I correct in assuming that, otherwise, NCCM supports Bill C-9 and feels that it enhances the process of reviewing matters of judicial conduct?

[Nneka MacGregor]

It was really to suggest that Bill C-9 incorporate something more substantive around cultural training for everybody who's going to be part of the process, not just on race, but also on gender.

I note that proposed section 84 talks about diversity, but the thrust of our argument is that just mentioning doing everything we can to ensure there is diversity doesn't do enough to uproot the systemic racism that is embedded in the judicial system.

[Christopher Budgell]

My concern, like anybody in my position, is what happens at the very beginning of the process.

You have what you call a “screening process” in the hands of the executive director and general counsel. I don't know how many complaints are dismissed at that point. I know mine was. Actually, it was the second one. I sent one in before that one. It's over for the majority of people right there.

There are two screening stages right now. I expect there will be, if Bill C-9 goes through. Those are—

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here in person and online. Your participation is noted and very valuable to us, so I thank you for that.

I'd like to inform all our panellists that this bill is going to pass. It is receiving consent and approval from everybody on this committee. I bring that to your attention because I want to start off by questioning you, Mr. Budgell, and I listened very carefully to your commentary.

You indicated that the justice system is in crisis, and that Bill C-9 can't be fixed and shouldn't be enacted. I did a little bit of research on your background, sir, and I understand that the National Post has proclaimed you “a self-appointed citizen watchdog” of the CJC.

I understand that, in one of your blog posts, you've opined that Parliament has a unique opportunity “to create an entity fully independent from both the judiciary and the executive branch to receive complaints and decide how to respond to them”. In your opinion, “this is the right solution. It always has been.” In your view, the fundamental problem with the CJC is that “[j]udges judging judges doesn't work.”

I take it, sir, that you still stand by that position.

[Karine Devost, Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the committee members.

My name is Karine Devost.

I am the senior legal counsel for the National Council of Canadian Muslims. We want to thank you for giving us an opportunity to be here today to provide our recommendations regarding Bill C‑9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

We want to be clear at the outset that we are supportive of the goals of this legislation and of the legislation broadly. 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 against federally appointed judges, not just highly serious instances potentially warranting removal from office.

We are supportive of the passage of Bill C‑9 but have two targeted amendments we want to raise that we submit will improve this legislation.

We are here to make two specific recommendations. The first one pertains to lobbying. The second amendment broadens the wording that is found at proposed subsection 90(3). I will explain that later.

First, we're recommending to amend proposed section 80 to add a proposed paragraph 80(c) to include “lobbying, directly or indirectly;” and for the current proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) to become (d) and (e).

We're recommending this amendment so that the motives or intentions of a judge in their lobbying efforts are not left to interpretation, which very often leads to different results. I can give you two examples.

For example, in a recent decision from the Federal Court involving Justice David Spiro from the Tax Court, the complaints alleged that Justice Spiro was actively engaged with a lobby group attempting to interfere with the appointment of a professor at the University of Toronto whose views were at odds with those of the lobby group. The Honourable Madam Justice Kane of the Federal Court agreed with the review panel of the CJC, which determined that Justice Spiro engaged in improper conduct but his conduct was not serious enough to impose the ultimate penalty for judicial misconduct. This matter did not go to a full hearing.

Conversely, we have the case of Justice McLeod, here in Ottawa, in which he was involved with a non-profit organization and was advocating for social and legal reform for a certain group. In this case, the review panel determined that Justice McLeod engaged in “impermissible advocacy and lobbying” and his matter proceeded to a full hearing on the complaints.

Our amendment attempts to provide uniformity in the law and gives no room to interpretation, so whether you are actively lobbying or subtlety sharing emails that contain a position on a political issue like the one in Justice Spiro's case, the complaint will automatically go to a hearing. This will avoid different readings of the same law, which, as we have seen from the cases I've illustrated, resulted in different outcomes.

As I mentioned earlier, we also seek to amend proposed subsection 90(3) by broadening the scope of impermissible misconduct that would restrict the screening officer from dismissing a complaint. As the provision stands, serious misconduct that may warrant a hearing but does not meet the threshold of discrimination or sexual harassment may be dismissed.

We appreciate and, like most lawyers, applaud the CJC decision in the past to remove former Justice Robin Camp; however, our concern is that misconduct like his will be dismissed because it does not necessarily equate to sexual harassment or discrimination. Justice Spiro's case is a good example that further outlines our concern: A screening officer may dismiss a legitimate complaint because it does not appear to be discriminatory on its face.

That is why it's necessary, at least in the initial screening stage, to apply a broader language that captures misconduct that is not directly discriminatory but can still erode the public confidence in the judiciary and bring into question a judge's impartiality.

Thank you.

[Christopher Budgell, As an Individual]

I'm just going to read my opening statement. I hope it is short enough to leave me with a little additional time.

From the record that I've been able to review so far, it appears that I'm the first witness, and maybe the only witness, the committee has heard from who is not a system insider. I note that you've heard from a couple of them, Professor Craig Scott and Professor Richard Devlin, who are telling you things you haven't heard from Justice Minister Lametti and his Department of Justice staff.

I am here solely because of my determination to be here. Where are the other voices speaking for the public?

I know that you haven't heard from any of the judges who are, or were before they retired, subject to the Judges Act.

My immediate purpose in speaking to Bill C-9 is to argue that it should not be enacted because it cannot be fixed.

I can go beyond that. You, the members of this committee, have a golden opportunity. The legal establishment's own dialogue, a good deal of which is accessible to the public, attests to the fact that Canada's justice system is in crisis. Perhaps that is “justice systems in crises” because there are many components and many issues.

If you proceed now to recommend to the House of Commons that it pass Bill C-9 and send it on to the Senate, you'll have missed a precious opportunity. The CJC perfectly illustrates the crisis or crises that the legal establishment is facing. The ship that is crewed by the legal establishment needs to be turned around to face the bow into the wind. This is an opportunity to start turning that ship around.

The publicly accessible record of the legal establishment's dialogue with itself shows that a principal concern, if not the principal concern, is the impact of these crises on lawyers, including judges themselves. Two sources I can note are The Lawyer's Daily, which is an excellent publication that has served the legal profession for years, and the blog slaw.ca. There have been many articles and posts about the stresses that lawyers and judges are facing—stresses that result in a good many of them suffering depression and even what they concede is mental illness.

There has been far less concern expressed about the impact of those systemic problems on litigants, especially those of us who are compelled to be self-represented.

On that note, I want to specifically mention two members of the legal establishment. They are Justice Yves-Marie Morissette of Quebec's Court of Appeal and Donald J. Netolitzky, who, as an employee of the Alberta superior courts, has the curious title of “complex litigant management counsel”. I would characterize what they have been doing as building a thesis about what they like to call “querulous litigants”—the most extreme kind of what are conventionally called vexatious litigants.

Justice Morissette did not coin the term “querulous litigants”. He attended an international conference held in Prato, Italy in 2006. Subsequently, he addressed a meeting of the Canadian Association of Counsel to Employers with a speech entitled “Querulous and Vexatious Litigants as a Disorder of a Modern Legal System”.

The CACE posted a copy of that speech on their website. After I found it there and began commenting publicly about it, they removed that copy. There's a copy currently on the website of an entity called ProQuest. I have had some success accessing it there, but not consistently, as it appears to be a subscription website. I have attached a copy that I saved.

Donald Netolitzky has built on Justice Morissette's original thesis and is continuing to do so. They don't, of course, claim that all self-represented litigants are querulous or even vexatious, but those are the ones on whom they have focused their attention.

One reason this interests me is that my own history of litigation matches their description of the classic querulous litigant, so I can see what they are doing.

I've just found a program of a meeting held last May in which Mr. Netolizky contributed another version of his thesis: “The Responsibility of the Tribunal to Accommodate Users with Mental Health Issues”. To access it, you can go to a link to Donald Netolizky's....

Am I done? Okay. That's it.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There was another issue raised in our first session on this bill, about the disclosure of the reasons for referral to a review committee and the legal reasoning that was used to reach a conclusion in the review panel.

In the current practice—and it seems it would be the same under Bill C-9—the complainants are only given a summary of reasons. They're not actually given the legal reasoning. The argument was made that you only get to see those once you file, as a complainant, an action for judicial review. That is costly, but it also results in the automatic release of those to the person.

The suggestion was made that we, perhaps, should amend Bill C-9 to ensure that those reasons are released at an earlier stage. That might, in fact, prevent people from deciding to ask for judicial review. In order to see the reasons now, they actually have to ask for a judicial review.

I wonder if the Canadian Bar Association has any comment on that kind of paradox—I don't know what I would call it—that gets created there: that if you want a review, you can't see the reasons until you ask for the review.

[Indra Maharaj]

Thank you.

Alternative dispute resolution is not included as an obligation in Bill C-9. As a preliminary step, there doesn't appear to be, in my mind, anything that would preclude a conversation towards an alternative dispute resolution or a mediation-style resolution, particularly with respect to the screening level of complaint.

With respect to serious misconduct that could result in removal, I don't know that mediation would be something that would be valued by all of the parties involved, so I can't comment on that.

I don't see in the bill that there is a requirement or an opportunity for mandatory mediation, but that doesn't preclude it from being a practice or a procedure at a more administrative level.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maharaj, I'd like to return to the question of mediation, which we didn't really have enough time to discuss in the first round of questions.

Although, of course, there can still be discussions about the rules, the disciplinary process does not provide a mediation mechanism. Would it have been a good idea to consider formal mediation meetings between the judge against whom there has been a complaint and the representatives of the Canadian Judicial Council to try and find a negotiated outcome?

I think that the new provisions in Bill C‑9 might encourage judges to try and avoid a trial or a hearing before the Canadian Judicial Council.

Do you feel it would have been a good idea to provide for a mediation mechanism like that?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

As we are deliberating on this particular bill, I'm of the view—and I've presented the position before in this committee—that a process around judicial conduct is a bit unique, unlike other administrative, tribunal dispute resolution processes, especially given that we're dealing with the judiciary.

There is a very important principle around maintaining and protecting the independence of our judiciary. Any system that is crafted must instill, enhance and foster the public's confidence in an independent judicial process.

Do you think, in CBA's assessment, that Bill C-9 as presented accomplishes that important goal?

[Indra Maharaj]

That's an interesting question. I think the change to include lay members on the hearing panels adds a significant amount of transparency to the process. The fact that we will have the point of view of the public is valuable in that regard. Certainly, public hearings are public hearings, so that creates an amount of transparency as well.

I do believe that Bill C-9 has tried to seek and establish that balance between those matters that are smaller and may not require being made public because they can be addressed through the screening process versus those matters of more significance where we start to see a more formalized administrative process and hearing process. I think the involvement of the public in particular—the lay members—is a valuable addition.

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

Thank you.

Can I ask you a question about transparency generally? Transparency is a really big issue. It's obviously central to the rule of law. We have an open court principle generally, and in my view transparency must be sacrosanct.

Do you view Bill C-9 as being appropriately transparent, not transparent enough or too transparent? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Indra Maharaj]

Thank you for the clarification.

I appreciate that there is a difference. However, when the judges, and the members of that whole review panel, are sitting in that capacity—remember there are also lawyers and lay members there—there is a broad and diverse opportunity for there to be consideration of the merits of the case.

The CBA supports the process that has been set out in Bill C-9 because, in part, of the depth of consultation of the affected parties that it has undergone. While it's an interesting concept, the purpose of Bill C-9 is to remove levels of procedural duplication and to ensure that the core fundamentals of administrative fairness are met. We believe that that is the case with Bill C-9.

[Indra Maharaj]

I think everybody in the room would hope that the answer would be “never”, because hopefully we don't have judicial misconduct that needs to be considered at a level of national importance. The reality is that the Supreme Court of Canada has limited time available to it, and it is selective about the cases it must allocate that time to. That's why the leave process is there. One of the other panellists provided some information earlier about some statistics around the number of cases where leave is sought, and where leave is actually granted.

Having a very high bar at the Supreme Court of Canada does support the fairness of the process, because it creates that ultimate authority. The Supreme Court of Canada is that ultimate judicial authority where a case could end up, should it be justified, should it be of such substantial importance that the Supreme Court of Canada ought to contribute its wisdom to the case.

Prior to that being granted, the levels of reviews contained in the process set out in Bill C-9 provide a robust and significant opportunity for all issues to be heard and adjudicated fairly, in the position of the CBA.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Maharaj, for being with us today representing the Canadian Bar Association. I think you captured very succinctly the challenge here that Bill C-9 is trying to meet, which is to balance the independence of judges with public confidence, but I would also add the rights of those judges who are being disciplined.

I want to return to the question of an effective appeal. We know the Supreme Court has set a very high bar for granting leave to hear cases and that these cases must in fact, in common language, be of national significance or national importance or constitutional importance before they'll actually be heard. I'm wondering, in that case, how often we could expect that the Supreme Court would actually hear appeals from this process, given that very high bar they've set.

[Indra Maharaj]

Thank you.

Let me see if I can be a bit more concise. The consultation that has occurred has not resulted in compensation of legal fees paid on behalf of a judge involved in a disciplinary process rising to the level of needing to be included in Bill C-9. That, to me, does not preclude an appeal panel's making of a decision that may be different. However, that being said, the CBA hasn't taken a position specifically with respect to this issue.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maharaj, thank you for joining us this afternoon.

I would like to raise with you the issue of sanctions. As my colleague Mr. Moore said, the parties will probably support this bill in the House, but there are still some interesting issues to look at, including the economics of this. That is what is being criticized the most.

When a judge is found guilty of some kind of misconduct and a penalty is imposed, people will often respond by saying that it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs, in addition to the judge's increased pension and salary. I understand that there are provisions in Bill C‑9 that provide for some adjustments when the judge is convicted, but the issue of legal fees remains important to me.

In your view, would it not have been appropriate to adjust Bill C‑9 so that a judge found guilty of a breach would be required to reimburse all or a significant portion of legal fees, in order to stem the tide of challenges, which can often appear unnecessary and merely dilatory?

[Indra Maharaj]

Thank you.

We do feel that Bill C-9 meets the objectives set out in our recommendations. It provides a process that is responsive to the various types of complaints that could be made. It's also responsive to the complainants' involvement as well as the judges' entitlement to defend themselves should they be accused of misconduct. What Bill C-9 does is create a better balance than what we had before.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

In 2014, you made a submission to the Canadian Judicial Council, in which you made 16 recommendations.

One of them was to ensure that the complaints process for judges meets the objectives of balancing judicial independence and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Do you believe that Bill C‑9 achieves this objective?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Do you think that the sanctions that are listed and those that can be thought of under Bill C‑9 in response to complaints that are less serious are justified or worthwhile?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Maharaj. It is a pleasure to have you here this afternoon.

Bill C‑9 introduces a process for reviewing allegations that are too insignificant to warrant the removal of a judge. In your letter to the committee chair, you wrote that the allegation screening process is a step in the right direction.

Is it a small or a big step?

In your view, is it right for a review panel to look at less serious complaints rather than having a member of the Canadian Judicial Council do the review?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay. Thank you.

I only have 30 seconds left. Do you have any quick comment on the current system, in which there are undue delays?

What do you see as the key to Bill C-9? Is there on overarching feature that you feel, if there were to be amendments, we definitely want to stick with?

[Indra Maharaj, Chair, The Canadian Bar Association - Judicial Issues Subcommittee]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. It is both an honour and a privilege to be able to present the Canadian Bar Association's position with respect to the issues raised by the proposed amendment to the Judges Act, Bill C-9.

My name is Indra Maharaj, and I am the chair of the judicial issues subcommittee.

I would like to begin by recognizing that I am attending this meeting from the traditional territories of the Blackfoot Confederacy—Siksika, Kainai and Piikani—the Tsuut'ina and Stoney Nakoda nations, Métis Nation Region 3, and all people who make their homes in the Treaty 7 region of southern Alberta.

The CBA represents lawyers, law students, academics and judges across our entire country, where different first nations have made their homes and stewarded the lands that form our unique and beautiful Canada. I will pause for a few seconds of silence, so that each of us can acknowledge the treaty or traditional territory in our own location.

Thank you.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association of 37,000 members, including judges, lawyers, academics and students across Canada, with a mandate to seek improvements in the law and the administration of justice. Specifically, with respect to Bill C-9—introduced on December 16, 2021—the Canadian Bar Association submitted commentary to this committee, on February 17, 2022, in support of the amendments proposed.

Among other things, the Judges Act establishes a discipline process for federally appointed judges in response to complaints filed about their conduct. Recent government consultations underscored concerns about the length of time required to investigate these complaints and the consequent costs of investigations, including the potential cost of a member of the bench being unable to fulfill their duties while defending a complaint for misconduct.

The CBA's recommendations are focused on ensuring that the objectives of protecting the independence of the judiciary and ensuring the public's confidence in the administration of justice are respected in the process.

Bill C-9 amends the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the CJC in three significant ways: It creates a process for reviewing allegations not serious enough to warrant removal from office; it improves the process by which recommendations for removal are made to the minister; and it ensures that the determination of pensionable service for judges ultimately removed from office reflects their time of service and does not include the time of review, all while ensuring that, if the judge is exonerated, they do not lose the time spent defending the claim made against them.

I have a little more detail.

First, the process for screening complaints that may not be serious enough to warrant removal from office is a positive development. It enhances the Canadian Judicial Council's capacity to respond quickly to allegations of misconduct and provides sanction options in these cases, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. This process saves the CJC time, ensures that judicial resources are well managed, and minimizes the amount of time a judge might potentially spend defending a frivolous complaint while not sitting on the bench.

Second, improving the discipline process ensures that meritorious claims are moved forward and department resources are used efficiently. It also promotes procedural fairness and is designed to minimize delays and control costs.

Third, it is critical that judges, like any other litigant, are able to defend their conduct in a fair, transparent process and be satisfied that, if they are ultimately exonerated, their pensionable service will be protected during the period of time dedicated to defending their case. However, it is equally important that time spent during that process does not contribute to pensionable service if the complaint results in removal of the judge from office.

Judicial independence and judicial accountability are both essential to ensuring the integrity of our judicial system, the primacy of the fair administration of justice and the support of the rule of law. If our judiciary is to be respected and trusted, the public must be confident that judges, through a fair and transparent process, are both independent of external influences and held accountable for their conduct on the bench.

Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of October 31, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of the screen, of floor, English or French. Those in the room can select the desired channel for their earpiece.

I'll remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will do our best to place you on the speaking order.

For your information, all tests have been successfully performed with our witnesses.

Now I would now like to welcome our witness for the first hour.

Appearing today we will have Indra Maharaj from the Canadian Bar Association judicial issues subcommittee. She is appearing by video conference.

You have five minutes, Ms. Maharaj. I will let you know that I use little cue cards. Watch for the cue card for when you have 30 seconds left. When you're out of time, I use this one. Just wrap up, so I don't have to interrupt your train of thought.

We'll go over to you for five minutes, Ms. Maharaj.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marc Giroux]

You raise a specific issue that I think clearly illustrates why Bill C‑9 is needed. The multiple requests for judicial review meant that the process dragged on for nearly seven years, resulting in significant legal costs. There were also costs associated with the council's having to address those requests for judicial review.

I would point out that the bill does set some limits, for instance, when it comes to calculating the judge's annuity. The period used to calculate the annuity ends when the council recommends that the judge be removed from office in a report submitted to the Minister of Justice. That's one thing.

Obviously, Bill C‑9 does not provide for judicial review. It is stipulated, however, that the judge's legal fees will not be paid in cases in which a judicial review is requested. The Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs has a budget to cover the legal fees of judges, and the money is used only for that. Every year, we have to request that funding from the government, if necessary.

Bill C‑9 takes that into account so we don't have to go through that exercise every time. We are bound by the rates set by the Department of Justice for the retaining of legal services. Bill C‑9 also mentions the commissioner for federal judicial affairs, legal fees and the fact that we basically have to take into account what the government provides for in terms of legal fees. If we have to deviate from that, we are required to indicate why.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the both of you for being here today. This is indeed an important bill, so the Canadian Judicial Council's view is obviously of the utmost importance. I'm glad that you're both here.

The case involving Judge Girouard came up earlier. It's one that can't be ignored. It would be nice if we didn't have to talk about it, but it has captured the attention of the media and the entire judiciary in recent years.

Far be it from me to say that judges should not be allowed to appeal or challenge the council's decisions. That's probably true for everyone. Nevertheless, the process has to have some limits, and I think that's what Bill C‑9 seeks to do. However, it does not set any limits on something that keeps coming up in the public space, legal costs.

I don't want to get into the specifics of the case I just mentioned, but abuse of process not only delays the proceeding, which has costly salary and other implications, but also results in considerable legal fees. One question keeps coming up. If the judge is found guilty and the decision is warranted, why wouldn't the lawyers' fees have to be repaid, at least for the judicial process? It might be possible. It might not. Could the judge be made to repay all or some of the legal fees if proceedings were found to be unnecessary or frivolous? I don't know.

Have you explored that possibility?

I'd like to hear from Mr. Giroux and, then, Ms. Corado.

[Jacqueline Corado]

As per the values, the ethical principles were reviewed very recently to adapt to the evolution of times and the landscape of the law. All those values are included in our ethical principles. Bill C-9 is more about remedies and tools when there is a case that deserves the attention of council.

I will bring you back to my initial comments that security of tenure is protected by the Constitution. For something that is so protected and important in our society for the democracy of this country, the reasons for removal have to be very serious.

The process now needs to be streamlined, and this is what Bill C-9 is intended to do. As for other comments that were brought—

[Jacqueline Corado]

I'd also add that the proposal would add another layer, and this is what Bill C-9 is trying to cut—all the delays that are, basically, relitigating and rebringing forward those comments from the judge or those procedures from the judge.

Again, I respect the proposal, but it would add another layer, which is counterproductive to what Bill C-9 is trying to do.

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

Thank you.

An earlier witness today, Ms. Conlon from The Advocates' Society, on the one hand is applauding Bill C-9, saying it is definitely an improvement, but on the other hand says that building in these efficiencies of no appeals or only internal appeals was an overreaction. Their organization is recommending an amendment to Bill C‑9 to include the ability over the right to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, not to the trial court but to the Court of Appeal.

What are your comments on that? Would that be an improvement that we should consider?

That's for either one of you.

[Jacqueline Corado]

With the case of Girouard, now it's done. He has resigned. He lost the application for appeal to the Supreme Court, but it was indeed a case that dragged on. There were multiple judicial reviews. This created costs and delays. This is what Bill C-9 aims to correct, that no more judicial reviews of this kind will drag on forever.

Right now the process, and what was done in Girouard, is that every decision of council is brought to the Federal Court for judicial review. That creates a very long delay.

With Bill C-9, there's going to be an appeal mechanism. There's a part of a clause that doesn't allow for those judicial reviews anymore. In that context, it provides the balance of procedural fairness for the judge to contest a decision of council. It also provides for council to streamline.... I think Minister Lametti gave a good example: that the process keeps going up instead of going sideways, with multiple judicial reviews that create undue delays.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here. This is a very important study. We're studying judges judging judges.

At this committee we've heard testimony on previous studies, one on the victims of crime and another on the defence of extreme intoxication. We are hearing from witnesses who feel the justice system isn't very just to them.

We heard one executive director of an abused women's centre say that if this defence of extreme intoxication becomes permanent, as women, they receive the message loud and clear that they are not safe in Canada. Now, whether or not that position is justified, it is a commonly held understanding or perception of the justice system.

I'm moving on to the functionality of Bill C-9 and the functionality of the Canadian judicial system.

There is the case of Quebec Superior Court Justice Michel Girouard, who is fighting the Canadian Judicial Council's recommendation that he be removed. It went through appeal and appeal and appeal. It's dragged on for years. Again, this puts the Canadian judicial system in a bad light in the eyes of the public.

This is for you, Ms. Corado.

How does Bill C‑9 improve the public perception of how justice is administered in Canada?

[Jacqueline Corado, Senior Counsel, Canadian Judicial Council]

Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you again, honourable members of Parliament, for your invitation to speak on Bill C-9.

This is something the Canadian Judicial Council has indeed been looking forward to. You will know that the Chief Justice of Canada, as chair of the council, has spoken publicly on a few occasions on the need to bring this reform in order to bring more efficiency and transparency to the judicial conduct process for the benefit of all Canadians.

As already indicated, the council has also worked on the proposed reform with the Department of Justice and the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association. We look forward to the adoption of Bill C-9.

As you know, section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides for the security of tenure of judges, which is a key element of judicial independence. A judge of a superior court can be removed from office only by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

Judicial independence means that judges must be free to decide independently from any form of direct or indirect coercion. However, judicial independence does not require that the conduct of judges be immune from inquiry. On the contrary, as stated by section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867, a superior court judge shall remain in office “during good behaviour”. Therefore, an appropriate system for the review of judicial conduct is crucial to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

It is from this standpoint that the Canadian Judicial Council was created.

The council is the only body mandated to determine when the obligation of good behaviour under section 99 of the Constitution has been violated, as well as which type of misconduct is serious enough to merit the removal of a judge.

Of course, not all complaints warrant a recommendation fo removal from the bench. In fact, the vast majority of complaints received by the council either do not fall under its authority or have no basis—often because they are related not to judicial conduct, but to the judge's decision or because they are frivolous.

That brings me to the current process and how Bill C‑9 would improve it.

Currently, a full judicial conduct review process is composed of five stages within council. The first two stages have been qualified by the courts as a screening stage. The third stage of the process is a review panel that will decide whether an inquiry panel needs to be created, if the complaint is serious enough to merit the removal of a judge.

Under Bill C-9, the review panel will also have other tools. It will be able to impose other types of remedy for misconduct, such as private or public apologies, counselling or continuing education for the complaints that fall short of removal.

The fourth level of the process is an inquiry panel that makes findings of fact and may recommend the removal of the judge. If the inquiry panel recommends removal, then we move to the last stage of process, where a minimum of 17 members of council must consider the inquiry report and recommendation for removal.

Under Bill C-9, if a review panel refers the complaint to a hearing panel, and if the hearing panel recommends removal, the judge will be able to appeal that decision within the council. Bill C-9 provides for this appeal mechanism so that the council will deal with any appeal application in a more expeditious manner and as the appropriate authority and guardian of judicial conduct.

One obvious improvement that Bill C-9 brings is efficiency of the whole process. Over the past years, we have witnessed how the current process may allow for lengthy delays due to multiple judicial reviews.

Overall, we agree that Bill C-9 aims to strike the right balance of fairness for both judges and complainants in order to maintain public confidence in the conduct review process. We also agree that it aims to strike the right balance between accountability and judicial independence.

The council hopes that Bill C‑9 will be passed without delay. We believe these changes will have a significant and positive impact on the judicial conduct process, which will benefit all Canadians.

We thank you for the opportunity to express the council's views and for your excellent work.

[Marc Giroux, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased and honoured to be here today. I'm joined by Jacqueline Corado, senior counsel in the secretariat of the Canadian Judicial Council.

From the outset, allow me to say that the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, the Canadian Judicial Council and the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association are pleased that this judicial conduct reform bill is making its way through Parliament and is being studied by your committee. We all look forward to its receiving royal assent.

You will already know that the council and the association have worked with Justice in order to bring this bill to fruition. In our opinion, Bill C-9 will provide for much-needed efficiency in the judicial conduct process and will reinforce public confidence in the regime.

With respect to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, it was created under the Judges Act and is independent of the Department of Justice, and its mission is to safeguard the independence of the judiciary.

Among other things, we administer the Judges Act on behalf of the Minister of Justice, administer the appointments process for the Supreme Court of Canada as well as for superior courts across the country, publish information relevant to the judiciary such as statistics on judicial expenses and diversity on the bench, and provide other services. We provide services to approximately 1,200 federally appointed judges.

The Judges Act also provides for the office of the commissioner to provide corporate services to the Canadian Judicial Council. Such services include obtaining necessary funding from the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board for the council’s operations, for its needs with respect to investigations into judicial conduct, as well as for the legal costs of judges who are the subject of a complaint.

In accordance with the Judges Act, the commissioner must also provide council with the necessary personnel for its operations and its secretariat. The secretariat includes a small team of about 10 employees, ordinarily led by an executive director. At the current time, in the absence of an executive director, I as commissioner am performing those duties myself.

Ms. Corado's role as senior counsel in the secretariat is focused on the judicial conduct process. She or I will be pleased to provide answers to your questions later.

Mr. Chair, before I turn it over to Ms. Corado, allow me to make a few observations about the Canadian Judicial Council.

The council is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada and is composed of all chief justices and associate chief justices in the country, that is, those of the courts of appeal and superior trial courts. At present, there are 44 such positions of federally appointed chief justices and associate chief justices.

Under section 60 of the Judges Act, the council’s mandate is to promote efficiency and uniformity, and to improve the quality of judicial service, in superior courts. As you know, the main functions of the council are focused on judicial conduct and judicial education. That being said, the council has several committees working on various topics.

Over the past two years, the council has been active on a variety of fronts, including, for example, ensuring court services during the COVID pandemic through, amongst other things, the action committee on court operations in response to COVID-19, co-chaired by the chief justice and the Minister of Justice. The council has signed MOUs with the government on judicial education and the council's governance, has [Technical difficulty—Editor] self-represented litigants, and has ensured more communications and publications in order to increase the transparency of its work.

One last example of the council's recent work is the new and revised ethical principles for judges that the council adopted and has published on its website. These revised principles are founded in the concepts of integrity, independence, equality, diligence and impartiality. They recognize that ethical considerations evolve and need to keep pace with society's expectations.

Mr. Chair, I feel this may be a good segue to pass it over to Ms. Corado, if you agree.

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

You were born in Windsor? Well, a hundred per cent: This could not be a better morning for me.

Welcome.

Professor Devlin, I'm glad the audio is working for you. You seem to be a bit of a celebrity here. A number of the panellists and people in the room here have said that you taught them. I know you started at Dalhousie the year before I left. It's nice to see you.

I want to go back to a really simple question. Maybe I'll start with you, Ms. Conlon.

What is it that the government is trying to address by bringing in Bill C-9?

I hear that you pretty much support the recommendations, with the exception of the one issue of having it go to Federal Court. Can you take me back to what it is, in your opinion, that we are trying to address? Is there anything else? I suppose you're limited in your testimony because you've only looked at it so far, but is there anything else you would like to share with us for our benefit in our review?

[Sheree Conlon]

Just to clarify, it obviously varies by jurisdiction, but in Nova Scotia it depends on whether it gives rise to professional misconduct or professional incompetence and charges are laid. At that point, it becomes public.

There can be breaches that from an ethical perspective do not give rise to professional misconduct or professional incompetence. Those are not made public, including the disposition.

That is why I said that I feel that Bill C-9 is consistent with that approach, because a similar approach is being taken.

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

That's interesting.

In British Columbia, I believe, once the complaint is found to be non-frivolous, then it is made public, but my understanding is that Bill C-9 wouldn't make it public at that point. I may be mistaken.

[Sheree Conlon]

I can weigh in simply from the perspective of the law society.

I can speak to the Nova Scotia law society, and Bill C-9 is actually quite consistent in that complaints that are filed are not made public. It's only when the matter is referred for a hearing and charges are laid that it becomes public. Everything up to that level, from a lawyer's perspective and the complainant's perspective, is kept private. I would see Bill C-9 as being consistent with that process.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate everybody's being here. This is a really interesting topic.

I open this up to all of our witnesses.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I was speaking to Professor Scott earlier, and we were talking about transparency. Throughout this process I've been thinking about it, as in, what happens on the provincial level with law societies when a lawyer is getting sanctioned? I'm mindful of the fact that we are federal and these are provincial, but certainly an analogy can be drawn.

I believe that in British Columbia—and likely in most jurisdictions—when a complaint is made and that complaint is deemed not to be frivolous or spurious, then that complaint is automatically made public.

Professor Scott, and any of the other witnesses, can you comment on Bill C-9 and the analogy, or lack there of, in this legislation, to that transparency?

[Craig Scott]

I double-checked the structure. It's definitely.... What we're talking about are a judge and possibly the pleading officer in terms of going up out of the system.

The right of judicial review is not taken away from complainants. It already exists as part of the broader system. It certainly is not ousted by Bill C-9. If anybody thought it was, then you put in a clause saying that it's not ousted. Otherwise, complainants are made even worse off than ever.

Judicial review is a separate thing from an appeal. When it usually happens is when a matter is dismissed. The reasons do not appear adequate in the letters that complainants receive, and they want to challenge that. That currently happens rarely, but it's possible. That isn't touched by this legislation. I hope, again. I'm looking at Mr. Anandasangaree.

The other thing is that the lay point is extremely important. It also goes to the second kick at the can. The judge gets to say that if the review panel doesn't like it, then within 30 days they want a reduced full hearing. Part of that is they get to swap out a lay person for a lawyer. The lay person's role is there, but then can be stripped out at the instance of the judge.

[Sheree Conlon]

No, we don't have any comment beyond what's already contained in our submissions. As I indicated, The Advocates' Society supports the entirety of Bill C-9, including the restrictions on reasonings.

The public aspect and the involvement of lay participants at the hearing panel, we think addresses some of the concern in terms of public confidence. Beyond that, we don't have any recommended changes to the proposed legislation.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Could you answer the same question, Ms. Conlon, in 30 seconds?

Should we consider including financial penalties in Bill C‑9?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'll pick up on Mr. Brock's line of questioning, and I'll start with Professor Devlin.

These are unique proceedings when it comes to looking at the conduct of our judiciary. All witnesses acknowledge that fact. They obviously go to the core of ensuring and maintaining, if not in fact enhancing, I would argue, confidence in our independent judiciary, so a fair bit of care and balance needs to be accomplished.

Professor Devlin, you feel that Bill C-9 does not accomplish that balance. Let me give you an opportunity to explain to us how that balance can be accomplished in such a way that we do not undermine the independent nature of our judicial system and the independent nature of our judges in particular, as individuals.

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

Thank you. I will move on to Professor Scott.

Do you agree with the Minister of Justice's commentary with respect to that right balance? Whether you do or don't, please explain why.

In under three minutes, I also want to give you the opportunity to expand on the recommendations you feel could enhance Bill C-9.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, witnesses. I sincerely thank you for your participation in this important study.

I have a limited amount of time, so I will try to balance my questions among all three of you. I have three unique areas I want to discuss.

I want to start off with this proposition.

I'm reviewing a printed summary of Professor Devlin's statement to this committee, and I couldn't agree more with paragraph 3 of that statement: “The core purpose of a complaints/discipline process for judges is to promote public confidence in the administration of justice.”

Professor, you cited a number of cases over the last several decades that have shaken that public confidence to the core.

That is an area I pursued last week, when the Minister of Justice, David Lametti, appeared before this committee. I asked him a specific question: In his view, does he believe the objective of maintaining public confidence in the justice system is in line with the complainant's interest? Is there a balance? He emphatically stated that he did believe there is a unique balance that Bill C-9 puts forth.

I would like to hear from all three witnesses.

I'll start with you, Professor Devlin. What are your thoughts on Justice Lametti's commentary and how you would improve specifically the public confidence aspect of Bill C-9?

[Sheree Conlon, Secretary, Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, The Advocates' Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to make submissions to the standing committee today regarding Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

My name is Sheree Conlon, and I'm a partner at the law firm of Stewart McKelvey in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I am here representing The Advocates' Society.

The Advocates' Society is a national, not-for-profit association of litigation counsel, with approximately 5,500 members located across Canada. Part of The Advocates' Society's mission is to promote a fair and accessible justice system in Canada.

My submissions to you today will focus on one central point: The Advocates' Society is concerned that Bill C-9 does not allow for an adequate amount of court oversight of the CJC's decisions in its judicial conduct process. I will present to you a simple remedy to this concern that we believe will still achieve the government's laudable goals for this reform.

The Advocates' Society's written submission to the standing committee dated July 18, 2022, expands on the points I will make in my presentation today.

Overall, The Advocates' Society supports amending the Judges Act to reform the CJC's process for reviewing and addressing complaints made against federally appointed judges. We have seen that the current process is susceptible to delay and high costs. These inefficiencies diminish public confidence in the accountability of members of the federal judiciary for their conduct, and we agree they need to be corrected.

The Advocates' Society also agrees that one principal source of the delay and costs in the current process is that the parties can apply to the federal courts for judicial review at multiple points in the process. Parties can then avail themselves of several levels of appeals.

However, we submit that Bill C-9 overcorrects this problem by replacing the court review process with review mechanisms that are almost entirely internal to the Canadian Judicial Council. Under Bill C-9, parties can seek leave to appeal the decisions of the appeal panel only to the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a concern, because there is no right of appeal; rather, an appeal is available only if the Supreme Court grants leave. The Supreme Court is not an error-correction court, and leave is granted only in cases of public importance. Historically it has granted leave in only about 8% of cases per year. This means there is no guarantee the Supreme Court will grant leave, even in a case in which the CJC's decision is wrong. In our respectful submission, all decision-makers can get it wrong sometimes. That is the purpose of appeal courts.

The Advocates' Society is concerned that Bill C-9 would create a legislative scheme in which the Canadian Judicial Council is the investigator, the decision-maker and the appellate authority with respect to allegations of judicial misconduct. External judicial oversight of the CJC's actions and decisions is all but eliminated.

The proposed process is concerning, because court oversight of administrative actions is fundamental to ensuring their legality and their fairness. This undermines security of tenure, which is a critical component of judicial independence.

The Advocates' Society suggests that there is a simple remedy to our concerns. We propose instead that the parties be provided with a right to appeal the CJC appeal panel's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal instead of the Supreme Court of Canada. Draft language is contained in our submission.

I must stress that we believe our proposed amendment would not reintroduce the delays and costs we see with the current process and which the government is rightly trying to fix. The Advocates' Society's proposal ensures that the CJC's final decision would be subject to appeal only directly to the Federal Court of Appeal. This would eliminate one layer of judicial review, the Federal Court, and eliminate judicial review of interlocutory decisions—which historically have been the primary cause of the delay and expense—while preserving a right of judicial review on the final decision of the CJC's internal process.

The Advocates' Society believes that the small change we propose to Bill C-9 strikes the balance between efficiency, public confidence in judicial accountability and fairness to the parties, all the while maintaining judicial independence.

Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer any questions from the standing committee arising from my submissions. Thank you.

[Professor Richard Devlin, Professor of Law, Dalhousie University, Canadian Association for Legal Ethics]

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me to appear as a witness on Bill C-9.

My name is Richard Devlin and I'm a professor at Dalhousie law school in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I'm here as a member of the board of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics. I served as its founding president and as chair of the board for several years. More particularly, I'm here because in the last couple of years I've edited two books, with scholars from around the world, on what might be appropriate for a complaints and discipline process for judges. Those two books are called Regulating Judges and Disciplining Judges.

There are three key insights that emerge from those two books.

The first is that the design of a complaints and discipline regime for judges is not just a technical project. It is an important act of statecraft that's about allocating power within our community. It requires us to think about the delicate relationship between the executive, the legislature, the judiciary and the general public. This is often phrased as the “who guards the guardians?” question.

The second key theme that comes out of those materials is another question, which is how we should guard the guardians.

This requires us to articulate key values or principles that should guide us in the design and implementation of a complaints and discipline system for judges. Traditionally, two key values have been identified, the first being independence and the second being accountability. However, our research indicates that there are at least seven other core values that need to be considered. The values in addition to independence and accountability are impartiality, fairness, transparency, representativeness, proportionality, reasoned justification and efficiency. Those are the core values against which we must measure Bill C-9.

The third key insight from our research is that the core purpose of a complaints and discipline process for judges is to promote public confidence in the administration of justice. Over the last two decades in Canada, there have been a number of high-profile cases that have amply demonstrated that the current regime has failed to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice. The purpose of Bill C-9 is to rebuild that confidence.

When you review Bill C-9 generally, there are a number of innovations that are very positive and that do a very good job of trying to balance these particular values or principles, but today I want to identify five core concerns that suggest that we haven't got the right balance of these principles. These are very significant problems that I hope you can be persuaded to address as you work through this legislation.

Our first concern is that not enough attention is paid to the rights of complainants, therefore we compromise the principles of fairness and transparency.

Our second concern is that there's insufficient lay representation in the process, therefore the values of impartiality, independence and representation are compromised.

Our third concern relates to reduced hearing panels. We suggest that the composition of the reduced hearing panels and the processes involved may in fact favour the impugned judge and therefore compromise the principles of impartiality, independence and representativeness.

Our fourth concern is that the remedies for misconduct are not sufficiently comprehensive. In particular, they do not include a power to suspend a judge. Therefore, the principles of transparency and proportionality are compromised.

Fifth and finally, our concern is with the annual reports. These reports are not adequately tailored to the needs of a modern democratic society. Therefore, we compromise the principles of transparency and accountability.

In the question and answer period, I'd be delighted to answer and elaborate on any of these points, but I want to conclude by emphasizing that not since 1971, more than five decades ago, has there been a statutory revision of the complaints and discipline process. The role of Canadian judges has changed profoundly in that time. Canadian democracy has changed significantly in that time. The expectations of the public have changed enormously in that time. It might well be another 50 years before there's another review of the process.

Therefore, Bill C-9 is a unique moment. The Canadian Association for Legal Ethics is delighted to try to help you make Canada develop one of the most comprehensive and persuasive complaints and discipline systems in the world.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[Craig Scott, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of the committee.

Since I don't have a lot of time, I will goright to my findings, but I would be glad to elaborate on them or anything else during the question and answer portion.

Let me now begin by noting that my organizing theme is that Bill C-9 falls quite short when it comes to how transparency fits into the accountability of the judiciary in the face of reasonable concerns of misconduct.

The only decision made public under either the current or the new Bill C-9 system is the decision at the final stage: the report of what is now the panel of inquiry and will be one of the two kinds of hearing panels.

In this regard, my central concern for my remarks is how Bill C-9doesn't disturb the practice of the Canadian Judicial Council, the CJC, of hiding from view two other kinds of decisions and their accompanying reasons. Indeed, Bill C‑9 actually increases the level of secrecy of these two kinds of decisions.

One kind of decision and set of reasons that are not made public in ordinary course are known as “reasons for referral of a complaint to a panel”. Under the current system, it's the vice-chair or the chair of the judicial conduct committee of the CJC who sends them on to the review panel.

Under Bill C-9, if that's going to continue, it would be the reviewing member who would be doing that. To give you a sense, in a recent CJC proceeding in which I was a complainant, this consisted of nine tightly reasoned single-spaced pages.

The second kind of decision that doesn't get published is known as the “report of the review panel”. In the above proceedings in which I was involved, that report was 13 double-spaced pages.

If they're not published, how is it that I know what's in them and how long they are? Forgive me: I might be going overboard, but this is where Kafka comes in.

Let me explain myself. When a review panel finds there's insufficient basis to send a complaint on to a full hearing panel—currently, to a panel of inquiry—the executive director of the CJC sends a letter to these complainants. It purports to give the gist of the review panel's reasonings. That letter can be well or poorly put together. It's not written by the review panel itself.

For the complainants, this is the point: The letter is the decision. That is all they have to go on. If they feel the reasoning in the letter does not stand up to some reasonableness standard, then they can seek judicial review in the Federal Court, only, of course, after having found a lawyer able to do it for the funds the complainants are able to scrape up for a judicial review.

Thus, it is only through citizen initiative in the form of a judicial review application to the Federal Court that the above sets of reasons can become public. This happens because the CJC is bound by the rules of judicial review procedure to disclose to the applicants all relevant documents, which then form part of something called “the certified tribunal record” of the court.

Even then, when the matter gets to the pleadings stages, the lawyers for the CJC effectively tell the applicants who were the complainants: “You know the reasons in the letter that you received and that were the basis for you to seek review? Forget those. That's not actually the decision. The review panel decision is the decision, and now that you've forced its disclosure, that is what you must now convince a judge is unreasonable.”

So it is that complainants must go to court to challenge an unreasonable decision before they have access to what the CJC lawyers tell them is actually the decision. As I said, there's just a bit of Kafka there.

Nothing in Bill C-9 would change this situation. By analogy to the regular court system, it's as if Parliament and the CJC were keeping from prying public eyes the judgment of a motions judge—here, the reviewing member's reasons are the analogy—and the judgment of a trial judge—here, the review panel—with only the judgment of a court of appeal—here, the reduced or full hearing panel—being made public.

Open courts and published reasons are how we approach judges judging others. This of course includes cases where the impleaded person is partly or wholly successful. In the regular system, we don't fail to publish a decision because the defence prevailed, but somehow, when judges judge judges, it's only when we get to this third—in the new Bill C-9 system—appellate stage that we can see the reasons.

Consider what the situation means in the context of one of the big improvements made by Bill C-9, a really big improvement: the inclusion of a wider range of remedies that are available at the review panel stage in the new proposed section 102 of the Judges Act.

However, and along the line of my theme, because the review panel decision stays secret, the public will be little the wiser about exactly why no misconduct was found, if that turns out to be the case; why misconduct was found but characterized in a certain way; why it was of a certain gravity but that was not enough for it to go on to a full appeal hearing; or why a particular remedy was chosen over any of the others in the new section 102.

I'm getting towards the end.

With respect to review panel reasons, Bill C-9 goes on to make matters worse still. You may have heard testimony on why it's there. I find it hard to explain why it's there. Bill C-9 bars reduced hearing panels and full hearing panels from considering review panel decisions and reasons. It also bars the full hearing panel from considering the reasons of the reduced hearing panel. I don't see how that is justifiable.

Our judicial system—and, indeed, our entire approach to the rule of law—depends on the giving of reasons by the judiciary and the publication of those reasons, so the legal profession, public scholars and legislators can understand, apply critique and reform the law. As well, one key way in which judicial reasoning can be relied on to generally produce better results as you go up levels, is in each subsequent court having the benefit of the factual interpretations and legal analysis of preceding levels, which they can refer to, discuss and weave into their own judgments and reasoning in some integrated fashion.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will end, as I know I'm coming up to time. There are a number of interconnected arguments. I have arguments about how we should understand the administrative law of judging judges, and why this has undue secrecy built in for judges, but perhaps I can bring those out in the question period.

I also have a set of specific recommendations for amendments to new sections 97, 103, 111 and 118, and I would suggest adding two more new sections—161 and 162. They're in my written brief, which is not yet available and can't be circulated until it's fully translated. That will take place within a couple of days, hopefully.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Rob Moore]

Good morning, everybody. I call this meeting to order. Welcome back.

Welcome to meeting number 38 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of October 31, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, and some witnesses are appearing remotely.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

There is interpretation for those on Zoom. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please your hand. For individuals on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

For your information, before anybody asks, all tests have been successfully performed with our witnesses.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour. Craig Scott, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, is here as an individual. From the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics, Professor Richard Devlin, professor of law, is appearing by way of video conference. From The Advocates' Society, Sheree Conlon, secretary, executive committee of the board of directors, is appearing by video conference.

We will move now to the opening comments. We will start here in the room, with Professor Scott.

Go ahead, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I think Mr. Garrison has already ceded his time, so we'll conclude here.

I want to thank Ms. Dekker, Mr. Xavier and Ms. Othmer for coming today.

We will end this portion.

I have a couple of things for committee business. I want to let you know that the deadline for submitting amendments to Bill C-9 is scheduled on Thursday, December 1, so we have to establish a deadline to submit amendments. As per routine motions, there is about a 48-hour notice period required to submit amendments, if there are any. If we have that deadline as 6 p.m. on Monday, November 28, that should be fair.

Also, the supplementary estimates were tabled in the House today. As per our calendar, we would be able to have the minister appear on the matter on December 1. I will have the clerk coordinate with the minister and see if he's available. I'll let you guys know about that.

Barring any questions....

Yes, Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Patrick Xavier]

All the applicable case law was studied, and we feel that Bill C‑9 reflects it. That's unfortunately all I can say on the subject.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I have another question for you.

Bill C‑9 is a new version. We've been discussing the possibility of amending the process for a long time. Actually, Bill S‑5 and Bill S‑3 were previously introduced, but died on the Order Paper.

Would you please explain the main differences between Bill S‑5, Bill S‑3 and Bill C‑9?

[Patrick Xavier]

Yes.

The consultation was done in several stages.

The department prepared a consultation document that was posted to the departmental website, and the general public had a chance to comment on it.

We officials also examined all the correspondence that the Minister of Justice had received from the public over the years regarding the judicial conduct process.

We consulted the Canadian Judicial Council, which will manage the process; the Superior Court Judges Association, which is the main representative of superior court judges; the Federation of Law Societies of Canada; the Council of Canadian Law Deans; and the Canadian Bar Association.

We consulted lawyers who have represented judges in previous disciplinary processes, lawyers who have adduced evidence against judges and lawyers appointed to inquiry committees.

We received submissions from the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics, which is an association of legal ethics professors.

Lastly, we consulted the provinces and territories.

So this consultation was quite exhaustive.

Bill C‑9 truly reflects the concerns that we heard from all those groups. They focus mainly on the fact that there were no sanctions for minor misconduct, that the process for removing a judge for gross misconduct was too long and too costly and that it was impossible for the general public to take part in the process for determining whether a judge was guilty of misconduct.

Bill C‑9 will therefore remedy all that.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much.

We also know that the first essential condition of judicial independence is that judges may not be removed on arbitrary grounds. That's the principle of immovability provided under paragraph 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's essential to maintaining public trust. It's also the antithesis of discretionary or arbitrary appointment.

How are the changes proposed in Bill C‑9 consistent with the rights protected under paragraph 11(d) of the charter?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings, everyone.

Thank you for being with us this afternoon.

Earlier we heard that Bill C‑9 would improve efficiency and reduce delays. However, the process nevertheless involves review panels, hearings, plenary hearings, appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Can you confirm that the objective will be achieved?

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

So there's been no reporting up to this stage, but there will be reporting once Bill C-9 is...?

[Patrick Xavier]

Currently, there isn't. The council does issue an annual report where it provides that kind of information, but there is no current requirement. Bill C-9 is going to change that.

I believe it's proposed section 160 at the end of clause 12. It imposes a requirement for an annual report where certain numbers are provided in terms of numbers of complaints and the breakdown of the complaints that the council deals with every year.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be splitting my time with Mr. Van Popta, so I'll endeavour to be a couple of minutes here.

Thank you to the panel.

One question I have is this. When lawyers are subject to a citation that has been founded to be appropriate, the process is that somebody makes a report to the governing law society or organization. If it's frivolous or vexatious, it's dismissed, just like in the legislation. There is that gatekeeper function. But then it becomes public for everybody.

I'm trying to recall whether Bill C‑9 makes that same complaint public.

[Patrick Xavier]

Again, that is a question that the council would be better placed to answer. I can say that what we see are the judicial review applications. A complainant can always judicially review a council decision that they're not happy with in Federal Court. That is not going to change following Bill C‑9. Bill C‑9 is only doing away with judicial review by judges; complainants can still judicially review the council.

In these judicial review applications, in the ones that go to court, there is still a fair number where the question is whether this is judicial decision-making or whether this is really judicial conduct. That's the line it seems every judicial council has to walk. It's a difficult line to walk. A lot of the ones that go to court still turn on that question.

Where it's a trend or not, I'm afraid I can't say.

[Patrick Xavier]

The obligation flows from procedural fairness. The Federal Court has found that there is a procedural fairness obligation to notify the complainant adequately of the outcome of the process. That's a legal obligation that the CJC has, that the Federal Court has found that the CJC has.

It's not expressly stated in Bill C‑9, but it's not really necessary to say that it is. It is a legal obligation that the CJC has and that they're very keenly aware of. That's why the bill doesn't need to go into it in any detail. It's there, and the CJC is well aware of it.

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

Apart from the legal obligation of procedural fairness, is there anything in Bill C‑9 that specifies that information will be provided to the complainants at each stage of the process? I know you keep saying that this can be in the policies, but I'd like to know if Bill C‑9 creates an obligation to have policies that deliver adequate information on the process to the complainants.

[Patrick Xavier]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

As I said earlier, unfortunately those are difficult questions to answer based on Bill C-9 alone, because that will be part of what the CJC will have to provide for in its policies outlining how it will deal with complainants under Bill C-9.

Currently, when the CJC has carriage of a complaint and asks the judge for submissions on the complaint and receives submissions that indicate that maybe some clarification of the complaint is required, my understanding is that the CJC does absolutely go back to the complainant and ask for clarification and ask for more information. If the CJC has a sense that more information should be available, for whatever reason, it will go back to the complainant and ask for more information.

All of that is very much going to be regulated by that policy and procedure on how the CJC will discharge its duty of procedural fairness toward the complainant.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I quite agree with you. That's also my understanding, but I wonder if Bill C‑9 could have been an opportunity to clarify those issues.

Isn't it possible to include that? I don't mean an automatic measure but at least the possibility for the Canadian Judicial Council to require full or partial reimbursement when the judge is found guilty. The idea is to ensure that the judge doesn't get the impression in a mediation process that this is an all-you-can-eat buffet. It's pretty hard to convince someone to accept a settlement when he knows from the outset that he can drag the process out and won't have to pay fees because they'll be reimbursed by the government.

It seems to me we may be passing up an opportunity to acquire an instrument for encouraging parties to settle situations of this kind. Haven't you considered it?

As you said earlier, I know this isn't clear.

[Patrick Xavier]

Yes. What's proposed in Bill C-9 actually compares very favourably with what's available abroad in countries very similar to ours. I can't say there's a country out there whose judiciary functions along the same lines as ours whose process is better. If you were to map out all of these processes, whether it be England, Wales, New Zealand or U.S. federal courts, they broadly have the shape of a capital letter “Y”. The complaints come in, they get investigated in the same way initially, and then they go one of two ways. One way is if they're not serious enough to warrant removal. If they're serious enough to warrant removal, you have a more serious set of investigations. That ultimately gets you to a public hearing and then removal by the executive and/or legislative branches.

This does follow that same pattern, but Bill C-9 involves laypersons in the process at the very outset in terms of the review of complaints. That is not something you find anywhere else. Laypersons are involved in England and Wales and New Zealand, but only at the hearings stage, when it comes time to determine whether the judge should be removed. The list of sanctions is very, very limited. It really is. It's removal or it's a reprimand or expression of concern in these other countries. The ability to, for example, require a judge to pursue continuing education or counselling is not really there.

In those two respects, Bill C-9 actually really improves on what's out there internationally.

Thank you.

[Patrick Xavier]

No, no. I should have mentioned it.

I thought I would provide a very brief overview for the committee of some of the changes in Bill C-9 that are the most salient and that will help improve the effectiveness, the fairness and the transparency of the process.

It's important to appreciate that under the current process, most of the process takes place with a single member of the Canadian Judicial Council analyzing the complaint and then determining what to do about the misconduct in question. That member of the council doesn't have the ability to impose any kind of sanction. They can issue an expression of concern about the judge's conduct, but that's about all they can do for misconduct that is not serious enough to warrant removal, which is the majority of misconduct that comes to the attention of the council.

There is currently a body called a review panel, which performs a gatekeeping function. If the single member of the council who has the complaint thinks that it might be serious enough to warrant removal, they'll send it over to the review panel. That review panel is currently the only stage of the process where there is a layperson. In this context, that simply means someone who has never been a lawyer and, therefore, also never a judge. That panel has only one task, which is to decide whether a public hearing should be held by an inquiry committee on whether the judge should be removed.

If the review panel says yes, that's when we're in the public hearing phase that I'm sure most committee members will be more familiar with. When that public hearing phase takes place, the only members of the inquiry committee are judges and lawyers designated by the Minister of Justice. They hold public hearings, they issue a report to the council of the whole, made up of CJC members who are not conflicted and have not taken part in the prior stages of the process. They look at the report and they issue the final report to the Minister of Justice.

That, unfortunately, is when the opportunity for judicial review arises. The judge, at that point, can take the report to federal court if they disagree with it. From there, it can go to the Federal Court of Appeal and from there to the Supreme Court of Canada. That aspect of the process alone—the judicial review part—can take a good two years.

The new process makes several improvements to this current process.

The first improvement comes at the very start. Instead of a single member of the council reviewing the complaint, if the complaint raises concerns about a judge's conduct, it will automatically be reviewed by a review panel, which includes a lay representative. It will have three people on it: a member of the council, a judge who is not a member of the council and a lay representative. This review panel will have the ability to impose sanctions for misconduct short of removal, and those sanctions will not require the judge's consent. You'll find them, I believe, in proposed section 102 of clause 12.

They include things like having the judge pursue a course of continuing education. There was a question earlier about how this bill might help address systemic racism in the justice system. That's probably a key provision in that regard for Bill C-9. It's a way of having a judge, who has misstepped in a way that suggests they may be acting or harbouring certain stereotypes, pursue a course of continuing education to address that.

From the review panel stage, the process then becomes de facto public and it can go toward a hearing panel, which also includes a lay representative. That hearing panel issues a report, which will contain a decision on whether the judge should be removed or not. That is when the appeal stage begins.

Instead of waiting for the report to the minister and then having judicial review, the appeal stage immediately follows the full hearing panel. There is one appeal stage at the appeal panel and then the possibility of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that's all. That's where a court review ends.

From there, once the appeal stage is complete, the report goes to the Minister of Justice and that's pretty much the end of the process.

I'll leave it at that and let the committee ask questions. I don't want to take up too much time.

Those are the principle improvements that Bill C-9 seeks to make to the process.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll resist the temptation that other members have indulged in, talking to the minister about a wide number of other things, because I want to stick to confidence in the judicial system and the contribution of Bill C‑9, but I can't resist saying that I know that the minister shares my concern with systemic racism and the impact on indigenous and black Canadians in particular of systemic racism in our justice system.

With Bill C‑5 apparently on the Order Paper at third reading in the Senate right now, I'd love to talk about that. But this is what I want to ask: Do you think Bill C‑9 will make a significant contribution to the problem of systemic racism within the Canadian justice system as a whole?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I would like to hear your comments on a matter we haven't addressed until now.

Have monetary penalties been considered as one of the possible sentences or consequences of an offending judge's conduct?

Going back to the example of Justice Girouard, we could consider the matter of salary paid during the hearing and proceedings. There's also the matter of the pension that's subsequently paid. Is there any way to adjust pension payments in accordance with the decision rendered?

What particularly interests me is the issue of court costs. I understand that Bill C‑9 would set a limit on the reimbursement of legal fees that a judge could pay.

However, has anyone considered the possibility, for example, of asking offending judges to pay court costs in the event they're found guilty of misconduct? The Judicial Council obviously decides whether a judge should be sanctioned.

However, if it's decided that a judge should be sanctioned for gross misconduct, do you think it would be appropriate to provide for the Judicial Council to have the option, without being compelled to exercise it, of requiring the offending judge to repay, in whole or in part, any fees that the government is required to pay for his or her defence?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

One of the concerns that I've heard from individuals, and I'm sure you have heard the same, is that the system seems too complex the way it exists right now, that cost is an issue and that it's inefficient, especially if you are a layperson, an ordinary citizen, trying to take on a judge. They feel that it's stacked against them to begin with.

How would you assure Canadians that this new process being proposed in Bill C-9 is a fairer system, less costly and more efficient?

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

Yes, you're absolutely right. It's not only our department but also the judges themselves who worked very hard on this bill.

One thing I have to point out, particularly in both the Girouard and Camp situations, is that some of the people who were the most outraged were judges, because they feel the reputational hit that these kinds of cases have, not only as individual judges but also as part of the judiciary as a whole, so they wanted reform. Believe me, the chief justice is watching what's happening and is constantly, in his formal way, telling me that he would like to see Bill C-9 pass. It's for precisely that reason: the reputation of the judiciary is very much at stake.

They participated in these decisions. They made sure that there was procedural fairness, but they wanted more efficiency. That's true both for chief justices across Canada, the CJC and the Superior Court Judges Association. They want a better process to police their ranks, if you will, because they realize that it's important for the reputation of the judiciary as a whole.

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

Thank you. I was waiting for the very good follow-up that came, so thank you.

We've begun to take that into account with Bill C-3. It was the old private member's bill originally proposed by Rona Ambrose, which we took on and, I think, we improved. In this, we can now require newly appointed judges, as part of their application, to agree to go through precisely this kind of training, largely as a result of another case in the Bill C-9 file with former Justice Camp. We're increasing from the get-go the sensitivities and the abilities to understand what victims have gone through on the part of judges.

Chief justices have told me that Bill C-3 and the work that the National Judicial Institute has done now in developing these kinds of courses will give them leverage over existing judges; because of the principle of judicial independence, we can't force existing judges to go through training. Chief justices are now saying that because we've done this with the incoming group of judges as a matter of requirement, they can now exert more moral authority on the part of sitting judges to go through these kinds of courses.

Mr. Caputo, I share your concerns. I want to do anything we can to better train judges for precisely these kinds of cases and precisely the kinds of facts you have brought forward, and I continue to be open to good ideas.

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

Thank you.

This is a horrific set of facts and a highly repugnant outcome, in my view. I know you can't comment on that.

However, victims—particularly victims of sexual offences—are often placed in a psychological prison with a psychological life sentence. That's something I came to learn in my work. I was trained in that.

We talk about training, we talk about Bill C-9 and we talk about doing the right thing.

Minister, where should we be going when it comes to the training of judges—and we are talking about that here with Bill C-9—and when it comes to informing them of what victims go through in these circumstances?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo, and thank you, Mr. Naqvi.

I will remind all members to keep it in line with the study, which is Bill C-9.

I gave a lot of latitude on that. You had promised at the outset of your questioning that you were going to bring it back to Bill C-9, so I would ask that you bring it back to Bill C-9. This is an important and very timely meeting, so we should keep it focused on that.

I'll resume your time.

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

I did not interrupt you, Mr. Naqvi. I would appreciate the same courtesy. Thank you.

Secondly, I said that my follow-up question, which I am happy to disclose right now, relates to Bill C-9, and it relates to that factual matrix.

If I'm given the opportunity to do so, with the full time that I have, I am happy to ask that question.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It was not related to Bill C-9.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, I'm really concerned. This is the second time now I've noticed that members of the Conservative Party are not asking the minister a question directly on Bill C-9, which deals with judicial misconduct. They continue to bring up very specific cases and ask the minister to opine on them when they have no relation whatsoever to the matters covered under Bill C-9.

I let Mr. Brock go. I was trying to give him a little bit of latitude to see if he could bring it back to the bill. He failed to do so. Mr. Caputo promised that he would do so in this instance. He has not done so.

Through you, Chair, I really urge members opposite to focus on the bill. We have an opportunity here, with the minister present, to give us responses on this particular bill. I think it is highly unfair that we are asking questions that are outside the purview of the work we are doing right now.

Thank you.

[Patrick Xavier]

It would be covered by that, and it would be addressed in the CJC's policies and procedures.

Currently, a member of the CJC has the ability to go back to the complainant and get further clarification and get further information if they feel they need it once they've seen the judge's comments, but that's what the policy currently states under the current process. What the policy will look like under Bill C‑9 once it becomes law will be for the council to determine.

Presumably, the council will have some consultations on what that policy will look like, but I can't speak for the council. The council will be able to speak to that when they appear before you.

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

In terms of complainants, one of the concerns that people have had is that once the complaint is launched, there's no more role for the complainant. As the complaint makes its way through the system, there's no ability for the complainant to respond to any of the intermediate decisions or steps.

Will there be any provision for this as a part of Bill C‑9?

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

There have been a lot of concerns expressed about a lack of transparency about the process for complainants. In other words, it's hard for them to know what's happened with a complaint, what's being done with a complaint and what stage a complaint is at. I think this contributes to a lack of confidence in the process as a whole.

Again, in your view, will Bill C-9 help make the procedures more transparent to the complainants?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for being available to the committee to talk about Bill C-9 today.

Obviously, there is a great deal of consensus that Bill C-9 will fix some of the major problems in the complaints process. I appreciate the minister stressing that it would fix the all-or-nothing problem and allow dealing effectively with lesser forms of judicial misconduct that might not involve removal from the bench. Of course, streamlining the timing is in the interest of everyone, as is reducing costs.

I have two further questions about Bill C-9 and the process in general. They revolve around transparency and the fairness of proceedings. I think right now there is a general feeling that there isn't a great deal of transparency about the outcomes of complaints against those who have committed misconduct on the bench. I wonder whether Bill C-9 will make any improvements or if there any other suggestions to improve the transparency of the outcomes of the process.

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

Upon initial review, I think a slightly less official review panel could indeed conduct those kinds of discussions. It's the Judicial Council that initiated talks with our department to create Bill C‑9.

I'm going to give the floor to one of the people who took part in those discussions.

Mr. Xavier, would you please provide some details on the subject?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

I don't think I have much time left, and I'd like to address a completely different topic.

The provisions of Bill C‑9 are interesting in the context of the current process.

Have you considered the possibility of introducing a mediation process prior to panel proceedings, for example, in the case of a complaint filed against a judge? Wouldn't it be appropriate to introduce a mediation process in which a representative of your department or of the Judicial Council could intervene?

An attempt could be made to determine whether an agreement can be reached with the judge concerned by the complaints on certain matters or on appropriate sanctions, which would preclude situations such as that in Justice Girouard's case.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us today, Minister.

I'd like to ask you some questions on various topics, but I'll try to stick to today's subject, Bill C‑9.

First of all, I want to say that I think this is a good bill, and we of the Bloc Québécois intend to support it. However, shouldn't these complaints that the Canadian Judicial Council handles concerning judicial conduct, misconduct and alleged misconduct raise question marks in our minds? Shouldn't we question whether many of these situations can be avoided by paying more attention to the process and selection criteria?

As you know, the situation has improved over the years. We've discussed this on a number of occasions. We of the Bloc Québécois still condemn the partisan, political checks that are conducted before appointments are made. We should put an end to the practice. It should be given no consideration. Perhaps we should improve conditions and ensure that candidates have university training in the law, that they have a moral compass and that they know how to conduct themselves in any given situation in which litigants appear before them.

In short, shouldn't we improve the selection process so that fewer and fewer complaints are filed?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister. It's always a pleasure to have you here in committee.

We know the decision in the Girouard case was a judicial saga that received extensive media coverage.

Further to your remarks, would you please tell us how the new Bill C‑9 would reduce delays and costs and make the complaints process for efficient.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always a pleasure to be with you. Most of you are participating in the meeting in person. Mr. Garrison and Mr. McDonald are participating virtually.

I am accompanied by Nancy Othmer, Patrick Xavier and Anna Dekker, my colleagues from the Department of Justice, who will be helping me answer any technical questions.

As I said, Mr. Chair, it's an honour for me to be here today to speak to you about Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

I will take this opportunity to thank all of you for the unanimous support for this bill at second reading.

As you know, this bill reforms the process used to address complaints against federally appointed judges. The soundness and effectiveness of the judicial conduct review process can have a significant impact on the independence of the judiciary. This legislation will make the judicial conduct review process more efficient and more cost-effective.

This legislation is the fruit of years of careful study and analysis, including consultations between the legal community and the general public, and extensive dialogue with the Canadian Judicial Council and the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association. In my view, Bill C-9 sets out what would become a world-leading judicial conduct review process and one that will serve Canadians exceptionally well for years to come.

We need a judiciary that is strongly independent, one that is able to render judgments without fear of reprisal. At the same time, Canadians rightly demand to hold judges accountable to a high standard of professionalism.

In 1971, Parliament, through the Judges Act, assigned responsibility for handling complaints against judges to the Canadian Judicial Council, or the “CJC”. The Judges Act sets out the key elements of a process that served Canadians well for decades. However, shortcomings in the legislative framework have become more and more pronounced over the last few years, prompting growing calls for Parliament to act. This includes calls from the CJC itself.

In developing reforms, the government carefully considered feedback from the general public received through an online survey as well as from a number of key stakeholders, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies and provinces and territories.

We listened carefully. Our focus was to craft a process that the public would have confidence in, one that is rigorous and fair, yet timely and effective.

Constitutional principles dictate that a judge cannot be removed from office without having a judge-led hearing into their conduct. As I noted, Parliament has assigned this important task to the CJC. In light of this, my department's officials engaged in sustained discussions with the CJC to ensure that this legislative proposal could benefit from the council's 50-year experience running the judicial conduct review process. Departmental officials also engaged with the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association to understand its concerns regarding process reform.

I take this opportunity to thank both the CJC and the association for these discussions and their commitment to serving Canadians.

I wish here to highlight two main areas of particular concern. The first is efficiency. As it stands, the process takes too long and is too expensive. Of course, the Constitution demands rigour and sensitivity in the handling of complaints against judges. Yet, when the resolution of complaints at times stretches on for years on end, and at great expense to the taxpayer, Canadians rightly ask whether there is a better way.

This is perhaps best underscored by the multiplication of judicial reviews that we have witnessed over the last few years with respect to certain complaints, creating the perception that judges launch these proceedings to effect delay rather than to pursue legitimate legal interests. Bill C‑9 responds directly to these concerns by making the process much more efficient.

A second shortcoming involves the all-or-nothing nature of the existing process, which is designed to answer a single question: Does the complaint warrant the judge's removal from office? No other sanction is available. This fact colours every step in the process. This risks unfairness to judges subject to complaints, who may be subject to a full-scale inquiry and its proceedings for conduct that would more appropriately be addressed through lesser sanctions. Further, this risks undermining the public's trust in the process. Members of the public may be perplexed and rightly dissatisfied when complaints are dismissed despite problematic conduct because the conduct in question did not reach the high threshold of justifying removal from office.

Bill C-9 addresses this concern by introducing, for the first time, the ability to impose sanctions for misconduct that do not warrant removal from office but that nonetheless demand some form of remedy and accountability. These could include, for example, mandating training sessions.

I do not have time in these remarks to discuss all of the improvements proposed by the bill. In the time I have left, let me highlight three key improvements.

First, greater transparency through greater participation of lay members. The current process has a limited role for lay members, which, in this context, refers to individuals who are not judges or lawyers. There is currently one lay member on the five-member review panels.

Bill C‑9 changes this. There would continue to be one lay member on review panels, but these review panels would be more efficient—having only three members and being empowered to impose sanctions for any misconduct not serious enough to warrant removal from office. Second, hearing panels established to conduct public hearings on whether a judge should be removed from office would now include a lay member. These improvements directly address the system's current shortcomings, increase efficiency, and allow for more appropriate and targeted accountability.

The second point to highlight is how Bill C-9 streamlines the appeal process. The current process provides too many opportunities for judges subject to complaints to seek judicial review of decisions made by the council at different stages in the process. This is costly and results in excessive delay and undermines public confidence. Further, after the inquiry committee has issued its recommendation on whether a judge should be removed from office, the current process requires review of this decision by what is termed “council of the whole”, where quorum requires participation by at least 17 CJC members. This body's powers are unclear, and legal decision-making by a body of this size has proven challenging.

To address both of these concerns, Bill C-9 would introduce an appeal mechanism internal to the judicial conduct process. An appeal panel made up of three CJC members and two puisne judges would have broad powers to remedy any shortcomings in the process. The only recourse available to the judge wishing to challenge the decision of an appeal panel would be to seek leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. Entrusting process oversight to the Supreme Court will reinforce public confidence and avoid lengthy judicial review proceedings through several levels of court. This will save time and costs while still providing robust fairness for judges subject to complaints.

The third and final point to highlight relates to the costs associated with the process. The day‑to‑day costs of handling complaints are fairly consistent and predictable, and would continue to be so under the new process. However, the costs associated with inquiry committees are highly variable and unpredictable, given the significant year‑to‑year variability in the number of public inquiries conducted. As a result, administrators must rely on complex mechanisms to seek necessary funding on an ad hoc basis. This is a longstanding problem that Bill C‑9 would rectify by introducing a statutory appropriation to provide a stable funding mechanism for the highly variable portion of the process' costs associated with public hearings.

This is not only a sound practical solution, but is also justified by the fact that these public hearings are constitutionally required. To ensure sound stewardship of these funds, the bill would introduce several measures, including requiring that an independent review be completed every five years into all costs paid through the statutory appropriation. The findings and recommendations of this review would be made public.

I thank you for your time and attention today. I wholeheartedly recommend this bill, knowing that it will profoundly improve the judicial conduct review process to the benefit of Canadians.

I look forward to your questions after having had a glass of water.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of October 31, the committee is meeting to begin its study of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed to the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience.

I also use elementary cue cards to tell you when there are 30 seconds remaining and when you're out of time. I don't like interrupting. Hopefully, you'll keep your eye out for that. This committee is actually really good at keeping time.

I'd now like to welcome our first witness appearing today. We have the good pleasure—

Go ahead, Mr. Fortin.

Government Business No. 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) until Friday, June 23, 2023,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I was. I want to come back to Mr. Serré's motion. I agree with the gist of it in general. It calls for no limits on the clause-by-clause study. I agree with that, but I would like us to have time to hear from witnesses, because that's very important.

Ever since the Liberals and the NDP formed an alliance, we've been hit with time allocation motions and closure motions. Since the last election, not including Government Business No. 20, there have been 27 fast-tracked bill stages, five motions adopted using 18 time allocation motions, eight closure motions, 11 time allocation motions, four super closure motions, including two aimed at fast-tracking the committee stage, the report stage and third reading, and two to fast-track the second reading in committee stage, the report stage and third reading.

On October 26, there was a time allocation motion on Bill C‑9, which would amend the—

Judges Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑9.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from October 28 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Are there any other members who wish to speak to Bill C-9?

Is the House ready for the question?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is something that may have never happened in the House before, a member beginning a speech on a bill in one seat and continuing it in a separate seat on the very same day. This was made possible, of course, by a standing order change that allows us to sit absolutely anywhere in the House. I was tempted to do it from the Prime Minister's seat, but that would have involved a little too many logistics. I was not sure we would get back to the debate, so I will do it from this seat here.

We are debating Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, and we are at second reading. I want to talk about the substance of the bill. It is actually, I think, a very good bill, and I will deal with that in a minute.

First, I want to talk about the fact the government is once again rushing this debate through and imposing closure. As I consider its actions, the thought that occurs to me is that, out there in the normal world, there is a saying. It is that “your lack of planning does not equal my crisis,” but this is the House of Commons of Canada. As long as they have the support of the New Democrats, the Liberals can be as disorganized as they want and can create crises for themselves and then impose limits on democracy and open debate in order to rush through crises of their own making.

In the case of the bill, which has now been time allocated, a version of it was introduced as Bill S-5, a government bill in the Senate, in May 2021, but it died on the Order Paper, because the Prime Minister, in his infinite wisdom, decided to call the least necessary election in Canadian history, which resulted in our having exactly the same seat breakdown we had prior to the election. However, it did cause everything on the Order Paper to be wiped off the Order Paper, and when we resumed in the autumn of 2021, a new bill was introduced on the Order Paper, on December 1, 2021, as Bill S-3. Subsequently, that bill was dropped and Bill C-9, the bill we are presently debating, found its way onto the Order Paper on December 16, 2021. It then sat on the Order Paper, undebated, for exactly six months to the day, until June 16, 2022.

The House rises in time for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, which is on the 24th of June. The bill, therefore, had a couple days of time for debate before the House rose. Then, with a whole summer going by, it did not come back until very recently, when we had been here for a month. This makes the point that the reason there is a rush, if there is a rush at all, is that the government has caused a delay. I should point out as well that the purpose of the bill is to make changes to the Judges Act, which was implemented in 1971, so we are talking about changes to something that has been in place for 50 years.

Saying this constitutes the kind of crisis that warrants putting limits on debate is, in my view, simply unreasonable and simply a reflection of the fact that it is now reflexive for the current government to put time limits on all debates on everything.

Now, let me talk about the substance of the bill.

Bill C-9 deals primarily with judges, but as for the provisions it replaces, this new process would also apply to persons other than judges who are appointed under an act of Parliament to hold office under what is known as “good behaviour”. The question of what constitutes “good behaviour” is a matter that needs to be updated from time to time, particularly in the world of the law and the actions of judges, because if something goes wrong in the court system and if judges or courts act inappropriately, we say that the law is brought into disrepute. Bringing the law into disrepute is the worst thing a judge can do. What constitutes “disrepute” does change over time as we get greater sensitivity, for example, to gender issues, which lie at the heart of the present piece of legislation, or to concerns relating to the ability of people who face various forms of disabilities to communicate with the courts and so on.

Standards within society do change. I think they usually improve, and it is reasonable to update this from time to time.

Right now, the way it works is that, should a federally appointed judge be found to be potentially in breach of their responsibilities, the issue is sent to the Canadian Judicial Council for review. The bill would establish a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct, allegations that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office, and would make changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice.

The bill would specifically modify the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office and another for offences that could warrant other sanctions, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands.

Currently, if misconduct is less serious, a single member of the Canadian Judicial Council holds the initial review and may negotiate with a judge for remedy. I should mention as well that the Canadian Judicial Council was set up under the existing law. It dates back to 1971 and is mandated to promote efficiency and uniformity and improve the quality of judicial services in all superior courts in Canada.

The reasons a judge could be removed from office include infirmity, misconduct, failure in the due execution of judicial office, and the judge's being “in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office”.

Under the new rules, a screening officer could dismiss complaints rather than referring them to the review panel, should they appear frivolous or improper. Certain things, such as a complaint that alleges sexual harassment or discrimination, may not be dismissed. The full screening criteria would be published by the Canadian Judicial Council.

These amendments address the shortcomings of the current process by imposing mandatory sanctions on a judge when a complaint of misconduct is found to be justified but not to be serious enough to warrant removal from office. Again, such sanctions could include counselling, continuing education and reprimands.

In the name of transparency, this legislation would require that the Canadian Judicial Council include the number of complaints received and how they were resolved in its public annual report, something that is a very sound idea.

Since its inception in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council has completed inquiries into eight complaints considered serious enough that they would warrant removal from the bench. Four of them, in fact, did result in recommendations for removal.

Under the new process, as laid out in Bill C-9, the Canadian Judicial Council would continue to preside over the judicial complaints process, which would start with a three-person panel. If the complaint is serious enough that it might warrant removal from the bench, it could be referred to a separate, five-person hearing panel.

As I am out of time, I will just make the observation that, on the whole, this is a good piece of legislation. I am glad it is before us. It could have been before us earlier. I very much welcome the opportunity to vote in favour and send this off to committee, but of course I object to the rush we have been put in to do that.

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.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure to speak in this House on behalf of the citizens of Saskatoon West. Of course, I am rising today to speak to the bill before us, Bill C-9, which makes changes to the way federally appointed judges can be removed for misconduct.

My approach today will be a bit different. I am not a lawyer, so I am not well versed in how law works and all the details and technicalities of it. The best example of that was from yesterday when I was privileged to attend the justice committee. I was listening to witnesses on the subject of Bill C-28, the extreme intoxication law. It is unbelievable that in this country, a person who gets so drunk that they commit a crime that results in great harm to a person can get off for it and there are no consequences. That is exactly what happened. That is why the government brought in Bill C-28 earlier. It was supposedly to fix this.

As a layperson at the committee yesterday, I was listening to all my learned colleagues ask very intelligent questions that were going over my head. I was listening to professors explain the legal technicalities of everything. However, one thing that did come out clear was that it is absolutely wrong that if a person commits a crime, they do not face consequences simply because they were too drunk. Clearly, that needs to be fixed.

The more troubling thing that came across to me was that the government attempted to fix this law in a very hurried way earlier this year. Essentially, it rammed through legislation to supposedly close a loophole. What I heard yesterday was that what the Liberals rammed through in a hurry, without proper consultation and without actually talking to people, has not solved the problem. In fact, it may have made it worse. We need to be very careful in the House when we propose solutions and ram them through the House without proper due diligence, because we can actually make things worse. That was the main thing I took away from yesterday.

I also want to note another piece of legislation going through the House right now. It is Bill S-4. It amends the process for peace officers to apply for and obtain a warrant using telecommunications rather than appearing in person. It expands the abilities for accused and offenders to appear remotely by audio conference and video conference. It also allows prospective jurors in a jury selection process to appear by video conference.

This is a bill that came about because of COVID. There were some changes needed in our system to accommodate more remote appearances, as members can see. What I find interesting is that these changes were due to the COVID epidemic we have, which started two years ago. It has taken two years for the Liberal government to get this to second reading in this House.

I find it odd that on one hand, some legislation gets rammed through almost instantaneously, like Bill C-28, while in the case of Bill S-4, it lollygags along for a while. Maybe COVID will be in the rear-view mirror when it finally gets passed. I find it quite rich when the government talks about those on the Conservative side obstructing things, when we are trying to do the proper due diligence and trying to make sure that we do not get bad laws.

This brings me to Bill C-9. This bill was originally introduced as a Senate bill, Bill S-5, in 2021. The bill modifies the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office and another for offences that would warrant other sanctions, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Currently, if the misconduct is less serious, one Canadian Judicial Council member who conducts the initial review may negotiate with the judge for an appropriate remedy.

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.

Also, a screening officer can dismiss complaints rather than referring them to the review panel should they seem frivolous or improper.

Federal judges are appointed for life, and it is absolutely critical that they are free of political inference. It is important that we have mechanisms in place to deal with them and remove them from office if that extreme point is necessary. Parliament sets laws, though, and judges need to respect the will of Parliament. A good example is the mandatory minimum sentences that the previous Conservative government brought in.

Any violent criminal, regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation, should be treated as equal. The offender should face a jury of their peers and if convicted should get the appropriate punishment. Prison time will keep that person off the streets so they cannot engage in further criminal activity.

Mental health issues, as well as drug and alcohol abuse, need to be addressed and monitored by trained personnel. Therapy and 12-step programs that are offered in prisons must be made mandatory for prisoners. Under house arrest, there is no way to ensure that these offenders get the help they need.

We also need to consider victim safety when we are sentencing offenders. A sad but real truth is that violent crime is often committed within a family. It can be spousal abuse, sexual exploitation of a child, custodial kidnapping or robbery for the purposes of illicit substances. The people in closest proximity are always the most accessible victims. If a judge is required to sentence a spousal abuser to live at home rather than go to prison, what happens to the abused spouse and children? Do they flee to a crisis centre, or will they will get revictimized?

I want to talk a bit about Saskatoon and my riding of Saskatoon West. It is an awesome and beautiful place to live and work. My wife and I call it home. For years before I became a member of Parliament, I was a home builder. I built new homes for families moving into the riding.

First as a candidate and now as an MP, I can say that I have knocked on almost every door in Saskatoon West. As I have walked through those neighbourhoods, I have seen some of the areas of highest crime. In the past year, there have been 389 cases of reported sexual violations in Saskatoon, 2,303 reported cases of assault, 65 reported cases of kidnapping and abduction and 759 cases of violation under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Saskatoon is well above the national crime severity index of 73.4 in Canada's largest cities and has a crime severity index of 118, and it was ranked fourth behind Lethbridge, Winnipeg and Kelowna in 2020. Much of this crime is in the areas right around my constituency office. My constituency office is on the convergence of these neighbourhoods, and according to the Saskatoon Police Service, it is in the highest crime area of Saskatoon. As a result, we have to be very diligent in our office. We have gotten to know many of the people who live in the neighbourhood. They frequent our office and frequent the area by our office, and we have developed relationships with them.

My staff have a security door and a buzzer system in place to screen people before they come into the office. Still, my office has been broken into and I have had my House of Commons computer stolen. An employee of mine had the window on his car broken just because somebody wanted a few quarters that were sitting in there. A lot of this is because of addicts. We have a lot of addiction issues that drive many of the crime problems we have.

This is something that I agree with the government on. The approach on how to fix it, though, is where we differ. I believe in the miracles of alcohol and drug treatment through 12-step programs and abstention. The NDP-Liberals believe in what is called harm reduction.

What I think needs to happen is that addicts need to be treated with love and compassion, which is offered through 12-step programs. These programs offer alcoholics and addicts a way to get clean and help others get clean at no cost to the individual or taxpayer. Unfortunately, there are two things that the government does not like. First, these are programs of spirituality. They require the addict to “turn their will and lives over to the care of God”. Second, as I explained, this does not require big government intervention. These programs deliver miracles; I know that for a fact. I know people who have been through them and care about them.

As I wrap up, I just want to say that there are so many areas that we need to be working on in this House to improve our criminal justice system. Bill C-9 is a good step forward. We need to make sure that our judges are independent and that they are worthy of the positions they hold.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to this piece of legislation.

In my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, the impacts of crime and increasing crime rates are things that I have heard more and more about from my constituents. According to a release from Statistics Canada earlier this year, the Kelowna census metropolitan area, the CMA, now has the highest crime rate in Canada, with 27,147 Criminal Code violations in the region in the 2021 report.

While the crime severity index, the CSI, is 73.7 across Canada, according to Statistics Canada, in the Kelowna CMA, it is significantly higher, at 122.3 in our region. It is the topic of discussion I hear from constituents in meetings, through emails, at coffee shops and on the streets, and it was one of the most important issues discussed during our municipal election, which just ended a few weeks ago, with different solutions discussed on how to best solve the issue.

One of the problems that arises from this is the revolving door we see in our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, too often we see individuals go through a catch-and-release system, where they do not serve their time and also do not receive the help they need to help reduce the chances of them reoffending, including addiction or mental health treatment. These are all areas where we need to see improvement in our system, on top of Bill C-9.

Unfortunately, in the conversations I have had in my community, there needs to be improvement in public confidence in our justice system and there has not been much evidence that the Liberal government has helped to uphold this. This is yet again another example of a bill which could have been in place almost a year ago if it were not for the Liberal government's decision to hold an unnecessary snap election last fall.

The previous iteration of this bill was Bill S-5 from the 43rd Parliament. It would have been debated, studied and perhaps adopted by now if all members of the House were to have moved it forward. Instead, here we are again, starting debate on this bill from the beginning, over a year since the last version was introduced, because of an unnecessary, costly election. Just as a reminder, ash was falling from the sky in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country when the Prime Minister called the snap election.

There are many examples of legislation being worked on in the last Parliament, but due to the snap election, everything was cancelled and had to start over again. The committee I sit on is now looking at a Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, which was also first introduced over a year ago and then died on the Order Paper because of the snap election last fall. Here is another example of how we really have to look at what the government's priorities are. A lot of its priorities are political rather than moving forward good legislation that we need in this country.

Conservatives are always happy to work for reforms in our judiciary. Public faith in our system is what guarantees our society's commitment to due process under law. No one spoke more eloquently on this than former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose when she introduced her final piece of legislation in 2017, the just act. That bill proposed judicial accountability through sexual assault law training.

As a strong voice for women and sexual assault survivors, Ms. Ambrose recognized that far too often our justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault. Sexual assault survivors need to know that those hearing their cases have the training, background and context to give them a fair trial and better ensure that sexual assault survivors do not hesitate to come forward. We, unfortunately, still need a judicial system that we can trust and that will be fair, a system that really focuses on victims.

More work needs to be done to ensure judges understand the laws surrounding this consent. More tools need to be provided to judges to provide fair, compassionate sentences that will see offenders rehabilitated.

My own private member's bill legislation, Bill C-283, would provide such a tool in reforming the sentencing process for offenders suffering from drug addiction and mental health challenges. My legislation would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to support a two-stream sentencing process. While both would have the same sentence time, certain convicted individuals who demonstrate a pattern of problematic substance use and meet certain parameters at the time of sentencing could have the judge offer them the choice to be sentenced to participate in a mental health assessment and addiction treatment inside a federal penitentiary while they serve out their sentence.

Through this sentencing process, offenders would still receive meaningful consequences for their actions, but they would also receive curative treatment leading to a path of reducing the risk of reoffending. In other words, it would end the revolving door. I have actually called my private member's bill the “end the revolving door act”. My bill has the support of many stakeholders who work in addiction treatment and in the criminal justice system, and it also has support across some party lines in this place. I am thankful to say we had our first debate on it, and it will be coming forth again.

It is too important of an opportunity to miss out on, just like this bill we have here today. Some victims have said they have lost faith in the judicial system completely. It was not too long ago that victims, especially women, were blamed for sexual assault. Before laws were put into place improving the process, it was common for judges to factor in things such as the length of a woman's skirt or whether she had a past relationship with the perpetrator when determining if something was criminal. There needs to be more accountability in the judiciary. Legislation that involves our judicial system is really important.

Unfortunately, we know violent crime is up across Canada. It is up 32% since the government took office. One has to wonder how some of these soft-on-crime policies the government has can impact Canadians' faith in their justice system, as well as public safety.

We also need to remember the position of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime has repeatedly been left vacant by the government for many months at a time. Most recently, it was left vacant for almost a year. These are things that are really important when we are looking at our entire judicial system and how it functions, and we need to focus on these types of issues no only so the public has confidence, but also so the public is best served in all of these different areas. It is also really important that, at the core of everything, we keep victims in mind and that we are always standing up for the victims of crime, which is something the Conservatives absolutely do. It is always something we are considering and focusing on.

In closing, if the Liberal government really were concerned about the issue we are debating here today, Bill C-9, it would have not called a snap election last year. This would have been already in place. It is something that already would have been enacted.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

This is an important bill, and the Bloc Québécois will support it because it seems that some communities are seeing the rise of a kind of self-policing ecosystem. We must legislate in response.

A year or two ago, I moved a motion to establish an independent body to handle complaints in sport following complaints by female Swimming Canada team members. There have also been complaints by young athletes in Ontario and allegations of sexual violence.

Sport is a self-regulating system. Sometimes it works; sometimes it does not. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of creating an independent body to handle complaints in the justice system as proposed in Bill C‑9.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, and he brought up a really great point that I would love to learn more about.

We just had a municipal election in my riding, and the number one concern was the rise of crime and the statistics that the same small number of people were responsible for the majority of crime, which has to do with bail reform. It is this “rinse and repeat” of people who are committing crimes and then re-released. They are committing the majority of crimes, but they are let out on bail. How important is bail reform versus Bill C-9?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have the Canadian Judicial Council, and I believe they had a semi-annual meeting take place in Alberta. There was a concern as to why the legislation was not passing through. The government has a fairly robust legislative agenda. We have attempted to get Bill C-9 through, ultimately having to go to time allocation to get it through second reading. It still needs to go through the committee stage, not to mention the report and third reading stages.

Could the member provide her thoughts on the need for the passage of the legislation? Does she believe that the legislation should pass this year, or would the Conservative Party rather see it pass in 2023?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincerest pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

As someone who has dedicated my life before politics to upholding Canada's justice system and representing those who have been victimized, I will begin these remarks by expressing the necessity for our justice system to be transparent.

This bill seeks to improve on the current judicial complaints process. More than six years ago, in 2016, the Liberal government began the consultations on reforming the complaints process for judges. I question the government's priorities at this time, once again, that these reforms are only now coming to the floor after being introduced some six years ago.

I am glad to see that this legislation has finally come forward. I believe that, with proper amendments at committee, it will make the complaints process inherent in this bill much stronger.

The credibility of Canadian democracy and its institutions have been shaken over the last few years. This is especially so since the onset of COVID and profound encroachment that the government has had on the lives of its citizens at almost every turn.

I have been deeply concerned about the declining state of our institutions and of our democracy. I am concerned about the erosion of Canadian institutions, and I am concerned that this happened over the course of the Liberal administration. We have seen Canadians lose confidence and trust in their government, in health care authorities, in law enforcement and in the media.

Canada's justice system has also been tested greatly. During this time, its independence, its impartiality, its access and its fairness have all been brought into question. I know our system is not perfect. There are many issues that need to be addressed. We must ensure that our legal system maintains the trust of Canadians, and that is part of my job as a legislator.

We are fortunate that, despite the Liberal government's many blunders, there is still some confidence in our system. Sadly, we see that on one hand, the government is attempting to improve the rigour of the system by strengthening the judicial complaints process. On the other hand, it is undermining victims of crime by removing things like mandatory minimum sentences for the most violent offences.

It is imperative that we stand on guard and ensure that the pillars of our democracy are upheld. It is imperative that we always look for ways to fix the weaknesses, to find the loopholes and to strengthen the mechanisms that build trust, accountability and transparency in our justice system.

There are weaknesses in our justice system and some of them have been exacerbated by the Liberal government. This long overdue bill is a step in the right direction. This bill highlights the need to fix the weaknesses in our justice system and to also strengthen the checks and balances around how central players of our justice system, like judges, are held to account when an allegation of misconduct arises.

What would this bill do? As I mentioned, Bill C-9 proposes changes to the Judges Act to strengthen the judicial complaints process, which was first established 50 years ago. The Judges Act regulates judges in a number of ways. It empowers the Canadian Judicial Council, the CJC, to investigate public complaints. Judges can also be investigated on a referral from an Attorney General of Canada or a provincial attorney general with respect to any conduct of federally appointed judges.

The Canadian Judicial Council has 41 members, including all chief justices and associate chief justices. Under the new process proposed in this bill, there are four reasons that judges may be removed. These include infirmity, misconduct, failure in the due execution of judicial office or the judge is in a position that a reasonable and fair-minded individual, an informed observer, would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.

The bill specifically states that a federally appointed judge may be removed from office if:

the judge’s continuation in office would undermine public confidence in the impartiality, integrity or independence of the judge or of their office to such an extent that it would render the judge incapable of executing the functions of judicial office:

I would now like to turn to the topic of fixing the system.

The Canadian Judicial Council has for years publicly lamented the fact that the current system is often “enormously time-consuming, expensive and taxing on our federal courts.” It has called for legislative reforms that are necessary to “maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice”, which is the crux of the matter. For that, there must be a deep trust and confidence not only in the system, but in the administrators of the system, the judges who are counted on to dispense fair and impartial decisions based on evidence and in accordance with law, and who would administrate and execute those duties with the utmost confidence in the system.

The only way that public confidence is maintained is by ensuring there is a robust process by which judges are held to account. If people lose confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, then the whole system unravels.

I can tell members that, as a trial lawyer and someone who has owned my own practice, I had confidence appearing before judges. I knew they were qualified, would make sound decisions and were committed to the rule of law. However, over the past two years I have been approached by many individuals who are concerned about our system. They have asked me things like how a judge who ran for the Liberal Party could sit and preside over a bail hearing of somebody in the convoy who was charged under the Emergencies Act. These questions bring our administration of justice into disrepute and highlight the need to ensure that judges are not in a conflict.

Our system is not perfect, but it aspires to apply the scales of justice equally to all of us. It is logical to insist that judges be held to a higher standard than the average person precisely because of the office they hold.

In closing, I will highlight the fact that I am commending the government on getting this legislation to the floor. I believe that if this legislation is put before committee we could really hammer out some of the sections that need to be strengthened.

The House resumed from October 21 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.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

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

Bill C-9—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

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

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

Bill C-9—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

Judges Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we live in an era of mistrust and distrust, which is at the same time sad and disturbing. It is sad because Canadians would like Canada to be a place where we trust each other. It is disturbing because the erosion of trust in our society causes friction and discord. We have to wonder where it will end, and whether we can continue to function as a society if we do not have any trust or respect for each other.

As a Conservative, I find it easy to mistrust the Liberal Party. It has a track record of actions and politics that I think are detrimental to Canadian society. At the same time, I acknowledge that the members opposite, despite their political affiliation, all put their names forward for election because they had, and all still have, a strong desire to serve Canadians.

Last year, in a Maru public opinion poll, members of Parliament ranked at almost the very bottom of the list when it came to respect for their profession. We can take little pleasure in being more respected by Canadians than owners of social media platforms or car salespeople and advertising professionals. The lack of respect for politicians is a sign of the times, but I think honest reflection would be that all too often the practitioners of politics have behaved in a way that loses them the respect of the people they serve. Once again, I find that sad.

I bring up the matter of trust because that is the purpose of the legislation we are debating today. In the poll I referred to earlier, firefighters, nurses, doctors and farmers were all high on the list. Judges were in the middle of the pack. Judges command the respect of the majority of Canadians, but perhaps not as much as they used to.

Bill C-9, with its amendments to the Judges Act, is an attempt to strengthen an integral component of our Canadian system of justice. This bill would amend 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 it makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the minister of justice.

As with the provisions it replaces, this new process also applies to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an Act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour. Bill C-9 modifies the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office, and another for offences that would warrant other sanctions, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. It seems to me that there is a benefit to outlining this process.

The bill also states the reasons a judge could be removed from office, including infirmity and misconduct. I am looking forward to when this legislation goes to the justice committee to be examined in greater detail.

As well, I would like to hear the opinion of Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, the new federal ombudsman for victims of crime on frustrations victims have had with the judicial review process. I wish to congratulate Dr. Roebuck on his new position, which he takes up this coming Monday.

It is a pity though that the Liberals took more than a year to fill such an important position. A cynic might suggest they do not think the rights of victims are a priority. I am not a cynic. I know the Liberals do care about the victims of crime. Perhaps the delay in finding a new ombudsman for the victims of crime was because so many government resources were devoted to the ArriveCAN app that no-one remembered to put up the job posting.

I think it is fair to say that Bill C-9 is about increasing trust in an age of mistrust. I do not want to live in a society where the very institutions of democracy are threatened because they have lost the trust of the people. Canadian judges already enjoy a high level of trust. However, as I noted earlier, they do not top the list. If this legislation would indeed help increase the public's trust in the judiciary, then it is worthy of our support.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his comments on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act.

The member gave some heart-wrenching stories about people who feel that they were not treated fairly by our justice system. However, a very important principle in Canadian justice is the independence of our judges and our justice system. Does Bill C-9 find the right balance there?

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay. Today I am particularly thinking about the Cree communities in upper James Bay, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Peawanuck, Kashechewan, Moosonee and Moose Factory, plus the people who have been spread across Canada, all of whom connect back to a horrific institution called St. Anne's residential school.

It is important, as we talk about the act to amend the Judges Act to reflect on one of the darker decisions of the Supreme Court, its refusal to look at the miscarriage of justice that was committed against the children at St. Anne's, giving no reason or explanation. When we talk about amending the Judges Act, I think of a great parliamentarian, Rona Ambrose, who spoke up about the need for judges to get basic and legal education in dealing with sexual assault, because we have seen a number of really bad decisions, which have been referenced here. However, it is also important that our judiciary understands the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the obligations of Canada, and that includes the courts, to address issues in terms of the equity and rights of indigenous peoples.

If we look at the cases of St. Anne's residential school, it is clear that any indigenous person looking at this would wonder how it is possible to get justice in Canada. It is not a complex issue. I will talk about a really powerful woman, Evelyn Korkmaz, who suffered horrific sexual violence as a child at St. Anne's, and the collusion of the Grey Nuns, who covered it up.

When she went to the hearings to tell her story, the first thing the adjudicator told her was that he was a proud member of the Knights of Columbus. They were there to adjudicate crimes against the Catholic Church and the first thing she was told by the adjudicator was that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus. Then he told her he knew the nuns of St. Anne's, that he knew that order and that they were good women. She said she knew right then that she was not going to be believed.

In any other court process, that case would have been thrown out, but not in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. One of the reasons the adjudicator did not believe Evelyn Korkmaz's story of the horrific sexual violence was that the other defendant in the case, Canada, had the legal obligation in the hearings to prepare the evidence. The adjudicator looked at the evidence supplied by the Department of Justice Canada and it said one line: that there were no known incidents of sexual abuse at Fort Albany Indian residential school. What was not told to the adjudicator was that the justice department had 10,000 pages of police testimony and witness names of rape, torture, violence and forced abortions on children in that evil institution.

I think of this man who goes by the name of H-15019. He suffered horrific sexual violence. He went into the hearings to expose Father Lavoie and the justice department lawyers said he was not believable because Father Lavoie was not in the institution when the man claimed he was. As proof, they presented a two-page person-of-interest report, which was their legal obligation, on all the known potential perpetrators. A two-page person-of-interest report said Father Lavoie was not there. What the justice department was sitting on were 2,472 pages on a sick evil man who, through four decades, raped multiple generations of children.

The case of H-15019 was thrown out, and when they tried to have his case reopened, the justice department and the federal government forced this case to the B.C. superior court, even though this happened in Ontario. Why would they do that? They did that because they knew that the survivors did not have the money to go to the B.C. superior court. How could anyone claim that this was a just process? What happened in that case was that, after the justice department decided to suppress the evidence, it shut the hearings down and denied justice. This is not a very complex issue.

Multiple legal battles went on for 10 years and, finally, Parliament called on the government to settle with the St. Anne's survivors. The former minister sent, on March 18, 2021, a request to have the cases of St. Anne's reviewed. We thought, finally, there would be justice. That is all the survivors wanted. They wanted to review what had happened with the suppression of evidence.

However, if we read the report, the request for direction sent by the federal government, it did not ask the courts to review this to get justice for children whose rape and torture had been suppressed. It did this because it said that people speaking up about St. Anne's was making the government look bad. It is right there in its request for direction. Do we know who it blamed for making the government look bad? It blamed former senator Murray Sinclair, because he said that there cannot be reconciliation without justice for St. Anne's, as well as Dr. Pamela Palmater, who raised issues about what happened at St. Anne's.

Edmund Metatawabin, the survivor of the abuse, who speaks for the survivors, his name is in the government request for directions, saying that he is making the government look bad for the abuse that he suffered. Interestingly, of course, I am in there for about 30-some pages, but I do not mind that.

However, Osgoode law professor Jennifer Leitch was named by the government as making them look bad because she wrote, “The government’s non-disclosure raises significant concerns about the scope of the information available to the adjudicators; the claimants’ abilities to establish abuse allegations and the scope of the compensation.” A professor of law said that this is a flawed process.

The instructions given to Justice Pitfield to look at this excluded many of the horrific cases and he was directed that he was not to talk to the survivors. What kind of justice system is that? He examined 427 cases and he came back in his preliminary and he said that 81, at least, had a serious need for re-examination. That is 20% of those cases falsely adjudicated.

However, in the final report, he said, no, it was just 10, student on student, with no blame to clergy, no blame to staff, no blame to government and no involvement with survivors. Of course, the survivors took this to the Supreme Court.

When I talked to the survivors yesterday about the fact that the Supreme Court would not hear their case, they said that they were not surprised because this was a never a fair fight. They went with pro bono lawyers. There were days where they could not afford their own bus fare to get to the hearings, yet Canada spent millions of dollars on lawyers to shut this down. It was never a fair fight.

This is why I refer to this when we are talking about Bill C-9. I am not questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court. I am questioning the lack of understanding of the obligation, in this time, to understand the obligations under truth and reconciliation to say that we have a higher level of justice to attain here.

One of the fundamental arguments of the government was that the survivors were not entitled to procedural fairness. Procedural fairness has been ruled by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. What it meant was that the fact that they did not bother to supply any evidence and they lied in hearings, that was okay, because the survivors were not entitled to the basic principle of procedural fairness. If we look at the evidence that the government brought forward as to why procedural fairness was not a right, they put it under sealing orders so that people could not see it. What is this, Soviet-style justice?

Phil Fontaine, who signed the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, wrote that they would never have signed this agreement if they were giving away fundamental legal rights under this process, which would give them fewer rights than they would get in court. Of course, Canada ridiculed Mr. Fontaine's response and said that this issue of procedural fairness was completely irrelevant.

It is completely relevant.

On this day, the day after the Supreme Court has shrugged and said that, whatever happened at St. Anne's, whatever happened with judges who misread the reports because they were lied to by the justice department, whatever is said about perpetrators of horrific abuse, and we have many of their names, such as Bishop Leguerrier and Arthur Lavoie, those men got away, and the survivors are still living with injustice. They deserve better in this country.

They never asked for huge compensation. They asked the government to sit down and recognize that what was done to them was one of the most horrific, evil acts ever committed against innocent children. Those innocent children have had their legal rights undermined time and time again by a system that wanted to shut this process down.

If we are talking about amending the Judges Act, we have to look at what happened at St. Anne's and why there was no understanding on the judge's part of the need to hold this government and the justice department of Canada to account.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier in the discussion on Bill C-9, there was emphasis on the importance of judicial independence for our judges.

I want to focus on another important principle, and that is the principle that judges should be aware of community values. Canadians were shocked earlier this year when the Supreme Court of Canada actually let a person off the hook who had assaulted somebody because he was too drunk to know what he was doing at the time. They used the defence of extreme intoxication. People were shocked to hear that. Could the member comment on the importance of judges being aware of community values?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments by my colleague from Winnipeg North when he said we should move forward with Bill C‑9.

One of the things that has surprised me a lot since being elected is the way the government imposes closure on very important bills. It did that last week with Bill C‑31. That being said, I am also surprised by the way the opposition wastes our time sometimes. A few months ago, the Conservatives made us lose an hour to vote on which member would speak. I could not believe that anyone would do such a thing.

Would my colleague agree with banning this type of dilatory move that wastes our time and setting up a committee to clean up these unnecessary things? What does my colleague think?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing that this bill has been studied in the Senate already, having been introduced there back in May 2020. When I reviewed the debate in the House from June, parliamentarians, at the time, agreed there was fairly unanimous support for the substance of the legislation, and there was not significant or contentious subject matter.

From our conversations today, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is the third Conservative speaker to speak for 20 minutes, rather than a shorter 10-minute intervention, with speakers given some amount of latitude in each case, as is appropriate. It gives me an indication that all other parties are fairly satisfied to have this round of debate on Bill C-9 come to a close and move onto other pieces of legislation of interest to Canadians.

My interest, for example, would be to see legislation addressing the cost of housing, the climate crisis and the poisoned drug supply, just to name a few. All of which have a substantial impact on my neighbours.

I would be interested in hearing further reflections from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on other elements he feels more debate is required on this legislation before study follows at committee after a second reading.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member will not be surprised by my question. Here we have Bill C-9, a bill for which no doubt there is a great anticipation. I made reference to the council at its semi-annual meeting felt discouraged that it has not passed to date. Whether in respect to the pandemic or inflation, we have a heavy legislative agenda. That means that for the legislation that everyone is supportive of, it would be helpful if we could pass that in a timely fashion.

Does he not agree that, given that peers and all political entities in the House are supporting the legislation and allowing it to go to committee, which would not prevent additional debate as there is still third reading, and a lot of debate takes place at committee stage, when would he like to see the bill go to committee?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C‑9, right after my friend, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I want to begin by entering this debate midstream and responding to some of the comments that I was hearing in the questions and comments period immediately prior to my speech, before shifting into some of the other comments I want to make specifically about this legislation.

A favourite subject of the member for Winnipeg North is legislative timing and the processes of the House, and I must confess that it is a subject I enjoy engaging in dialogue about as well. However, I think he is always selective in his presentation of the story when it comes to the timing or process of legislation. There are a number of different aspects to that. In particular, he is essentially telling my colleague that we should not be debating this bill because he wants the bill to move forward on a certain timeline.

It is important for everybody listening to know that it is the sole prerogative of the government to schedule the legislation it is moving forward for debate in the time slots we have for presenting it, which is the vast majority of the parliamentary calender. The government needs to set aside some time for opposition days, where opposition parties put forward motions, and there is the possibility for members to move concurrence of committee reports. However, those are quite constrained given the time that those debates take. Of course, there is also Private Members' Business.

There are therefore some opportunities outside of government for legislation, policy or motions to be put forward for debate in the House, but the vast majority of the time is available to the government to schedule at their sole discretion. It is the government that makes decisions about which bills are priorities and which bills to put forward. If it wants a bill to advance, then I think it has an obligation to schedule it for enough days of debate so that debate can be brought to a conclusion. That principle applies for Bill C-9, as it does for any other bill.

What we often see the government do is fail to prioritize a bill within its own allocation of time. Then it acts mystified about the fact that it is not moving based on some artificial timeline that it has set. We saw this with Bill C-22, where the government scheduled it for one day of debate, did not schedule it for weeks afterwards and then asked why the bill was not moving forward. Of course, debate concluded the next time it was scheduled, but it would have moved forward faster if the government had chosen to prioritize it.

I detect the same string of argumentation again here from my friend from Winnipeg North. He is keen to see Bill C-9 move forward, apparently, but not keen enough to have successfully lobbied his House leader to schedule this bill and put it forward on a larger number of days. Friday is a very short day relative to the time we get.

I wanted to spend a few minutes on that particular point because I know it comes up again and again, and to pre-empt, in a sense, what I suspect will be a question from my friend from Winnipeg North, although I will say that I did appreciate him tabling a petition relating to Bill S-223 on organ harvesting. I hope that is a bill the foreign affairs committee will prioritize for deliberation and move forward, because as members know, it has been a long time.

Having responded to that, I want to add my voice to the comments by my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot pertaining to the larger issues of trust in our institutions and independence. We are talking today, in the context of Bill C-9, about certain circumstances, events and comments that have impacted trust and faith in the judiciary, and I think we need to affirm the importance of institutions.

We want to see that our institutions are trusted, but we also want our institutions to be worthy of that trust. Sometimes what we hear from some members is a call to trust institutions without being willing to note when there have been significant problems in the conduct of individuals in those institutions. I think the issue raised by the opposition House leader today with respect to interference by the government in a criminal case is another important issue in the ongoing conversation about trust in our institutions and the actions of government. Acts of interference by the government certainly do have an impact on how our institutions are perceived and the degree to which they are trusted. These matters of interference and the independence of institutions are important in their own right, but they are also important in terms of how they contribute to the level of trust that Canadians can reasonably have, in light of the facts, in the institutions that are so critical for holding our public life together.

Bill C-9, the piece of legislation we are debating today, is, on the face of it, a relatively technical piece of legislation, although as members know, every technical piece of legislation has interesting philosophical issues and questions underneath it. The legislation is about making changes to the mechanisms or processes that are in place around judicial discipline, or the discipline of judges. I will just read the summary. It states:

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.

It creates mechanisms by which individuals who have been appointed to hold office, pending “good behaviour”, could be considered not to have fulfilled the standards required around good behaviour and could therefore be removed from office and/or face other mechanisms of discipline. I think the details and mechanics of these mechanisms are extremely important, and are things that will be important not only for the House to consider but for committee to go into further.

After reading through the legislation, one thing I found quite interesting was the presence of a review panel of lay people who, by design, cannot have any legal background. It is always interesting to me when there is this balance where, on the one hand, there are aspects of our judicial system where we demand a certain level of expertise, and then on the other hand, there are certain places where, I think for good, understandable reasons, we demand a lack of expertise formally and in practice as a means of saying that we want some people involved in the decision-making who are non-experts.

I recall a quotation from former British prime minister Clement Attlee, who talked about how he wanted his ministers not to be experts on the subjects they were ministers of. I know that is a bit of a parenthetical question, but it is one that has been debated over the years regarding various kinds of appointments.

In any event, this legislation includes a specific, designated role in the termination process for lay people. I want to note as well the justifications by which a judge could be removed from office. Proposed section 80 says, “For the purposes of this Division, the removal from office of a judge is justified only” for these reasons:

(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.

These are, in some ways, notionally objective criteria, but naturally there is going to be some level of subjectivity in how they will be applied.

There is a history to the consideration of this issue, and there is a history to the discussion of judicial misconduct that touches on some very important and sensitive issues. In my time as a member of Parliament, there has been a fair bit of discussion specifically around the issue of comments by judges dealing with cases of sexual assault. There was a judge who made some very offensive and outrageous comments in the context of a sexual assault trial that he was presiding over. That provoked a lot of conversation about the reality that someone is not rendered all-knowing and all-virtuous simply by the fact that they have received a judicial appointment, and that maybe there is a legitimate place for saying that someone, by their comments or lack of understanding certain things, is no longer fit to be a judge.

How do we preserve the principle of judicial independence, the principle that judges should be making decisions based on the facts of a case and the law rather than making decisions as democratic legislators do, based on other factors, including public opinion? How do we preserve that principle of judicial independence and also say that there are certain societal norms and values that we would like to see reflected in the conduct and statements of judges? There is a point at which a person can go beyond the pale and simply no longer be suited to that position as a function of some of their comments.

There have been a number of ways of getting at this issue. One was from former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, who put forward a private member's bill, in 2016 or the first half of the 42nd Parliament, that sought to promote judicial education around sexual assault. That is one way of dealing with comments like this: We can say that maybe it is simply about a lack of knowledge and education.

That bill did not pass in Parliament, but a similar bill was put forward and was passed in the 43rd Parliament. As I said at the time, I think we need to recognize the importance of education around these issues, but also recognize that education is not always the full solution. I think there is a lot of data to suggest that when we mandate certain kinds of training courses, for some people it is a meaningful opportunity for them to learn about the matter at hand, but for other people it is just a matter of checking the boxes that are required. Whether it is a meaningful engagement exercise or a box-checking exercise depends somewhat on the way the material is presented, but a lot of it will depend simply on the disposition of the individual and how willing the individual is to substantively engage with the matter at play.

My conclusion is that the proposal from Rona Ambrose about judicial education was very important and worthwhile, but it does not solve the whole problem of either judicial misconduct or potential issues where a judge is making comments in the context of a trial that are very offensive to the victim and to society at large.

That is some of the history of the issue, but there are also other potential issues. This is not just about comments judges make in trials; it could also be about concerns over personal corruption and other things that could be at play in the context of judicial discipline. This is a piece of legislation that, coming out of that long-running public discussion, seeks to make refinements to the processes around judicial discipline.

One thing I would like to note about this discussion is that it presumes the personal fallibility of judges. Maybe it should be fairly obvious, but with the way some of our Canadian debates have proceeded, maybe it is not so obvious that judges are human beings. They have the potential to develop great expertise, great virtue and commitment to their work.

Judges also, like any other human beings, have the potential for grave errors in reasoning, as well as moral errors of various kinds, including misconduct or corruption. They are human beings, are fallible and can make mistakes in various kinds of situations or ways. The heavy criticism of former justice Robin Camp, some of the subsequent discourse and arguments for judicial education the government has supported, and the very existence of this legislation, affirm the reality of judicial fallibility. However, at other times when we are having debates about criminal justice issues and how we respond to particular kinds of charter litigation, the discourse in the House seems to presume something else, which is the infallibility of judges.

It was very striking to me, when I was first elected as a member of Parliament, that we were, on the one hand, dealing with this whole question of former justice Robin Camp and the issues around judicial fallibility, but on the other hand we had members making comments about at the time Bill C-14, which followed the Carter decision of the Supreme Court, where it was repeated that this was a unanimous court decision. Therefore, our goal as a legislature should simply be to interpret the wisdom we were given from this wise council's vision.

I have a great deal of respect for the role the Supreme Court plays in our democracy, but I also think it is legitimate to disagree with decisions that the courts have made. Part of the process of democratic deliberation is recognizing that, if judges can be personally fallible regarding their own conduct, fallible in the sense of making inappropriate comments in a sexual assault case, then they can also be fallible in there determinations about the appropriate sentence and balance of rights that emerge from a series of arguments about how to interpret given facts in light of the charter.

The fact there is diversity in courts of dissent underlines the potential fallibility of judges, and I think we should, in our Canadian democratic discourse, seek to affirm the importance of judicial independence, and the respect that is owed to that institution, while also recognizing that judges make all kinds of mistakes and that Parliament has a role to deliberate about substantive questions of justice and human dignity and to engage in a constructive and healthy back and forth when it comes to decisions, legislation and how we respond to that.

I could cite other cases that brings this issue to the fore, but I see that I am up against my time to some extent. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the issues around Bill C-9, to share a bit of the history, and to underline that, for me, one of the lessons coming out of this is to let us acknowledge that judges are human beings. They have an important job to do, but it is legitimate to disagree with and debate the determinations that are made, and to use constitutional tools that affirm the rights and the role of the legislature when it comes to establishing and advancing common values that are determined through democratic deliberation.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, like many in this House and I hope many from all parties in this House, am disappointed and disgusted that the evidence that has been found in the Mass Casualty Commission has demonstrated somebody was lying. As we talk about Bill C-9, which has to do with restoring some confidence in our judicial process, it is absolutely fundamental that this place acknowledge that it is not acceptable for there to be that judicial interference.

What is worse is that this is not the first time the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been caught doing so. We can think back to a number of examples that include Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former attorney general and minister of justice, not bending her will to that of the Prime Minister. There are a number of other examples, and most recently, using the largest mass shooting in Canadian history for the Liberals to further their narrow political interests.

Judicial independence is fundamentally important, but so is accountability when it comes to leaders who would put those principles at risk in our democratic system.

I share the concern of my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove that we are seeing something incredibly disturbing. I do not even think disturbing is a strong enough word when it comes to the erosion of trust taking place in our institutions.

We need to all work together in this place, including the Minister of Public Safety, the current and the former. There has to be work done to ensure that trust is restored, because I hear often from constituents who say they simply cannot trust our institutions. They are losing faith, and not just in the Prime Minister. To be honest, I do not think any of my constituents, or certainly not very many, have ever had much trust or faith in the Liberal Party or the Liberal government.

What is most incredibly disappointing is that we are seeing, and I am hearing this from many Canadians, a loss of trust in the very institutions of our nations. We can look at many examples of the Liberal government directly contributing to that, and that has to change.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about the Judges Act, Bill C-9. A very important principle in western democracy is judicial independence, the independence of the criminal justice system. In Canada today we are hearing shocking news that the government is willing to interfere in an independent police investigation.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the importance of judicial independence.

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.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point. There have to be checks and balances in the process to ensure that we are appointing good people to the bench.

Let me take advantage of this opportunity to share not just my concern when it comes to Liberal donors being appointed to the bench and how that seems to be a conflict of interest, but also some of the real challenges when it comes to the erosion of trust in our institutions in general. Many Canadians are not aware that when somebody is granted bail, it does not involve cash bonds anymore. In many cases, when a bond is set, only a fraction is required compared to the consequence if a perpetrator who, for example, has allegedly committed a crime and is charged ends up not showing up in court.

There is a whole host of issues that need to be addressed here, and Bill C-9 addresses one small aspect of them related to a terrible instance. There are so many other things that have to be addressed to restore the trust in our institutions.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Aside from the very specific subject matter of Bill C-9, he talked about a few things that can sometimes contribute to a loss of public trust in our institutions, particularly legal and judicial institutions.

Given that Bill C-9 deals with what happens further downstream, that is, after judges are appointed, I wonder if my colleague could comment on what happens upstream, in other words, how judges are appointed.

Would this not have been a good opportunity to review the judicial appointment system, so we will never again have to talk about the notorious “Liberalist”?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I was sharing, we all have EDAs and campaign teams. Although it is our names on the ballots, there is a huge group of people, and I count almost 200 volunteers over the course of my last three or so years in politics, who have helped fight for the cause. I am so thankful and blessed because of my EDA and campaign team and all those people who have worked so hard to fight for the principles that I am so proud to stand in this place to represent.

When it comes to the reason we are all here, I often joke when I speak with classes in my constituency that there are only three job qualifications to be a member of Parliament in Canada. Just three; that's it. Number one, we have to be Canadian. Number two, we have to be over the age of 18. Number three, we simply have to get more votes than the other guy or gal. That process, that participation in our democratic system that each parliamentarian has, with, at least in the current standing, 338 different paths, different types of individuals, different parties represented, different backgrounds, different experiences and different professions, brings a unique cross-section of Canadians to this place.

I cannot thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot enough for the last three years. I have spoken over 400 times in this place, being up in question period, giving speeches, speaking over 500 times in committee, being part of interparliamentary groups, meeting with delegations and being a part of international trips, representing the people of Battle River—Crowfoot here in Canada and around the world, voting almost 400 times, jointly seconding private members' bills, and all the various ways of communication.

Last night we talked about mental health and being able to break some of the stigma surrounding things like mental illness. There are things like constituency communication, social media outreach, more than a dozen mail-outs and visiting 63 communities. I represent a constituency that is about the same size as the province of Nova Scotia and has about 60 or so self-governing municipalities. I have visited each one of those communities over the last three years, some more than once, and attended hundreds of events, doing dozens of town halls and helping when it comes to the base of what being an elected official is about: helping people and taking thousands of calls, helping with practical issues regarding case work or the Phoenix pay system, helping veterans and members of the military, and helping people with passport issues or immigration or whatever the case may be.

There is so much that goes into what we do in this place. The headlines always grab the big news items of the day, but as I reflect on the last three or so years that I have had the honour of taking my seat in this place, looking back at my experiences, those who helped me get here, my family and the impact this has on them, and those who mentored me, I truly am very blessed and thankful for the opportunity to serve in this place.

I appreciate the latitude given me for a moment to share some thoughts on three years of being able to serve in this place.

To the substance of Bill C-9 before us, I would note that this is the sort of bill that should have been passed a while ago. I know there have been a few questions asked about why Conservatives are speaking to this bill. I am speaking for myself, and I think for many of my colleagues, when I say we like to do our jobs to make sure that we comprehensively look at, evaluate and examine everything that comes forward in this place.

When the government talks about this bill in particular, I believe it was Bill S-5 in the last Parliament, and there is a constitutional intricacy that the government, especially, likes to dismiss or not elaborate on when it blames Conservatives for somehow obstructing the democratic process by doing our jobs. Bill S-5 was something that died on the Order Paper when an unnecessary election was called in the summer of last year.

I could certainly get into the many aspects of that, with our returning to this place with almost an identical makeup, the frustrations that were felt by so many Canadians and the erosion of trust in our institutions. I will expand on that a bit more. I would share with the member for Durham how many of those frustrations manifested themselves over the course of that last campaign, with the selfishness of a Prime Minister who tried to use what seemed to be a few polls bending in his direction, even when he promised to do the exact opposite of what he did.

The reason I bring that up today is not only to highlight the hypocrisy of government members. They seem to want to blame everybody but themselves for some of these things. I suggest they would be best positioned to look in the mirror to truly self-evaluate some of the reasons we find ourselves in those places.

This is a bill that addresses a very practical issue, which is that over the course of the evolution of our legal system we have the need for changes to be made. Specifically, Bill C-9 addresses that there would have to be a review process, even though a judge is and should be a lifetime appointment. Certainly we see the consequences of when politics are injected into the selection of judges and some of the challenges associated with that, but there could be the need for a review. We saw that need in the case that brought this whole conversation forward a number of years ago, when a judge made some very disparaging comments that certainly called into question the integrity of his ability to oversee that specific court case. There has to be a process. There has to be the ability to discipline individuals on the bench.

Of course, we all need to have accountability and integrity checks within each of our professions, whether it be in this place as members of Parliament, in Canada's Senate or in our judicial branch of government. We have created many instances of this with the Ethics Commissioner, the Lobbying Commissioner, reporting requirements and all of those associated things. Bill C-9 is just a practical response to ensure that we address one of the key aspects of where we have seen what I alluded to earlier, which is that erosion of trust in our institutions.

There are many reasons for that erosion of trust, certainly some of which are very political and some of which are very practical. Many of which, I would suggest, need to be unpacked so that we can truly get to the bottom of them. Because this is a justice bill and specifically relates to the Judges Act, I am going to focus on some of my constituents' experiences when it comes to how they perceive the justice system.

I have been asked a number of times by the Minister of Justice and other Liberal members why I do not trust judges. This bill actually speaks to why there has to be firm parliamentary oversight. In the Westminster system. Parliament is supreme, and I am thankful for that. That is one of the things that makes our system of government the best in the world: that Parliament and the voices of the people ultimately have that final say.

One of the comments that is often made to me is that we do not have a justice system anymore, but we have a legal system and that legal system is failing. That is not my perception. That is the perception of many constituents who share with me those feelings and their experiences associated with it.

I mentioned before that there are 338 different paths to get here, but I have no doubt that each and every person in this place will have heard from constituents who have had their own experiences when it comes to the way that the legal system, Canada's justice system, is not serving them well. I am going to highlight a few of those instances from the perspective of being a rural Canadian.

I mentioned in my observations of being in Parliament for three years that I represent a large rural area. My constituency is 53,000 square kilometres of what I would suggest is the most beautiful countryside in the world. When somebody asks me what the area I represent is like, I say it is a lot like cowboy country. It is the beautiful rolling hills and wheat fields as far as the eye can see. The only thing dividing one piece of land and the next is a simple barbed wire fence, and even then sometimes it is hard to find those with how vast the space is. I think about the many people who live there, and although sometimes it is sparsely populated, it would work out to be about two individuals per square kilometre. That is the density of my constituency, approximately.

We have some significant challenges. Specifically when it comes to our justice system, we see how the dynamics associated with rural crime have changed significantly in the last number of years. From both when I was elected in 2019 and also my work being involved in politics in the community prior to that, I have seen the crime severity index increase dramatically.

It is astounding, some of the stories I hear from constituents, members of the community and law enforcement officers who are on the first line. There are crimes that just a few years would never have been thought possible to be committed in a small town of only a few hundred people, yet with the Internet and access to gangs, drugs and all of these associated things, some of the things that happen are astounding. Then, there is the revolving door of the justice system.

Before I get to the revolving door of the justice system, I will share that I was invited to attend a town hall in a small town. It was about 200 people in this community. There were about 100 people who came to the town hall. It was on rural crime, organized by the mayor and council. They had invited their member of Parliament and their MLA, who was not able to make it, but also their local law enforcement, the RCMP.

I got there and, as is often the case, the RCMP had planned to be there but got a call, so they were not able to be there when the town hall started. I listened for probably an hour to story after story, and we were not just talking about hypotheticals. We were talking about real lived experiences and tragic instances where people's homes were broken into and where individuals were terrorized, and after multiple instances of calling the police, somebody would be arrested and taken away, but a few days later they would be back in that same community terrorizing the streets again.

There were dozens and dozens of examples, and there was a lot of frustration there. There was a lot of frustration at lawmakers and there was a lot of frustration at local law enforcement. It was one of the things I endeavoured to highlight during that time, and I was thankful that the RCMP came for the last third of the meeting. I would suggest it was providential that, when I stood up and said, to the room of about a hundred people, to be sure not to blame those men and women in uniform for some of the challenges and that they were working as hard as they possibly could, only a moment later the Mountie who serves the area, in a detachment with only three officers, walked into the town hall.

I was happy to cede the floor to him, and it was amazing. We could see in the eyes of many that they were frustrated, because sometimes it would be a four- or five-hour response time after calling 911. With something like a serious break-in with a firearm, it could be four or five hours before a police officer even got to somebody's door. We are talking about serious stuff here, but that Mountie started to unpack what his days looked like and some of the rules and restrictions he, as a law enforcement and peace officer, was forced to abide by.

I saw after that instance many others like it. I highlight specifically that town hall in the community of Amisk, but there have been many other instances like that, where we see that erosion of trust taking place within specifically, because we are talking about the Judges Act, the legal system in our country.

Therefore, when the Minister of Justice stands up and says something like those who do serious crimes in this country will serve serious time, it is almost laughable. It is laughable I would suggest in a tragic way, because the experience of so many of my constituents speaks to the exact opposite of that.

When I look back as a political observer, although I would have been quite young when there was a change from a past Liberal government to a Conservative government, I know that crime was a big issue. One thing that was interesting is this. The Liberals like to blame Stephen Harper somehow for imposing mandatory minimums. However, some of the mandatory minimums of Bill C-5 that the justice minister blames Harper for have actually been around significantly longer. I believe some of those were put into place by former prime ministers, including Chrétien, Mulroney and even Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Often the demand for mandatory minimums is something that comes from a true frustration from the public. I would suggest that if we are not careful, we will end up seeing that erosion of trust take place to the point where people may end up taking the law into their own hands. I do not think anybody in this place, regardless of party, wants to see that happen. When we see a government focus more on demonizing law-abiding firearms owners than dealing with smuggled guns coming across our border, that is a problem and it is demoralizing for those who have been robbed by a firearm or been the victim of a crime that should involve serious time.

Therefore, when it comes to Bill C-9, we need to do everything we can to ensure that we address some of the erosion of trust within our institutions and, in this case, make sure there is a mechanism to ensure that those on the bench are held to a high account, as Canadians expect us to do.

I believe we should expect those who are appointed as judges to be held to that higher account, and Bill C-9 is part of a practical mechanism to ensure that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place and enter into a discussion on the many important issues facing our constituents, our provinces and of course all Canadians.

If you would permit me just a bit of latitude, it is an honour to not only stand today to debate Bill C-9, and I will get to the substance of that bill in a moment, which is an amendment to the Judges Act, but today represents three years since I and the class of 2019 were elected and had the honour of being able to take our seats in this place. Even as I was reflecting on that this morning, on Google Photos there were memories that came up. Looking back to this day in 2019 with so much appreciation, if you would permit me just a moment of my time to share again a couple of thank yous, these are similar thank yous to when I rose in my maiden speech back in 2019.

On this day, I would like to thank my loving wife Danielle and my three boys. I did not have three at the time, but I do now. I am so thankful for the love and support they have given me. They are on the road right now, going to a funeral of a dear friend who passed away back in my constituency. I would have loved to be able to go with them today, but of course I am here in this place.

I also thank my larger family, my parents, siblings, grandmothers and those who have poured into my life over the last 30-plus years.

I also thank my staff. As I know you and all in this place know, we cannot do what we do unless we have good people. I often joke that the best way to be successful in politics is to hire people who are smarter than us to help us do our job. Certainly, I am so thankful for both my Ottawa office staff and my constituency office staff. I have a great team, and I am so blessed each and every day to be able to not just have them work for me, but to work with them as we serve the people of Battle River—Crowfoot.

Then, of course, there are our EDAs and campaign teams. This is a shared experience, I am sure, with every person in this House. An election does not happen because of the person whose name is on the ballot—

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

Madam Speaker, the first thing that comes across my mind is the Canadian Judicial Council had a semi-annual fall meeting. It was held in the province of Alberta, and what came out from part of that discussion was a sense of disappointment. There was a sense of disappointment that the legislation the member is talking about is still going through the parliamentary process. While always wanting to respect the independence of our courts and Parliament and keeping them separate, as it was hoping to see it speed through maybe a bit faster.

The government agenda is fairly full. There is a lot of stuff out there, so it is not like we are in a position where we can call Bill C-9 every day. It has been a while since it was brought forward, and there is a need to see it pass. Given the member's comments on the bill itself, and all we want to see it go to committee, does the member also agree with me that it is important we see this bill go to committee, and the sooner the better?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-9 would amend the Judges Act, and I know that many of my constituents will be wondering what exactly the act does and what the government is proposing to do.

Over the past few years, I think many of our democratic institutions and civic institutions have come under stress, such as different courts of law, given how the process works. I think what the government is doing here, to its credit, as I will give it credit sometimes, is shoring up an institution, the federal courts in this country, which I think need a little shoring up to ensure that my constituents can continue to have faith in them. The judges would be held accountable, but I note that the bill goes a bit beyond judges and would impact others who are federally regulated.

If we look at the summary of the bill, and a couple of points at the back end of the bill, there are provisions for a new process that would apply to “persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an Act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour.” The bill actually goes a little beyond judges to provide a process to make sure that those people are held accountable for their behaviour while they hold office. Whenever someone does something wrong, rather than forcing them to completely resign, if they have not done something so bad they need to resign, it would allow for their careers to be salvaged through better education, with perhaps a public reprimand or a public apology. I like to think that in public life a little grace given to people is a good thing.

How judges work today has drastically changed, as the judicial council that oversees them was created back in 1971. I was not alive back in 1971. My family was not even in Canada at the time and neither were my parents. I would say that the way judges behaved in communist Poland would fall far short of the expectation of fair behaviour in Canada nowadays. However, a judge's work today includes things like case management, settlement conferences, judicial mediation and frequent interactions with people who want to self-represent, the litigants who do not believe they need the assistance of a lawyer to have proper counsel and to be properly represented before the court.

I will say, as I have said before in the House, that I have not been burdened with a legal education, which allows me an opportunity to see beyond what the law says. I apologize to all the lawyers in the House, those who have joined the bar, but I think those of us without a legal education can perhaps weigh in on the worthiness of certain matters.

Some of the responsibilities that judges have invite further consideration with respect to things like ethical guidance. In the same manner, the digital age, the phenomenon of social media, the importance of professional development for judges and the transition to postjudicial roles all raise ethical issues that were not fully considered 20 years ago. Social media especially, and its implications, apply to all of our jobs, all of our institutions and the behaviour of, for example, large multinational, publicly traded corporations as well. Everybody has a different responsibility when it comes to behaviour online and what we are posting and sharing. Whom we are sharing it with is, I think, equally important.

Judges are expected to be alert to the history, experience and circumstances of Canada's indigenous peoples and to the diversity of cultures and communities that make up this country. It is in this spirit that the judiciary is now actively involved with the wider public, both to enhance public confidence and to expand its own knowledge of the diversity of human experiences in Canada today.

The Canada of 50 years ago, when the council was first set up, is very different from today's Canada. There are many more laws that have been created by Parliament. If we look at the statutes of Canada, there are reams and reams of laws that are joined with regulations, which are even longer. Oftentimes, I find in this place that we defer a lot to the administrative state, and I have complained about this multiple times since the 42nd Parliament. I probably sound curmudgeonly at my age, but I will say that we legislate too much through regulation and allow the cabinet to set regulations. The state therefore gets to decide things, and civil servants in our departments have an incredible amount of leeway to set the rules. I do not know if that is the best we can do for Canadians in the House, and we could amend bills in a better way.

However, Bill C-9 would bring about new changes. There are 41 members on the council, which is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and it is supposed to provide guidance and discipline to judges who fail. By my count, there were about eight cases, and one was being reviewed in Quebec, but I have not been able to catch up on the outcomes.

The proposed changes in Bill C-9 would affect federally appointed judges, who are the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal courts, the provincial and territorial superior trial courts and the provincial and territorial courts of appeal. This would not impact provincial justices in any manner, but it could set, perhaps, an example for them.

At the time this legislation was first proposed, which I think was in the Senate, it was called Bill S-5. That was dropped because an election was called. I will judge harshly the member for Papineau, the Prime Minister, for making that decision, because it was mostly an administrative exercise. It is also about priorities of the government. It kind of showcases what is important to the government and the types of legislation that it elects to have tabled before the House but also moved for debate. I will mention that it is on a Friday that we are debating this particular piece of legislation.

At the time that Bill S-5 was being debated, the position of victims ombudsman was still vacant. I do want to mention that the government finally appointed one. I think it was just a few weeks ago; I have the press release right here. It was Sept 27 when it appointed a federal ombudsman for victims of crime.

I will say that in a previous life, I worked for the Hon. Steven Blaney, who is not a member of Parliament now so I can say his name. He was a great mentor to me at the time. He hired me because my father happened to have been a shipyard worker in communist Poland and was a shipyard worker at the Sorel shipyards near Montreal. Thanks to the Sorel shipyards, he was able to stay in Canada. When the Sorel shipyards went on strike, my father was one of very few workers on the floor who voted against it. He is a contrarian and that is probably why he became a Conservative.

The bill for this ombudsman for victims of crime was one of the pieces of legislation that Steven Blaney worked on, and I worked on it as his legislative assistant at the time, trying to make it work. It is gratifying to see so many years later that the government has filled the position, although it was late and many victims' rights groups were saying that the position needed to be filled right away. There was a federal ombudsman, I believe, for federal offenders, and that position, when it became vacant, was filled immediately the day after it became vacant, again due to priorities. I would look to the Minister of Justice to ask why those were the priorities he set. Perhaps he will rise in the House to correct the record and tell me why that decision was made.

I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do: What will become of the sheep if the wolf is the judge? It is about judicial behaviour and judgment. It sounds way better in Yiddish than it does in English, but no one wants to hear my Yiddish. I think the expectation from judges has changed over the last 50 years. I think it is unfair to judges to say that as soon as they make the smallest of mistakes or transgressions, the only solution is to fire them.

The proposals in the legislation, short of dismissal, are in proposed section 102 of the legislation:

If the review panel does not refer the complaint to the Council under section 101, it may dismiss the complaint or take one or more of the following actions if it considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances:

In a previous life, as I have mentioned in the House a few times now, I used to work for a professional association for human resources. It was a voluntary professional association, and as part of it, I was a staff assistant to the disciplinary committee. We had an excellent chair who used to work for Syncrude. He was an excellent gentleman who really knew how the process should work. I think he had at the time a 25-year career in human resources and labour negotiations. He really knew his stuff.

What I am glad to see in this bill are things as simple as a public expression of concern from a supervisor to an employee so that everybody knows they transgressed but not to the level of being terminated. There is also a public warning and a public or private reprimand. Under proposed paragraph 102(d), we can “order the judge to apologize, either privately or publicly, by whatever means the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances”, and under proposed paragraph 102(e), we can “order the judge to take specific measures, including attending counselling or a continuing education course”. This one is oftentimes what professional associations do, and I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to introduce it into law.

I am going to segue into a previous private member's bill from a former member of Parliament whose name I can say in the House, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I am sure she is happy in her retirement in Calgary.

As I said, that is oftentimes what professional associations do. When there is a shortcoming and a disciplinary hearing, often these disciplinary panels say that what was done is just an indication that judges need better training, better education or a refresher. Even at my age, I sometimes need a refresher on basic economics, Excel spreadsheets or even how Outlook works. I know the House has had trouble of late with its IT systems and we all had to reset our passwords. It is infuriating to have to do once someone forgets which password they are using at any one time. I see a bunch of members smiling who know it is true. It happens to all of us.

There are a lot of good ideas in proposed section 102 that would offer the public an opportunity to see judges go through what other professionals, such as engineers, nurses, doctors, surgeons, optometrists, chiropractors, human resources professionals and labour negotiators, go through with their professional associations. I think it is perfectly justified.

I want to draw everyone's attention to something interesting I found at the back end of the bill, which is that removal is justified under proposed section 119, “Removal justified”. It states, “If the full hearing panel determines, on a balance of probabilities, that the judge’s removal from office is justified, it shall make a decision to that effect.”

I would like to draw members' attention to the wording of “balance of probability” because it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. The final decision-making will be on a balance of probabilities, which is 50% plus one. Whether a reasonable person would believes this to be true is not the metric we are using. It is 50% plus one.

Could this happen and, without using the term “reasonable”, would a person looking at the facts of the case say, yes, this probably happened on the balance of probabilities? That is a lower threshold than what is used in the Criminal Code. It is actually a lower threshold in many civil cases involving large amounts of money. That should give the public some certainty that Bill C-9 is not a piece of legislation that seeks to protect judges, but simply seeks to update the system that governs how judges are disciplined, the oversight body, as I mentioned, and what the oversight body was going to be.

Proposed division 3, as I mentioned at the beginning, is the request concerning office-holders, the removal from office of those who are not judges but appointed by an act of Parliament. It goes into some detail. There are several sections that will govern their behaviour, such as leave of absence with salary, and orders and reports laid before Parliament. Usually those officers are the ones who would provide them to Parliament, and if those positions are not filled, who would physically provide us the reports, electronically in this case?

There are provisions for removal from office and establishment. The bill reads, “The Minister may request that the Council establish a full hearing” to review someone. The reasons for a removal would be:

(a) infirmity;

(b) misconduct;

(c) failure in the due execution of their office;

(d) the person has been placed in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of their office.

I raise that because it is timely and, back to the Yiddish proverb, what would happen to the sheep if judges are in wolf's clothing. I do not think the word “sheep” is being used necessarily in the derogatory sense here, because I would be one of them.

Those in power have a special responsibility to those over whom they have power. We are all servants of the people, servants of our ridings especially. That is what public service is supposed to be about. It is duty and sacrifice. The reason we call it “service” is because there is a portion of sacrifice in it. We know that our jobs and roles are not forever, and we are simply stewards for the next person.

This brings me to the RCMP commissioner and the Globe and Mail article that just made public yesterday an audio recording of a meeting she had. The RCMP commissioner has a special responsibility before parliamentarians to always tell the truth. At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security many months ago, the RCMP commissioner said one thing, and this audio recording proves it was the complete and utter opposite. There is no other interpretation one could have.

My interpretation is that the commissioner lied before the parliamentary committee. That is a heavy word to use in the House, but I certainly believe it. That is the only way I can interpret that audio recording. If the audio recording is truthful, if it is an accurate reflection and has not been modified in any way, I do not believe there is any other way one could look at it, except to believe that she misled the members of that committee who are trying to get at the truth.

Parliamentary committees are like the House of Commons. They are the grand inquest of the nation. The reason that courts and judges have all these powers is because we delegate those powers to them. The House of Commons has all of those powers. Every parliamentary committee has the power to not only invite witnesses, but also summon witnesses. They can be told to take oaths to force them to tell the truth.

People cannot deny a committee of the House of Commons the truth by saying they will self-incriminate themselves. That is actually is an American concept that we do not have here in Canada. People must tell the truth the way they know it, even if it may be harmful to them. The House of Commons can offer that protection, like the courts do. They can provide measures for witnesses to give evidence and have their identities protected.

That very famously was done multiple times in the province of Quebec during the 1990s. I remember when the Sûreté du Québec and the government were pursuing organized crime, and very effectively I might add. Oftentimes they were extending protections for those who were coming forward with critical information but needed to be protected, and later on many of them made it into the witness protection program. I have actually met one person who was in the witness protection program, and her story of how she made it into the program and her experience therein was just incredible to listen to.

I did mention I would go back to just one point about judges and training especially. It was a former leader of the Conservative Party, the hon. Rona Ambrose, who introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-337, back in 2017. What I like about Bill C-9 is that some of those ideas are being embedded in here. At the time, that private member's bill passed here, and it went through the Senate on the second try, when Rona was not here anymore. It made it so judges needed to get specific sexual harassment and sexual assault training.

I have known people in my life who have been assaulted or sexually harassed, and it is incumbent upon judges to not use common stereotypes when judging these cases. We do expect more from them because they are in the public service. They are weighing facts and situations. What I like about this change in Bill C-9 is that a lot of the ideas embedded in Bill C-337 are now going to be made broader and available for all types of situations that might apply, where a judge could be told after a panel hearing that they should get more training.

The panel could say that a particular judge has erred in law, in a particular situation or maybe in dealing with a particularly difficult litigant, and they could say that they need some more training. It could be four, five or six courses or a half-day mediation, whatever that is, and I think that is perfectly reasonable. It is actually a good thing, and it will improve sexual assault trials. It will improve the system. It will improve outcomes for victims. It will make sure women are heard. That cannot be a bad thing. It is only a good thing, so I am pretty happy to see portions in there.

I know I am getting short on time, so I want to make sure I briefly go over the government's priorities now. Bill C-9 is a good piece of legislation. I am hoping when it gets to committee members will be able to do further reviews, and if any errors are caught in the bill that they can be corrected at committee. My experience has been that sometimes there are errors in legislation. The French and English sometimes do not quite match up, and sometimes there are new ideas that come forward when witnesses testify before the committee that things could be made better.

The Canadian Bar Association is supportive of this bill. It thinks it is fair and reasonable in terms of its process. What I want to talk about in my last few minutes is the government's priorities. The gun grab against lawful firearms owners is going to do nothing to stop the shootings in our cities. It is happening in Calgary, and it is happening in Vancouver, Surrey, Toronto, Montreal and Laval. We have had three police officers murdered in the line of duty just in the last 10 days. More needs to be done against organized crime. Lawful firearms owners are not the problem. A gun grab, where provinces now are refusing to set aside provincial resources to support the federal government's actions, should the blinking red light telling the government it has erred and is on the wrong track.

The Minister of Justice, over the last two Parliaments I have been here, has hybridized many offences. Some of them are heinous offences that should never be hybridized but eligible for a summary conviction, where someone could get fined or a couple of months in jail. It is not enough. The minister repeats that serious crimes will get serious time. I do not believe that, not based on his track record. That is not the case at all. Crime is up in our country. Violent crime has only been going up since 2015.

I think he still lives in Mahogany, but the president of the Calgary Police Association lives in my riding. There are many police officers who live in my riding. Policing is a difficult line of work to be in, just as it is a difficult line of work to be a judge. The Parliament of Canada, our legislators, should be supporting frontline officers by ensuring we put the criminals behind bars and keeping them there to keep the public safe.

I support Bill C-9. I welcome questions.

The House resumed from June 16 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.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday will be an allotted day.

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

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

Judges Act

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, a bill that was originally introduced last year, and I may have referenced earlier that it was October 2021, but it was actually in December 2021.

I will begin, and I know he is not going to like this because he is sitting just over my right shoulder here, with some praise for our shadow minister for justice, the hon. member for Fundy Royal. Since his re-election in 2019, he has had to deal with pieces of legislation, government legislation, government fixes to legislation that have been beyond any expectation of what any opposition critic, or shadow minister, as we now call them to mirror what the parliament of Britain calls their shadow ministers. He has done incredible work holding the government to account, and it is a complicated file to be able to disseminate what all of these pieces of legislation are, how they impact Canadians, and how they impact the judicial process and the court process. He has done that honourably and with great conviction.

As we know, when we are dealing with these sorts of pieces of legislation, it is not just us, it is also policy advisors within our offices and legislative staff who comb through many of these pieces of legislation to try to make them better, to try to come up with legislation that is good for Canadians. I would argue that there is nothing more important when we deal with pieces of legislation than those dealing with our court system, those dealing with judges, those dealing with Criminal Code issues. I really want to thank our shadow minister for justice, the hon. member for Fundy Royal, for the work that he has done on many of these files.

It is difficult because, when we are dealing with pieces of legislation like what we are dealing with today, Bill C-9, we know it was introduced in December 2021. This is a bill that has obviously languished in the legislative process. We are now at second reading debate on the bill and these hours of debate today are the first for this piece of legislation, but it is piece of legislation that has received broad support right across the country. My expectation is that it will move through the legislative process rather quickly.

Some of that support has come, for example, from the Canadian Bar Association, which has expressed its support for the legislation. As I said earlier, it aims to change the judicial complaints process, which was first established 50 years ago. This is a piece of legislation that requires an update to reflect the realities of the current environment in this country. Bill C-9 proposes changes to the Judges Act to restructure the process for dealing with misconduct allegations against federally appointed judges.

In particular, the bill will amend the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of these judges in three significant ways. One, it will create a process for reviewing allegations not serious enough to warrant removal from office. Two, it will improve the process by which recommendations on removal are made to the Minister of Justice. Three, it will ensure that the determination of pensionable service for judges ultimately removed from office reflects the actual time of service and excludes the time for review.

As I said earlier, the Canadian Bar Association is clearly in support of this, and I expect that, when it gets through second reading and eventually ends up at committee, we are going to hear from the Canadian Bar Association. We will hear from other stakeholders as well, showing their strong support for review of a piece of legislation that has not been updated over the course of the last 50 years, so it is about time.

One of the most important things about this place is that we have those voices of Canadians. There are 338 members in this place who are elected to express the views of their constituents. Those are important views, and these type of debates become increasingly important in a polarized society, so we can reflect on what the pieces of legislation can do and make these pieces of legislation better. I expect, at committee, the strong voices of those stakeholders and advocates who are for the bill or against the bill will perhaps come together and really reinforce or make this piece of legislation that much stronger.

This is not the first iteration of what we have seen. The bill was originally introduced in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. I went through the criteria of what the bill actually does fix, but again, like every other piece of legislation that was introduced, not only here in the House, but also in the Senate, before September of last year, this bill fell off of the Order Paper.

If we look through some of the issues with the bill, one of the things that it focuses on is the issue of process reform and consultations as well. Bill C-9 follows the 2016 federal government's public consultations on potential reforms to the federal judicial discipline process. Within the consultation report, the judicial discipline proceedings had been marked by significant increases in costs and delays, and reforms were necessary to ensure that the process was cost effective, efficient and transparent, and to preserve public confidence in the judicial system.

Under the current system of CJC, interim or final decisions can be challenged through three layers of judicial review. One is the Federal Court, the other is the Federal Court of Appeal. There is also, with leave, the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result, the judicial conduct inquiries can be subject to multiple, drawn-out legal challenges that can take years to resolve.

I mentioned the judicial conduct and review process, but there are several other key points in this legislation. It also addresses complaints. Under both existing and new processes, anyone may submit a complaint about a judge's conduct to the CJC. Under this new process, the CJC may make a complaint only when there are at least two of its members who have reasonable grounds to believe that the public's confidence in the judge's impartiality, integrity or independence, which is critical as we know, could be undermined for any of the reasons stipulated in proposed paragraphs 80(a) through (d). An anonymous complaint, for example, would face the same threshold test as a complaint made by the CJC.

The other aspect of this bill is that it proposes a screening officer be added to the existing process. The CJC's executive director screens complaints and may dismiss those that are clearly without merit, do not involve a judge's conduct or are not in the public interest. Under the new process, the CJC designates a screening officer, who may be a judge, to conduct an initial assessment. This is proposed section 88 in the bill. Complaints may be dismissed if they are clearly without merit, are not related to one of the reasons listed in new section 80 or do not meet other screening criteria that may be established and published by the CJC under proposed section 90.

A reviewing member, as in the existing system, and this is another important piece of the new process, holds the complaints that are not dismissed after being screened by a member of the CJC. That is in proposed section 91. The judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint may make written submissions at this stage under proposed section 93.

There are more aspects of this bill that are important, but after 50 years, it is time for an update to this review system. I am glad that we are here today debating it in our House of Parliament, and I will be glad to answer any questions that anybody might have.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to other legislation, Bill C-5, which is on minimum sentences, and he is very offended by the fact that that legislation was brought forward. Getting rid of minimum sentences does not mean someone who commits an act would get off scot-free. What it does mean is we would be providing more opportunity for judges to use their discretion. Judges, in vast majority, are very well educated and have a very good understanding of the system. They can take a look at the circumstances and are in a better position to be able to give a disposition. I would not want him to give a false impression that, because we are getting rid of minimum sentences, people would get off scot-free. That is just not accurate.

My final thought is regarding the calling of the legislation. Surely to goodness the member would realize that, even though it was introduced and had first reading in December, there are many other legislative agendas. The Conservative Party never approached the government to call for Bill C-9 either. It is here today because the Bill C-14 debate collapsed last night. Bill C-14 was another piece of legislation that was extended because of the Conservative filibuster.

[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.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice

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

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

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

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

Judges Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I am reflecting more on some of the other comments the member made reference to. He talked about Liberals being soft on crime. Not that long ago, on Wellington Street, which was open at the time and has not opened since, a rally took place that shut down downtown Ottawa due to all the activities that were taking place. The Conservative Party of Canada members, like the member for Carleton, were doing very little, if anything, and maybe even encouraging the occupation to continue. On the other hand, they say we are the ones who are soft on crime. That is a side issue that I wanted to throw in.

Bill C-9 is the reason I started by quoting the chief justice, who recognizes that there is a need for us to change the system. They are very much following the legislation. This is not something that was done overnight. It has taken a while. We believe we got it right, and that is why I say we should send it to committee if there need to be some changes. It would reinforce public confidence, which is what the member is getting at in his question. We want to reinforce public confidence in our judicial system because unfortunately, at times and in a limited number of cases, a judge will say the wrong thing and it is likely because something inside needs to be changed, maybe through an educational program or something of that nature.

We have recognized it in the past. Let us recognize it today and see if we can get the legislation passed.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North mentioned a few times the disconnect between what we see the Conservatives do and what we hear the Conservatives talk about. These are things like being soft on crime, when the Conservatives are supporting illegal blockades and the Liberal Party is working to bring in better law enforcement.

We have gone a long way since the patronage appointments of Stephen Harper. I am thinking of Vic Toews: Less than a year out of cabinet, he was appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba by Stephen Harper. Now, we are doing an independent review of appointments of judges.

Could the member comment on how far we have moved things along to restore the public trust in our judicial system, and how Bill C-9 will help us to go even further?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the House of Commons is there is never enough time to have the types of debates that we would like to have on everything that comes before us. That is why we often have to sit beyond our normal sitting hours.

The Government of Canada has a legislative agenda. It also has budgetary measures. When we put them together and look at the priorities of the government, whether it is the pandemic or inflation, as we are all concerned about, all of these public policy issues continue to move forward, led by the Prime Minister and the cabinet.

At the end of the day, a well-functioning government has the ability to deal with a wide variety of issues, always keeping our focus on the issues that are most important to Canadians. It does not necessarily mean that we just let Bill C-9 go nowhere. It is an important piece of legislation. We have been provided this opportunity to bring in Bill C-9 because of a collapse in debate last night.

We have not lost any focus on what the important issues are for Canadians in particular, whether it is the pandemic, the war in Europe or inflation, which are all matters of great concern.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to address the House virtually today.

There are a number of thoughts that I would like to share with respect to this piece of legislation. It is legislation that has been in the works for a considerable amount of time. As much as I have been enjoying some of the questions and answers, especially when the Conservatives are being pushed as to when they are going to look at it or whether they would consider the passage of the legislation. Just given the context of what the official opposition members are saying, I do not anticipate that the bill will be passing before summer. I think the Conservatives have some spin notes that they want to try to leave on this particular legislation.

The biggest one that comes to my mind is the issue of “soft on crime”. It is especially members of the Conservative hard-right element who like to say that they are much harder on crime, that government needs to be tough on crime and that if it is not a Conservative government, it is soft on crime. Whether it makes sense or not, that is the line that the Conservatives like to give because of public perception.

That said, the bill will pass when it will pass, ultimately. I am hopeful that, as we can sense, the majority of the House see the value in Bill C-9, because it is something that is needed.

I want to start by making a couple of observations from some of the stakeholders. I want to do that this time around because I really do respect our judicial system as one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. Our rule of law, our judicial system and the idea of independence are held dear by, I would like to think, all members of the House.

For that reason, I thought it was important to start off with a quote. It is from the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada and chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council. He stated:

Over the past few years, the Council has consistently called for new legislation to be tabled in order to improve the process by which concerns about judicial conduct are reviewed. The efforts of members of Council to develop proposals in this regard have been fruitful, and we appreciate the openness with which the Minister of Justice has engaged the Council in his consultations.

I will go to another quote from the Canadian Judicial Council. It states:

While the Council will take some time to carefully review the proposed amendments, we are confident that these reforms will bring about much needed efficiency and transparency to the judicial conduct review process.

I wanted to start with those opening quotes because of the respect that I have for judicial independence. I also recognize that there has been a great deal of work, whether by the minister or by administration or by civil servants. They have worked very closely with the many different stakeholders while at the same time respecting the importance of judicial independence. That is why, when I look at the legislation—and I concur with some of the comments being made by my New Democratic Party colleagues and Green Party members, who seem to support the legislation and its speedy passage—I would like to think that the bill itself should not be controversial. It is actually fairly straightforward. There will be other opportunities for the opposition members to try to score their political points, if I could put it that way.

I do think there would have been a great deal of value in seeing Bill C-9 at least pass through second reading so that it could go to committee stage, possibly during the summer, when feedback could be heard from the public and experts, with the idea of coming back in the fall for report stage and third reading.

The Conservative members who spoke before me were interesting. I picked up on two comments; one was the issue of “soft on crime”, which I have already referenced and maybe will go into a little more later, but they also brought up the issue of appointments of judges. I was somewhat taken aback by some of the comments that were put on the record.

We were being criticized because we did not make appointments shortly after being elected into government, as we were reviewing and establishing a more independent, apolitical, transparent appointment process to ensure that our judicial system would be that much more transparent. Yes, there might have been some delays in those appointments, but they were taking the extreme position that murderers went free because of some delays in appointments. I would welcome and challenge the Conservative members to cite specific examples of someone who not only allegedly murdered but did murder an individual and ultimately, because they could not get a day in court, were let go without any charges being laid in that situation. I would be very much interested in a name. If they could provide me with one, they can always send it to my P9 email or raise it inside the House.

The member went on to talk about Jody Wilson-Raybould, being very critical of her for not making appointments and implying in the comments that she would only make an appointment if the person donated to the party. Again, those were very extreme statements being made by the Conservative Party. It is not fair. It is interesting how they seem to have forgiven the past—at least, most of the Conservative caucus has—in regard to Jody Wilson-Raybould, but I remember the allegations a number of years ago on that front.

It is important to look at the appointments that have actually been made. The government has made somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 appointments since 2016. If we do the comparison, I would love to hear the numbers from the previous administration. When it comes to this administration, out of the hundreds of appointments to our judicial system, 55% have been women. I would love to hear a comparison with the previous 10 years under Stephen Harper.

About 3% of our appointments, or marginally just above that, were indigenous. That is important to recognize. Over 10% are visible minorities. The LGBTQ2 appointments are over 5%. Not only are we identifying ideal, competent, incredible individuals, but as a result of a more transparent, depoliticized appointment process, I believe that overall the appointments are more effective in better reflecting what our society looks like today.

On both of those points, whether it is judges and the appointment of judges or the issue of the Conservatives being soft on crime and saying the government is not tough enough on crime, I would challenge the Conservatives to prove their points, not necessarily on this legislation, but on other pieces of legislation so we can ultimately see Bill C-9 pass.

It is important to recognize that we do need to see a balance. We have the fundamental pillar of our judicial independence and it is important there be a high level of confidence held by the public in the administration of justice. I believe the legislation we are looking at deals with that in a very fair fashion.

The amendments will ultimately allow for the Canadian Judicial Council to continue to preside over the process proposed in the legislation. This would start with a three-person review panel ultimately deciding to investigate a complaint of misconduct. In some situations, if the complaint is serious enough, it might even warrant dismissal or removal from the bench. In situations like that, it could be referred to a separate five-person panel.

In the first case, it would be strictly a three-person review panel made up of CJC members. A judge and a layperson could impose sanctions such as public apologies and continuing education.

The current process has turned out, in many ways, to be exceptionally costly at times, and equally as important, it is not very timely. We have seen situations where it could take years before anything is actually concluded.

That is the reason our judicial system is saying that we need to make changes. Today, judges facing possible removal from office because of serious allegations of misconduct have several opportunities throughout the process to launch these judicial reviews. However, as I indicated, the process in some cases can be too long and can be at a fairly significant cost.

Replacing the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of a federally appointed judge is the essence of what the legislation is proposing to do. 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 by the Minister of Justice.

The new process would allow for the imposition of sanctions for misconduct which, while not serious enough to warrant removal, may warrant sanctions that are quite different. The current process does not allow for such sanctions. The member for Mount Royal highlighted some examples. Where a judge's actions have been deemed to have offended something and there needs to be a consequence for the actions, there are more opportunities for different types of consequences.

We could see anything ranging from verbal warnings to written warnings, to suspensions or public apologies. We could even see additional training being required, and ultimately, of course, judges being released. This legislation enables a suite of actions that could be imposed on a judge, given a certain behaviour or comment that is made publicly.

Not only have we heard today, but we have also heard it in the past. We have had private members' bills. I think of Rona Ambrose. She talked about educating judges, particularly in the area of rape victims. Her piece of legislation ultimately received support from all areas of the House. Parliamentarians from all political stripes recognized the need to have some form of educational programming for newly appointed judges to take things into consideration. In fact, my daughter, who is a local representative in the province of Manitoba, had also taken that particular initiative after hearing about what Rona Ambrose had done.

Ultimately, the government pushed that legislation through in the years that followed after Ms. Ambrose left the House of Commons, but we attribute it to Rona and we attribute it to the fact that there is a universal desire for that training.

It was not that long ago when we had another private member's bill, one from one of my colleagues from Montreal. There was a great deal of effort by members on all sides of the House to see that legislation, Bill C-233, which is still before the House today, pass second reading and go to committee. It came out of third reading because of that desire.

For those who are not familiar, Ms. Ambrose's piece of legislation is recognized as Keira's law for good reason. I will quote from an article, “When I brought forward the evidence about abuse of Mr. Brown, we had a judge, for example, who said that domestic violence is not relevant to parenting and, 'I'm going to ignore it.'”

Periodically statements come out of our judicial system that call into question the public confidence. That is one of the reasons it is so important that we pass this legislation. It recognizes that our independent judicial system and our judges, who we do need to respect, can make mistakes. Obviously, a vast majority of judgments are done in a way in which they meet the expectations of Canadians, but on occasion, when that does not happen, there needs to be a more effective mechanism to ensure there is an appropriate consequence. This legislation would enable some variation of consequences for judges, at times, who cross the line.

I have appreciated the opportunity to share a few thoughts and will be more than happy to answer any questions.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with the theme of what we have been hearing about this piece of legislation, Bill C-9. There seems to be broad support for it. It seems to be something that would be a good step forward at least. Everybody agrees on that.

It has had a tortured history. I would say the government has been rather inept at bringing this measure forward, but now that it is here before us and we are facing the end of the parliamentary session at the end of the month, I am wondering if the member would comment on the possibility of moving this bill forward quickly, perhaps even with unanimous consent, so that we could get on to some of the more important issues facing us here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in discussing Bill C-9 today. I am appreciative of the bill and the fact that it would grant the premise that we have been advocating for a very long time, and that Liberals have been arguing against for a very long time, that judges need to be held accountable. There needs to be a remedy for egregious actions on the part of judges.

I believe in the fallen nature of man and that the dividing line between good and evil runs through the heart of a person. I do not think anybody is above doing wrong or evil things, and we must all fight against that all the time. That stands for everybody, including judges. Judges can get it wrong and sometimes do evil things. Those things happen in the fallen world we live in. For that reason, there need to be accountability mechanisms for all individuals.

Accountability is baked into many of the things we do. It is baked into democracy and there are the checks and balances of democracy. In this place, we have one of the most obvious checks and balances, which is the vote when it comes to getting re-elected or being elected. We run on our record and on what we plan to do, and that is an accountability mechanism. That is being accountable to the people back home.

There are other checks and balances in our system. We have the Constitution, and all the laws we bring in this place must be checked against our Constitution, making sure that individual freedoms and liberties are maintained. We have provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction, and both of those are guarded jealously. That is one of the checks and balances in our system. Then we have a thing called judicial independence, where politicians and the political sphere are not supposed to influence judges, so to speak. However, every now and then judges will have personal failures, where whatever they have done is beyond the pale of public activity and they would be deemed unfit to be judges any longer. This bill puts out a mechanism in order to deal with that.

I will read some of the reasons for removal that this bill lays out: “(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.” I think this is a fair bill, and it would put in place a due process for the removal of judges from their position.

As I said earlier, I am appreciative of this bill because it grants the premise that judges need to be held accountable. I do not know about others, but where I come from there is a growing dissatisfaction or mistrust, or “lack of confidence” is probably the best term, for folks back home around the judicial system and holding criminals to account. We are starting to see this spill over into urban areas, where criminals operate with impunity. They steal things in broad daylight and commit acts of violence in broad daylight, disobeying the law in general and violating local communities. In rural Canada, theft is a real challenge, and it is somewhat a crime of opportunity. Where I live, the police getting to my door is a matter of perhaps hours, so criminals can do their criminal activity and be long gone before the police show up.

While I think this bill is an important starting piece, there is an entire sentiment that the current Liberal government drives, which starts perhaps with its tacit support of the “Defund the Police” movement, but also this general idea that the justice system will allow people to get out of jail more easily and will not penalize people. These kinds of things, which we often hear from the government, have led to the police not being able to make arrests, and when they do make arrests they are not able to get convictions, which becomes a major challenge. It demoralizes the police, the lack of political support from movements like “Defund the Police”. It undermines the political support police think they have.

They know that if they are going to pursue criminals, they need to have public support for their actions, and we are seeing more and more the police telling folks that they probably will not get a conviction or that they will have to go through all that effort and the criminal would be back out in six months. If what is missing from the victim's place is a small thing, they are not going to put the resources toward that, because they have a major case they are working on and they are diverting the resources to that, as they are likely to get a conviction there. Individuals' lives are devastated. When people come home to find that their fridge, washing machine and dishwasher are missing, that basically all of the appliances in their house have been stolen, it is a violating thing. To have somebody come into their house and steal things like that is unnerving. Perhaps it is not a great monetary loss, but it is extremely disconcerting for the folks who are missing those things.

Pollsters will track this kind of thing, the trust in our institutions, and generally Canadians' trust has been going down over the last seven years. We saw that under Conservative governments, trust in institutions, trust that institutions were doing what people expected them to do, was going up. Now we have seen a dramatic decrease in the trust in institutions, which bears itself out in two ways. One is that now people do not even call the police when their stuff goes missing. I hear that over and over again. People say that the police cannot do anything about it and therefore they do not even call. The other side of the coin is that criminals operate with increasingly brazen activity. We saw it in Calgary recently: two cars blazing down the road, shooting at each other while driving down the road, with no apparent fear that the police would show up, apprehend them and put an end to this firefight. It ended in the tragic death of a mother of five. That was in Calgary, just recently.

Folks will now come into rural yards and start stealing things. When the homeowner shows up and asks what they are doing, they say they are stealing things. He says, “I am standing right here”, and they just say, “What are you going to do about it?” We have that increasingly. We have just brazen activity by criminals because they see the lack of the system's ability to hold them to account, and therefore operate with complete impunity and brazenness that we have never seen before.

I would say that in my own life, I have witnessed the deterioration of trust in the community, trust in general. When I was growing up in my community, no one had a chain-link fence, no one had a gate at the end of the driveway, but these sorts of things are more and more common.

I lay this at the feet of the current government and the fact that it does not take this seriously. It does not provide the political support and tacitly supports movements like “Defund the Police”, which undermines our way of life, our quality of life and our ability to live peacefully in this country, and has led to a deterioration of the interactions we have as a society.

I look forward to questions on this.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, but I would like to come back to what my colleague from Saint-Jean and my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said earlier.

One thing that is missing from Bill C‑9 is the judicial appointment process. Members will recall the uproar caused by the Liberal government's use of the infamous “Liberalist” database. I would like to know if my colleague agrees that it is time for a review of the judicial appointment process.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the parliamentary session, I want to take a moment to give thanks to my family, my staff, all of the people of Halifax West and all who have supported me and continue to support me in order to do my best in service.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Mount Royal.

I am pleased to join my hon. colleagues today to speak in favour of Bill C-9, which proposes reforms to the current process for reviewing allegations of misconduct against federally appointed judges.

The role occupied by the judiciary in our system of government is unique. While one judge in the performance of their duties will interact with countless members of the public, the reverse is not true. Most individuals outside of the legal profession will have little direct exposure to judges in courtrooms in the course of their lives, yet for those individuals who do appear in court, that process is likely to be a major event in their lives. The behaviour of the judge handling their case will shape that person's impression of the justice system as a whole. For individuals who arrive in our courts seeking justice or facing serious jeopardy to their liberty, it is not an overstatement to say that the judge represents the personal embodiment of the values of integrity and impartiality that our justice system is trusted to uphold.

In addition, many people only ever see judges at a distance, in the context of significant or controversial issues. Canada has a high degree of respect for its judiciary and for the administration of justice overall, but it will require constant attention and effort to keep it that way.

Just as the impact of a judge’s behaviour on a particular individual can have great significance, so too can allegations of judicial misconduct have significant effects on public confidence and trust. Complaints against Canadian judges are rare, especially those severe enough to implicate potential removal from office. However, when they do occur, they capture public attention precisely because they diverge so radically from the norm. The public is entitled to see those allegations taken seriously and addressed through a process that itself reflects the best ideals of our justice system. Canadians need to know that the judicial system is fair to all, including the judiciary, and it is on this theme I wish to speak to members today.

Appropriate mechanisms for reviewing judicial conduct must be grounded in the constitutional realities of the judicial role. Judicial independence protects judges from outside influence of any kind, actual or perceived, in the exercise of their functions. This is absolutely critical to ensuring that the adjudication of cases is impartial and fair and is seen as such.

One form of influence against which judges are protected is the threat of personal reprimand or removal from their offices for conduct or decisions that may be contrary to the preferences of those in political power. For this reason, the Supreme Court of Canada has specified that the review of allegations related to judicial conduct, while vital to preserving public confidence in its own right, must be controlled and led by the judiciary itself. Moreover, the mechanisms for this review must allow opportunities for the judge in question to be fully and fairly heard.

Once a fair, judge-led process culminates in a recommendation on whether a judge should be removed from office, our great Constitution shifts the responsibility to us as parliamentarians to determine whether we will indeed remove the judge via an address to the Governor General. It is a testament to both the strength of our judiciary and the respect of this chamber for the sanctity of judicial independence that, to date, this power has never been exercised. It is a power that indeed must be reserved for circumstances of true necessity, when a judge refuses to leave office after it has been credibly established that their conduct threatens public confidence in the administration of justice.

To be sure that this power is exercised appropriately, Parliament must know that a judge-led review of the conduct of another judge was effective, impartial and thorough. This means ensuring the judge in question was treated with absolute fairness. This notion is at the very heart of the amendments we are debating today.

The current judicial conduct process, as set out in the Judges Act and operationalized by the Canadian Judicial Council, is in dire need of modernization and reform. The council has done what it can do to overhaul the process by making changes to its procedures, but much more is still needed, and that requires legislative amendments. As my colleagues have shared, a primary concern with the existing mechanism is its lack of efficiency, stemming from a rigid structure that is not easily adaptable to reviewing different types of judicial conduct. Associated with this are high costs in terms of money, time and detriment to the public trust.

Despite the intention of providing fairness to an impugned judge, the current regime can instead foster near endless litigation, as every facet of the inquiry process is susceptible to challenge through judicial review, compounded by appeals to multiple levels of court, often on grounds that have little merit or that bear on the public interest. My colleagues have referred to some of these examples, and I will not repeat them. It suffices to note that as matters linger unresolved for extended periods and at great cost, confidence in the administration of justice and the judiciary is undermined.

Procedural fairness, as accorded to judges, is necessary. Indeed, it is as equally important as the fairness that must be accorded to individuals in judges’ own courtrooms. However, procedural fairness can be satisfied in a way that does not enable adversarial zeal, calculated delay and resulting negative repercussions for Canadians. The Canadian Judicial Council itself has acknowledged that the status quo is at odds with the public interest. It is now for us as lawmakers to act.

Bill C-9 proposes a suite of reforms designed to overhaul the process for handling judicial conduct complaints. All have been carefully crafted to ensure that public confidence is enhanced, recognizing that this requires independence and efficiency, as well as a high degree of procedural fairness. Satisfying those complementary objectives will in turn foster greater trust in the administration of justice more broadly.

Bill C-9 would enhance the versatility of the judicial conduct process by providing a review panel to deal with less severe cases, that is, allegations of misconduct that are not so serious as to potentially warrant removal from office. This introduces responsiveness and nuance through options other than a full-scale hearing, sparing both judges and complainants from the strain of adversarial public hearings and the possible stigma of publicizing unverified allegations. A judge would nevertheless retain the right to be aware of all allegations, respond to them comprehensively and benefit from the advice and advocacy of skilled counsel.

Given the scrutiny and profile that public hearings necessarily entail, the need for fairness is especially important whenever it is required. Under the new process, allegations of misconduct so serious that removal from office may be warranted would be handled by a hearing panel comprising five members. It would include representatives of the judiciary, the legal profession and the public, and hearings would function in a manner akin to a trial. Prosecuting counsel would also be appointed, with the responsibility to present the case against the judge, much as a criminal prosecutor would do. The judge would be entitled to rigorous opportunities to call evidence and examine counsel. The process would ensure that the full rigour of an adversarial hearing, with the same clear court procedure, applies to all hearings.

I doubt anyone could reasonably claim that the processes I have described would fail to provide procedural fairness to a judge whose conduct has been called into question. They are not only fair but exhaustive and rigorous, designed to apply the rigour of our justice system to serious allegations while also allowing more humane and effective alternatives when allegations do not rise to a serious level. Most importantly, we as parliamentarians can be assured that should the day ever come when we need to consider a recommendation for judicial removal, we can have confidence that the recommendation stems from a scrupulous, fair and effective process.

With that, I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his kind words on my role on the committee.

I just want to say, before I answer the question specifically, that the removal of criminal records for personal possession potentially affects 250,000 Canadians, so this would have a big impact. If we are worried about public safety, we need to make sure that those who have come in conflict with the law have every opportunity to reintegrate themselves into society, to support their families and to get things back on track. Bill C-5 would help do that.

With respect to Bill C-9, I have been frustrated, I would say, for almost five years now because we have not simply gotten this done. I think there is agreement, and like the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I would recommend to House leaders that we find a way to move this bill forward very quickly.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that Bill C‑9 will do is provide for a review panel made up of three people. This panel will be able to conduct the inquiry itself or refer it to a larger five-person panel.

Is the member satisfied by this panel? Does he think that it will be able to adequately address any complaints that are made against judges?

Does he have any other mechanisms to suggest?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Hamilton Centre's dedication to ensuring that we reform the justice system to try to remove the systemic racism that exists.

As I said in my speech, Bill C-9 is important in that the public, from diverse backgrounds, has to have confidence in this system. The other things that we have talked about here, which are getting the opioid crisis out of the justice system and directly tackling the systemic racism that results in the over-incarceration of indigenous and racialized Canadians, are in crisis. We need to move further and we need to move faster in addressing those matters in our justice system than we have been able to do in this Parliament. We are making progress, but not enough and not fast enough.

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

Madam Speaker, I will turn to the substance of Bill C-9 in a moment, but first I want to talk about how we got here, a process that for me illustrates disarray on the government's side in this 44th Parliament. Some days it still seems almost as if the Liberals really did not expect to have to govern after the last election.

Certainly, the bill was essentially ready to go well before the pandemic hit. For unknown reasons, the government decided to have it introduced in the Senate on May 25, 2020, as Bill S-5, and it died there when the unnecessary 2021 election was called. Then it was reintroduced by the government leader in the Senate as Bill S-3 on December 1, 2021. After a dispute over whether the bill could actually be introduced in the Senate as it would require a royal recommendation to allow expenditures by the Judicial Council under the bill, the bill was withdrawn from the Senate on December 15, 2021, and reintroduced as a government bill, Bill C-9, in the House on December 16, 2021, if members can follow that bouncing ball.

Despite the disarray on the government side, the bill still seemed to be a priority for the Liberal government as it was included in the December 2021 mandate letter for the Minister of Justice. There, the Prime Minister directed that the Minister of Justice, “Secure support for the swift passage of reforms to the judicial conduct process in the Judges Act to ensure the process is fair, effective and efficient so as to foster greater confidence in the judicial system.”

That's fair enough, and no doubt there is important work for us to do on improving the process by which complaints against federal judges are handled. However, here we come to the question of priorities of the Liberals and their effectiveness when it comes to addressing, in a timely manner, the pressing crises in our justice system and, of course, the question of the persistent obstructionism of the Conservatives, as the official opposition, in this sitting of Parliament.

While I remain disappointed that the government chose to ensure the defeat of private member's Bill C-216 from the member for Courtenay—Alberni, which would have decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of drugs, we have made some progress on the opioid crisis. Pushed into action by the impending vote on the private member's bill, the Liberals, after months of delay, finally granted an interim exemption to the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for British Columbia, in effect decriminalizing personal possession for small amounts of drugs for the next three years.

That's a good thing, yes, but it only raises the question of why wait another six months. This delay seems likely to ensure that 2022 will eclipse the appalling record set in 2021 in British Columbia for the greatest number of overdose deaths in B.C. Also, why only British Columbia? The epidemic of deaths from toxic drug supply continues unabated across the country and in all corners of the country, both urban and rural. Passing Bill C-216 would have allowed us to begin to apply the tools we know that work right now: decriminalizing the personal possession of small amounts of drugs and guaranteeing a safe supply of drugs for those suffering from addictions. Bill C-216 would have brought a permanent change to the law to guarantee that addiction is dealt with as a health matter and not a criminal matter.

The crisis that demands urgent action is, of course, systemic racism in our criminal justice system. The most prominent evidence of the reality of this crisis is the over-incarceration of indigenous and Black Canadians in this country. All members by now are familiar with the shocking facts that indigenous people are more than six times as likely as other Canadians to end up incarcerated and that Black Canadians are more than twice as likely. Most shocking I think to all of us is the fact that indigenous women make up 50% of women incarcerated in federal institutions when they are less than 5% of the population.

Of course, injustice does not end with incarceration, as there is the legacy of the resulting criminal record. Not only have indigenous and racialized Canadians been disproportionately targeted for investigation, prosecution, fining or imprisonment, the most marginalized among us then end up stuck with criminal records. These are criminal records that make getting a job almost impossible, criminal records that often restrict access to affordable housing or even ordinary rental housing because of criminal record checks, criminal records that make volunteering with kids and seniors impossible, criminal records that restrict travel and criminal records that even make it difficult to get a bank loan or a mortgage.

The good news is that we have taken some steps to address the systemic racism in our court system with the passage of Bill C-5 yesterday. As soon as the Senate acts, we will see the elimination of 20 mandatory minimum penalties, most importantly those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which fell very heavily on indigenous and racialized Canadians and have been a major contributor to over-incarceration.

Again, we would have liked to see bolder action here with the expansion of the existing Gladue principles to give judges discretion to waive all remaining mandatory minimums when it would be unjust to impose them on indigenous or racialized Canadians due to their circumstances. Unfortunately, this was not in the bill. One may ask why I am going on so long about this. It is judges' discretion that will make a big difference, so people have to have confidence in the judiciary.

Despite the public image that we never co-operate in Parliament, we had good co-operation in the justice committee. That co-operation allowed the passage of my amendment to Bill C-5, which will see the elimination of criminal records for personal possession of drugs within two years through a process called sequestration. What this means in practice is that these records will no longer show up in criminal record checks.

Today, we are moving on to debate Bill C-9 and finally, some members may say, I am coming to the substance of this bill. This is a bill to reform the process for handling complaints against federal judges. As I said, it is important in our system to maintain public confidence in those judges. Is this a crisis? Clearly it is not. Is it as urgent as decriminalizing drugs or removing systemic racism in our justice system? Clearly it is not. Is this as important? I would argue that in fact it is, because trust in the integrity of our justice system is integral to the fate of our democracy, especially in these trying times. We have to have faith in the integrity of the justice system and that means in the judges themselves, so we have to do better when it comes to holding the judiciary accountable, but we have to do so in ways that respect their fundamental independence and protect the system against government and political interference.

Bill C-9 suggests ways in which we can do this and, as I mentioned at the outset, measures have been ready to go on this for a very long time. Can we do better on holding judges accountable? Yes, we can, but it took well over two years for the government to get this bill before the House today and many of the ideas in it were first proposed in Canadian Bar Association reports as early as 2014. Some appeared in private members' bills tabled in the House as early as 2017, so it is past time to get to work on this bill.

Let me distinguish just for a moment what we are actually talking about. We are not talking about mistakes in law that occur from time to time in the federal courts. There is a clear remedy for these kinds of mistakes, and it is the appeal process. Instead, we are talking about the failure of federally appointed judges to meet the high standards that have been set for them and that we naturally should demand of them. That is either when it comes to personal conduct or to maintaining impartiality on the bench.

I should say from the outset that the Canadian record is remarkably good when it comes to cases of serious misconduct warranting removal from the bench. In the history of Canada, the Canadian Judicial Council has recommended removal for only five federally appointed judges. Four of those resigned before Parliament could deal with their cases, and the fifth before Parliament could act on the case. Whether these judges resigned before being removed solely to protect their pensions, which has been alleged, or simply to avoid the stigma of being the first federal judge ever removed by Parliament, I leave for others to judge.

Leaving the process in the hands of judges themselves is probably necessary, as this is both a key and crucial feature of our current system. It is the one that guarantees governments cannot influence the decisions of judges by threatening to remove them from office. Complaints about federally appointed judges are handled by the Canadian Judicial Council, which is made up of the 41 chief justices and associate chief justices of federally appointed courts.

The Canadian Judicial Council is chaired by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who appoints a committee to examine complaints. If a complaint is initially found to have merit, a three-judge panel examines the complaint and either decides to dismiss it, to recommend no further action because the misconduct does not warrant removal from the bench, or to hold a public inquiry. Again, this is relatively rare, with only 14 inquiries held over the past 40 years.

If there was an inquiry, the committee would then forward its findings to the full Judicial Council, along with a recommendation on the possible removal. If removal is recommended, the judge has the right to appeal to an appeals panel and, if needed, further appeal beyond that. The Supreme Court of Canada can choose to hear the appeal directly, but the current process is that the case would be heard at the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada could hear the case. This seems unnecessarily complicated and provoking of unnecessary delay. Bill C-9 would address the problem, but while the current system does work in the most serious cases of judicial behaviour, the process is long and drawn out.

Bill C-9 would also address the major gap in the current process, which is that it has proved largely ineffective in dealing with cases of misbehaviour that would not be serious enough to warrant removal from the bench. This is the fact: There is only one possible remedy in the current process, which is removal from the bench. Serious misbehaviour, though rare, is not hard to spot as it always involves law-breaking by the judge concerned or outright corruption.

Less serious complaints about misbehaviour are almost always about the question of impartiality. What would an example be of this less serious misbehaviour? A case in Saskatchewan in 2021 is a case in point. Five complaints were received about a judge who appeared in pictures with a group indirectly connected to a case on which, though he had finished hearings, he had not yet delivered judgment.

The judge in this case agreed this was a serious error on his part and that it could reflect negatively on perceptions about his impartiality in the case before him. The complaints did not proceed, as almost no one thought the judge should be removed and he had promised it would never happen again. Under the current provisions, no action could have been taken, if the judge had disputed the allegations, other than to recommend his removal from the bench for appearing in a photograph.

Bill C-9 would allow for additional remedial options other than the current sole option of recommending removal. The bill proposes the referral of complaints to a three-judge review panel, which might find removal to be warranted, and then the review panel could refer the complaint to a larger five-judge hearing panel. At the review stage, however, the review panel could still dismiss the complaint or impose remedies other than removal.

What would Canadians get out of these changes? Most importantly, they would get confidence in the judiciary that would be better maintained by having a process that was both more timely and could deal more effectively with less serious complaints. This should help prevent the judicial system from falling into disrepute and help preserve the very important trust in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Bill C-9 might actually save some taxpayer money on cases involving allegations of misconduct by federal judges, as the current process can stretch out for years. Cases involving serious misconduct now often take up to four years to resolve. Bill C-9 would expedite that process by removing the two levels of court appeals that I mentioned.

At the same time, there also may be an increase in costs for dealing with less serious allegations as there would be more options available that are currently dismissed early in the process. The benefit here is that less serious cases would no longer simply be dismissed, and instead sanctions for remedies would be possible.

In the end, and after hearing debate today, I believe Bill C-9 should prove to be relatively uncontentious. The Canadian Bar Association was part of the consultations that were held by the judicial council when Senate Bill S-5 was being drafted in the previous Parliament. There was a broader consultation that dealt with measures to clarify expectations on what constitutes “good behaviour” for federal judges that are largely set in regulations. Bill C-9 simply reforms the process for dealing with judges who fail to meet those standards.

Bill C-9 would also require more transparency with regard to how complaints are handled. The Canadian Judicial Council is responsible for administering this process, and Bill C-9 would require the council to include the number of complaints it received and how they were resolved in its annual public report.

In conclusion, New Democrats support modernizing the process for complaints against federally appointed judges, and we support adding alternative remedial options behind the current sole option of removal from the bench. The bill would allow for varied sanctions such as counselling, continuing education and other reprimands. New Democrats are supportive of streamlining and updating the process to handle complaints against federally appointed judges. This process has not been updated for 50 years. It is time for a modern complaint system for a modernized judiciary, and one that will help increase public confidence in federal judges.

The bill provides an opportunity for parties to work together to get an important reform in place, as it is yet another example of things that did not get done earlier because of the unnecessary 2021 election. We should get this done so that we can then turn our attention back to tackling the serious issues in our justice system that remain, and to confronting the opioid crisis that is better dealt with as a health matter than a judicial matter. I hope to see Bill C-9 advance quickly through the House and in the other place.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand this morning to discuss Bill C-9.

While I was reading the bill, I had a bit of déjà vu. I remember driving on the 417 in the spring while listening to the speeches in the House on Bill S-5, which was sponsored by Senator Dalphond, for whom I have tremendous respect. I still call him “Your Honour”.

I know that Bill S‑5 died on the Order Paper because of the election. The fact that I was supposed to discuss Bill C‑9 in the spring but did not get a chance to shows that we may be a bit behind on the legislative agenda. That is the only criticism I will offer today. As for the rest, I am highly satisfied at least with the spirit of the bill we are studying, as is the Canadian Judicial Council, which strongly supports it.

We are talking about it today. One of the pillars or cornerstones of the bill is the importance of the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial and executive branches. This has been the case since 1971, when the Canadian Judicial Council was created and made responsible for reviewing complaints. This is maintained in Bill C-9.

To ensure the separation of powers, the ability to remove judges is also maintained, as originally provided for in section 99(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that “the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons”.

If we relied specifically on this principle, it might appear as though the legislative branch and the executive branch, meaning us here in Parliament, had power over the removal of judges. However, since 1971, the complaint review process has been the responsibility of the Canadian Judicial Council, which must issue recommendations to the Minister of Justice in order for the removal to take place. This complaint review process has been around for over 50 years.

With respect to what has been done since 1971, the improvements in Bill C‑9 meet certain needs. In this case, better is not the enemy of good. We tend to think that if something is working reasonably well, we should not necessarily seek perfection. I think that this used to apply in this case.

There are three essential issues that the bill resolves. The first is that the current process is extremely long. Given the numerous opportunities to file for appeals and judicial reviews during the process, it can take a very long time to review a complaint. My colleagues mentioned that. Unfortunately, we saw proof of this with a Superior Court judge whose name I will not mention, but whose review process lasted from 2012 to 2021. If I remember correctly, the decision was handed down in 2021.

As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned, the problem is that, during that whole time, the judge continues to receive their salary and benefits and contribute to their pension. That in itself can be an incentive to come up with endless stalling tactics and draw the process out in order to keep the financial benefits.

This bill makes certain changes. In particular, it modifies the process to include the creation of an appeal panel, the final body before the Supreme Court to which a judge who is at fault can apply. This eliminates the need to go through the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal to reach the Supreme Court, assuming it even agrees to hear the appeal. The bill streamlines the process.

As my colleagues mentioned, under the current version of the act, judges still receive their salary and benefits. Clause 126(1) of the new act remedies that situation. It states, and I quote:

For the purposes of calculating an annuity under Part I, if a full hearing panel decides that the removal from office of a judge who is the subject of a complaint is justified, the day after the day on which the judge is given notice of the full hearing panel’s decision is the day to be used to determine the number of years the judge has been in judicial office and the salary annexed to the office held by the judge at the time of his or her resignation, removal or attaining the age of retirement unless (a) the decision is set aside by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, or by the decision of an appeal panel if the appeal panel’s decision is final; (b) the Minister’s response under subsection 140(1) provides that no action is to be taken to remove the judge from office; or (c) the matter of removal of the judge from office is put to one or both Houses of Parliament and is rejected by either of them.

As a result, a judge who is found to be at fault will not receive a salary during that period.

Another problem with the previous version of the bill was that there were no half-measures for lesser offences, so to speak. It was all black or white. The panel's only options were to issue a recommendation for removal or to not issue one. The only middle ground involved negotiating some sort of disciplinary action with the judge on a case-by-case basis. However, judges were quite free to say that they did not want any part in that process because it was not mandatory.

This bill remedies that situation. As soon as a complaint, which can be based on written submissions to the panel, has been examined, the panel can impose redress measures in cases where the reason for the complaint does not constitute grounds for removal.

The review panel can order the judge, for example, to take professional development courses or require him to apologize. In some cases, this can help more effectively remedy a situation when the judge is open to having certain sanctions apply. This may be sufficient, in certain cases, to avoid continuing with a full complaint process and public hearing, which could be long and expensive.

One of the options in the new bill is for the council to issue a private or public expression of concern. There is a certain transparency in the process. The council can issue a private or public warning, a private or public reprimand or order the judge to apologize. As I mentioned in my question to the member for Fundy Royal, the only thing that is a little unusual is one of the measures in clause 102, as follows:

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

Perhaps there are questions that should be asked when the bill is referred to a committee for study after second reading, if it gets to that stage, which should not be a problem. For example, why is the judge's consent required? Why do the victims have no say in choosing the sanction to be applied for an offence that is less serious than one that might lead to removal from office?

Another thing the bill deals with is how onerous the process is. Previously, the Canadian Judicial Council itself had to make a recommendation to the minister to have a judge removed. The way it was set up, there was one panel that reviewed the case and another panel that, if it received the complaint, had to pass it on to the Canadian Judicial Council itself. The whole thing involved about 17 chief justices or associate chief justices from courts that were not already part of the process. It diverted energy from solving other problems in the courts, and the process did not necessarily help ensure procedural fairness for judges. This bill fixes that. The review panel itself will now be able to make a recommendation to the minister to relieve a judge of her or his duties. This kind of short-circuits a process that was not necessary and did not guarantee procedural fairness.

All these factors significantly improve the process. However, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord explained, this is not the only way to improve people's perception that the justice system is impartial and create a clear separation between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

I think we also need to look at updating the judicial appointment process. The Bloc Québécois has called for this numerous times by suggesting things like creating a special all-party committee tasked with recommending a new selection process. I have not lost hope. Like my colleague, I believe that human nature is fundamentally good and is capable of doing good things, although I too am sometimes disappointed. Still, I am always willing to work with anyone who is equally willing, and I encourage the government to introduce a bill to review the appointment process.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. Before answering, I would like to congratulate her for making the effort to ask the question in French. I know that it was not easy, and I want her to know that I am very thankful for the effort. It is a mark of respect, and I sincerely thank her.

I was so focused on her language efforts that I forgot her question. Ha, ha!

I do agree that we need to vote in favour of Bill C-9. The appointment process must also be impartial, and it needs a review. That is our job, and we owe it to voters and the entire population to make sure our justice system is non-partisan, effective, professional and reliable.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his speech.

I would like to comment on the second part of his speech on the appointment process. As we discuss Bill C-9 today, what our colleagues have often pointed out is both the importance of maintaining the separation between the judiciary, the executive and the legislative powers and the importance of having a system the public can trust. It seems to me that these two principles are especially pertinent to the appointment of judges.

Does my colleague not think that this is the cornerstone of the more than necessary review of the appointment process?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, for years, people have been calling for reforms of the process for reviewing allegations of judicial misconduct, whether the review results in a removal or not. This is not the first time that such a bill has been introduced in the House. The Judicial Council itself has called for this. If we can pass this legislation, it will benefit all stakeholders in the judicial system and all Quebeckers and Canadians. The judicial system is the backbone of any society that wants to live, thrive and evolve in peace. Without a judicial system, it would be total anarchy, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

No one wants to abolish the courts. Everyone wants to be able to have faith that the courts will resolve our disputes. Ideally, it would resolve all of them, and for that to happen, we must appoint judges with spotless records in terms of credibility and professionalism. The first step is to ensure that the appointment process is effective and non-partisan. I will come back to this.

We must also ensure that once a judge is appointed, they are consistently subject to ethical conduct rules that are acceptable to everyone involved. Finally, we must ensure that, in cases of misconduct, there is a reliable and effective process for reviewing and, where appropriate, fairly sanctioning the conduct of the party at fault.

We have to admit that the review process in place is among the best in the world. We are not starting from scratch, and that is a good thing. Having myself participated in discussions with bar associations in other jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere, I can say that what we have here in Quebec and Canada is the envy of many other democratic societies.

That being said, recent examples have shown that we need to think about a new and improved process that would prevent abuses. Having a process that takes years before all reviews and appeals have been exhausted, while the principal continues to receive a salary and benefits—often including a generous pension fund—and these costs are assumed by the public, certainly does not help boost confidence in the judicial system.

Of course, it is just as important that judges who are the subject of a complaint can express their point of view, defend themselves and exercise their rights just like any other citizen. The process needs to be fair and should not unduly favour the person who is guilty of misconduct and seeks to abuse the system. In this respect, Bill C-9 meets our expectations and should receive our support, as well as that of all Canadians. I am happy about this and even hopeful that we will now tackle the other key process, judicial appointments.

It would be nice to see the government finally set partisan politics aside when appointing new judges.

Does the “Liberalist” the government is so fond of still have a place in the selection process? We have talked about this many times in the House. We will have to talk more.

Could the final selection from the short list be done by a committee made up of a representative from each of the recognized parties? Could representatives of the public or professional bodies also take part? That is certainly something to think about.

In my opinion, we are ready for this review process. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for it for a long time, and we will continue to do so. Bill C-9 may set the stage for us to seriously consider it. Will the Minister of Justice be bold enough to propose it? I hope so. If he does, I can assure him right now of our full co-operation.

Until then, let us hope that the reform of the complaints review process proposed in Bill C-9 can build public trust in our judicial system.

I said “our judicial system” because we must never forget that the judicial system belongs to the people and must be accountable to the people. We are merely the ones responsible for ensuring the system is effective.

I will not rehash here the process that led to the relatively recent resignation of a Superior Court justice for whom the review process, given the many appeals and challenges against him, apparently had no hope of ending before he was assured the monetary benefits of his office. However, we must recognize that we cannot allow this heinous impression of non-accountability and dishonesty persist, whether it is well-founded or not. We need to assume our responsibilities and make sure that the public never doubts the credibility, goodwill and effectiveness of our courts.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's review of what he sees in Bill C-9, but I want to take this opportunity to ask him more about victims' rights. I was very much honoured to work with our former ombudsman for victims' rights, Sue O'Sullivan. We worked together in this place to try to improve the victims' rights bill. It fell short then. Not only do I think we need to appoint a new ombudsman for victims' rights, but we need to look at what we can do to make our own victims' rights code more robust.

I wonder if the hon. member for Fundy Royal has studied what they did in California with what is called Marsy's Law, which includes the kind of provisions we need here in Canada to protect victims.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, as we approach the final sitting days of the House before it rises, this is likely my last opportunity to speak before we all return to our ridings for the summer months. In light of this, I would like to start off my remarks today by acknowledging the great people of my riding of Fundy Royal, whom I am honoured to represent here in this 44th Parliament.

On the topic at hand, we are here today to discuss Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. I will begin by going over a bit of a summary of the bill.

The legislation would amend the Judges Act to replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. 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 would make 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 would also apply to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour.

In short, the objective of the legislation is to update the Judges Act to strengthen the judicial complaints process. The existing process was established in 1971, so it is due for a refresh. We can all agree that strengthening and increasing confidence in the judicial system, and taking action to better respond to complaints that it may receive from Canadians, are good things. Canadians are really depending on this Parliament to strengthen our judicial system.

As it stands, the judicial system in Canada has been weakened by COVID delays and a lack of resources for victims in particular, like, as I have mentioned, the vacant victims ombudsman position. There really is no excuse today for that when we see so many stories ripped from the headlines that impact Canadian victims. We also see legislation like the bill the parliamentary secretary just mentioned, Bill C-5. The victims we have talked to, whom we have seen and heard from at committee, are concerned about that bill and its predecessor bill, Bill C-22. The victims ombudsman had a lot to say about it.

I would love the benefit of hearing from a victims ombudsman, except we do not have one. We were supposed to have that position filled back in October, so for many, many months it has been vacant. That is completely unacceptable, not only for victims and their families but also for all Canadians. I should note that when the position of the federal ombudsman for federal offenders in our federal prison system became vacant, it was filled the next day. We can see where the government's priorities are.

Bill C-9 was originally introduced in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. The previous version of the bill did not complete second reading. We heard commentary across the way about delays, with some asking why we are talking about delays. Why was that bill not passed? Well, the Prime Minister called his snap pandemic election in August 2021. That is what happened with that version of the bill.

The bill was reintroduced in the Senate last year as Bill S-3, but the government had an apparent change of heart, dropping Bill S-3 from the Senate Order Paper in December of 2021 and introducing that bill in the House of Commons as Bill C-9. That is where it has languished for months until today, just days before we go into our summer recess.

The bill would modify the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office, and another process for offences that would warrant sanctions other than removal, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Currently, if misconduct is less serious, a single member of the Canadian Judicial Council who conducts the initial review may negotiate with a judge for an appropriate remedy.

It may be helpful at this point to provide a bit of background on the Canadian Judicial Council, what it does and who its members are.

Established by Parliament in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council is mandated to “promote the efficiency, uniformity, and to improve the quality of judicial services in all superior courts in Canada.” Through this mandate, the Canadian Judicial Council presides over the judicial complaints process.

The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of 41 members and is led by the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, who is chairperson of the council. The membership is made up of chief justices and associate chief justices of the Canadian provincial and federal superior courts. The goal of the members is to improve consistency in the administration of justice before the courts and the quality of services in Canada's superior courts.

Returning back to the bill itself, the reasons a judge could be removed from office are laid out. These include infirmity, misconduct, failure in the due execution of judicial office and “the judge [being] in a position that a reasonable, fairminded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.” A screening officer can dismiss complaints should they seem frivolous or improper, rather than referring to them to the review panel. A complaint that alleges sexual harassment or discrimination may not be dismissed. The full screening criteria will be published by the Canadian Judicial Council.

The minister or Attorney General may themselves request the Canadian Judicial Council establish a full hearing panel to determine whether the removal from the office of a superior court judge is justified. The Canadian Judicial Council is to submit a report within three months after the end of each calendar year with respect to the number of complaints received and the actions taken. The intention of this bill, as stated by the government, is to streamline the process for more serious complaints for which removal from the bench could be an outcome.

As I mentioned earlier, these amendments would also address the current shortcomings of the process by imposing mandatory sanctions on a judge when a complaint of misconduct is found to be justified but not to be serious enough to warrant removal from office. Again, such sanctions could include counselling, continuing education and reprimands. In the name of transparency, this legislation would require that the Canadian Judicial Council include the number of complaints received and how they were resolved in its annual public report.

To clarify, the Canadian Judicial Council’s process applies only to federally appointed judges, which are the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal courts, the provincial and territorial superior trial courts and the provincial and territorial courts of appeal. The provinces and territories are responsible for reviewing the conduct of the judges at the provincial-territorial trial court level, who are also provincially appointed.

Since its inception in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council has completed inquiries into eight complaints considered serious enough that they could warrant a judge's removal from the bench. Four of them, in fact, did result in recommendations for removal. A ninth inquiry is under way, but has faced delays due to public health restrictions imposed by the Province of Quebec, such as curfew and indoor capacity limits.

Under the proposed new process laid out in Bill C-9, the Canadian Judicial Council would continue to preside over the judicial complaints process, which would start with a three-person review panel deciding to either investigate a complaint of misconduct or, if the complaint is serious enough that it might warrant removal from the bench, refer it to a separate five-person hearing panel. If appropriate, a three-person review panel made up of a Canadian Judicial Council member, a judge and a layperson could impose such sanctions as public apologies or courses of continuing education. If warranted, a five-person hearing panel made up of two Canadian Judicial Council members, a judge, a lawyer and a layperson could, after holding a public hearing, recommend removal from the bench to the Minister of Justice.

Judges who face removal from the bench would have access to an appeal panel made up of three Canadian Judicial Council members and two judges and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, should the court agree to hear the appeal.

I know that sounded very convoluted and lengthy, but believe it or not, this would actually streamline the current process for court review of council decisions, which currently involves judicial review by two additional levels of court, those being the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, before a judge can ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The amendments would provide for a funding mechanism for the new process. The financial impact of the review process has been raised by a number of stakeholders. I want to encourage the Liberal government to take its fiscal responsibility to taxpayers into consideration with all government policies, but this bill is as good a start as any.

I would like to take a moment to point out that we have the former leader of the Conservative Party to thank for paving the way to having this bill before the House of Commons today. The Hon. Rona Ambrose introduced her private member's bill, Bill C-337, in 2017. This legislation would require the Canadian judiciary to produce a report every year that detailed how many judges had completed training in sexual assault law and how many cases were heard by judges who had not been trained, as well as a description of the courses that were taken. It would also require any lawyer applying for a position in the judiciary to have first completed sexual assault case training and education. Last, it would result in a greater number of written decisions from judges presiding over sexual assault trials, thus providing improved transparency for Canadians seeking justice.

The original premise of Bill C-337 was in response to a complaint about the behaviour a federal judge who was presiding over a case of sexual assault in 2014. The Canadian Judicial Council of which we speak today launched an investigation into the behaviour of that judge. Ultimately, in March 2017, the Canadian Judicial Council sent a letter to the federal Minister of Justice recommending that this judge be removed from the bench, and the minister accepted the recommendation.

The bill before us today works to expedite and facilitate the complaints process so that extreme cases like the one I just referenced can be fully and properly reviewed without causing too much disruption in terms of time, costs and delays in processing smaller but still important complaints.

Earlier this year, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights received correspondence from the Canadian Bar Association stating its support for the legislation as written in Bill C-9. In part, its letter reads as follows:

The CBA commented on the state of the judicial discipline process in its 2014 submission to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). On the subject of judicial discipline proceedings, our 16 recommendations were to ensure that the objectives of balancing the independence of the judiciary and the public’s confidence in the administration of justice were respected in the process. The CJC and Justice Canada responded with its own reports, which culminated in the present amendments to the Judges Act proposed by the Minister of Justice.

The letter from the Canadian Bar Association goes on to say:

In the view of the CBA Subcommittee, Bill C-9 strikes a fair balance between the right to procedural fairness and public confidence in the integrity of the justice system with the discipline of judges who form the core of that system. The proposed amendments enhance the accountability of judges, builds transparency, and creates cost-efficiencies in the process for handling complaints against members of the Bench.

I would like to pause here briefly just to say that at a moment like this, looking at a bill like this, it seems to me that it would be a very good time to have a federal ombudsman for victims of crime to hear the perspective on how the judicial complaints process is or is not currently working and how this bill would or would not be able to meet those challenges or rectify those concerns.

In testimony given to the justice committee on June 3, 2021, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime at that time raised what she described as a “most critical” issue, which was the legal recourse or remedy that victims have if their rights are violated.

She stated:

Currently, victims do not have a way to enforce the rights given to them in law; they only have a right to make a complaint to various agencies. This means that victims have to rely on the goodwill of criminal justice officials and corrections officials to give effect to or implement their statutory rights under the bill. This means victims count on police, Crown prosecutors, courts, review boards, corrections officials and parole boards to deliver, uphold and respect their rights.

But my office continues to receive complaints from victims that are common across all jurisdictions in Canada. Victims report to us that they are not consistently provided information about their rights or how to exercise them, they feel overlooked in all of the processes, and they have no recourse when officials don't respect their rights.

While the bill we are discussing today is, as I said earlier, a step in the right direction, there is certainly more work that needs to be done to make sure our justice system in Canada works for everyone who comes into contact with it, and I will add especially victims. One way this can be achieved is by immediately filling the position of federal ombudsman for victims of crime, which has now been vacant for nine months. There is absolutely no excuse for this position to have remained vacant for nine months when other positions are filled immediately, including, as I mentioned earlier, the position of ombudsman for those who are in our federal prisons.

By contrast, as I was mentioning, when the offenders ombudsman position became vacant, the Liberal government filled it the very next day, as it should have been. It should be filled right away, but so should the position of the ombudsman for victims of crime.

In 2021, the Canadian Judicial Council published “Ethical Principles for Judges”. I would like to reference excerpts from this publication to add some context into the role and duty of the judiciary.

They read as follows:

An independent and impartial judiciary is the right of all and constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic governance, the rule of law and justice in Canada....

Today, judges’ work includes case management, settlement conferences, judicial mediation, and frequent interaction with self-represented litigants. These responsibilities invite further consideration with respect to ethical guidance. In the same manner, the digital age, the phenomenon of social media, the importance of professional development for judges and the transition to post-judicial roles all raise ethical issues that were not fully considered twenty years ago. Judges are expected to be alert to the history, experience and circumstances of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and to the diversity of cultures and communities that make up this country. In this spirit, the judiciary is now more actively involved with the wider public, both to enhance public confidence and to expand its own knowledge of the diversity of human experiences in Canada today.

As was just referenced, social context and society overall change over time, and critical institutions like the justice system must grow to reflect these changes. Much of the time, this simply requires education on emerging issues or a more updated perspective on older issues.

In order to grow, there is a crucial partnership that must be respected between the judiciary and Parliament. While the Parliament and the courts are separate entities, there is a back-and-forth conversation between the two that is essential to our democracy and our judiciary. We have recently seen examples in which that conversation, unfortunately, was desperately lacking. On Friday, May 27, of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the punishment of life without parole in cases concerning mass murderers.

When confronted on the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Liberal government is determined to stick to their talking points by telling Parliament and concerned Canadians that we should not worry about mass killers actually receiving parole, because that possible outcome is extremely rare. What that actually means is that this government is comfortable putting these families through a revictimizing, retraumatizing parole process, even though, at the end of the day, it is essentially all for show because, according to the government, we just need to trust that a mass killer will not receive parole anyway.

In the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling, the decision stated, “A life sentence without a realistic possibility of parole presupposes the offender is beyond redemption and cannot be rehabilitated. This is degrading in nature and incompatible with human dignity. It amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.”

What the court is saying here is that keeping mass killers behind bars for the number of years that a judge has already decided would adequately reflect the gravity of their crimes amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment”. Personally, I and many others feel and believe that having the victims' families endure a parole hearing every two years for the rest of their lives is the real cruel and unusual punishment, and the federal government has a duty and a responsibility to respond to the court’s decision, something that it has not done and has shown no inclination to do.

Essentially, the Supreme Court also ruled on May 13 that one can drink one’s way out of a serious crime. We have called on the government to respond to that as well, and we look forward to debate on the response that needs to be coming. Just because the Supreme Court has made these rulings does not mean that this is the end of the road. What it means is that there is a discussion and a dialogue that has to take place, and now the ball is in our court. It is for us to deal with these decisions in Parliament. The Liberals can now create legislation that responds to the Supreme Court’s decisions, and this legislation can be used to make sure that victims, survivors and their families can live in a country where they are equally protected and respected by our justice system.

Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, is a step in the right direction. I will note that there is much, much more to be done to make sure that the justice system is fair and balanced for all.

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

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice has brought forward a number of pieces of legislation, including Bill C-5, which passed yesterday. A motion on the Saskatchewan Act was passed several months ago. We have Bill C-9 too, which is currently in the works.

We will continue to bring forward all of our priorities. We believe this bill is a priority and we want to get it passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's question, and I want to remind him that the Conservative Party does not have exclusivity on protecting victims. I think all of us in the House absolutely have a responsibility there, and we are very much committed to ensuring that the voices of those who are particularly impacted are heard.

Bill C-9 would allow for complaints to come forward, including from victims and other actors within the overall justice system. The bill would make it easier for these complaints to go through the process so they will not have to wait seven, eight or 10 years. They would be dealt with expeditiously. The levels of appeal that are available currently would be curtailed so that the process is more efficient.

I fundamentally believe that this would enhance the confidence that Canadians have, including victims, in coming forward with complaints. What we want to do is establish the space for people to come forward and have confidence that they can complain and still get a fair hearing in a timely manner.

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

Madam Speaker, everyone has heard about the case of Justice Girouard, who committed wrongdoing two weeks before his appointment in 2010. After all the appeals, his sanctions process took 10 years. I am wondering if the timeline could be tightened up drastically through the changes proposed by the Bill C-9. That would improve public confidence in the justice system.

I would also like to know whether my hon. colleague believes that the federal government will be able to make significant savings in this process, which is often too long and complex and, at times, undermines the confidence of Quebeckers and Canadians in the justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking today on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

As lawmakers, it is our cherished responsibility to see to the good stewardship of our justice system. It is also our responsibility to ensure that traditional independence, a principle that lies at the heart of that system, is safeguarded and preserved. These responsibilities go hand in hand. An independent court system, in which every Canadian has confidence that their rights will be protected and that the laws of our country will be enforced with honour and integrity, is the lifeblood of our constitutional democracy. Public confidence in the courts is essential to public confidence in the rule of law, and public confidence depends not only on the status and strength of our courts as institutions but on the integrity of the judges who occupy them.

I rise today to address a matter that engages this responsibility directly: the reform of Canada's system for investigating allegations of misconduct against federally appointed judges. It is tempting to take these observations for granted, but the reality is that they are the product of sustained vigilance and effort. Our institutions are strong because we take care to respect and nourish them. Our judiciary is strong because its members strive continuously to better serve Canadians and hold themselves to the most stringent standards of integrity, impartiality and professionalism.

Canada's superior court judiciary, which includes the judges of the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada as well the judges of all provincial and territorial superior courts, enjoys an unparalleled reputation for excellence. Allegations of misconduct against members of the federal judiciary are rare, and allegations so serious that removal from judicial office may be warranted are rarer still. Nevertheless, an effective process for reviewing those few allegations that arise constitutes an integral part of our justice system and helps to secure a cornerstore of the rule of law, which is public confidence in the integrity of justice.

According to our constitutional separation of powers, the judiciary itself must play a leading role in safeguarding the integrity of its members. Since 1971, the Judges Act has empowered its members, the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada's superior courts, acting through the Canadian Judicial Council, or CJC, to receive and investigate complaints regarding the conduct of superior court judges and to report their findings and recommendations to the Minister of Justice. Only then does it fall to the minister to decide whether to seek removal of a judge. It is a decision that requires ratification by Parliament and an address to the Governor General under section 99(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

This power is tempered by the constitutional principle of judicial independence, and the security of tenure it affords to every superior court judge in the absence of their proven incapacity or misconduct.

Recently, the gap between these broader changes and the conduct process prescribed under the Judges Act has grown acute, bringing into jeopardy the public confidence that this process is meant to secure. Allowing the judiciary to regulate the conduct of their own members in this manner is entirely appropriate. It rightly safeguards the courts against interference by the political branches, ensuring that judges can protect the Constitution and the rights of Canadians without fear of reprisal.

While Canadians can thus have confidence in judicial leadership and control over investigations into judicial conduct, the legislative framework that enables this leadership has remained unchanged since 1971. This is despite vast changes to the legal and social landscapes in which the framework must operate.

The most serious judicial conduct cases, and those that attract the greatest public attention through the inquiry committee process, are notoriously long and costly, and are beset with parallel court challenges that take years to resolve. One of these is the length and cost of judicial conduct proceedings. As federal administrative tribunals, inquiry committees constituted by the CJC are reviewable first in the Federal Court, then by the Federal Court of Appeal and then possibly the Supreme Court of Canada.

This gives a judge who is subject to the process an opportunity to initiate as many as three stages of judicial review. This was seen recently in the case of former Justice Girouard.

Because the Judges Act lacks alternatives to full-scale divisional inquiries, all cases that raise valid concerns regardless of their gravity are forced into a procedurally complex, public and adversarial inquiry mechanism. At the conclusion of that mechanism, rather than allowing an inquiry committee to report directly to the minister, the Judges Act requires that a report and recommendation be submitted by the CJC as a whole.

The fact that judicial independence warrants the provision of publicly funded counsel to a judge has meant that in some cases, lawyers have collected millions of dollars in fees for launching exhaustive legal challenges that are ultimately proven to be without merit. The public is rightly outraged by this lack of efficiency and accountability in a process carried out in its name. The situation demands correction.

In other words, a body of at least 17 chief justices and associate chief justices from across Canada who have not had any direct involvement in the scrutiny of a given case must review the work of an inquiry committee and decide whether or not to recommend a judge's removal to the minister. This process is burdensome, inefficient and costly. Rather than having confidence that concerns about judicial conduct will receive a fair and effective resolution, Canadians see this process as duplicating features of procedural complexity and the adversarial model that can be so alienating in the justice system at large.

Another shortcoming of the current process is that the Judges Act empowers the CJC only to recommend for or against the removal of a judge. There are no lesser sanctions available. As a result, instances of misconduct may fail to be sanctioned because they do not warrant removal. There is also a risk that judges may be exposed to full-scale inquiry proceedings and to the stigma of having their removal publicly considered for conduct that is more sensibly addressed by alternative procedures and lesser sanctions.

The bill before us would thus comprehensively reform and modernize the judicial conduct process while honouring a fundamental commitment to fairness, independence and procedural rigour. Allow me to offer a brief summary emphasizing the objectives that the bill is intended to achieve.

First and foremost, the bill would streamline the judicial conduct process. It would replace the current availability of judicial review with an efficient internal appeal mechanism for judges whose conduct has been found lacking by a hearing or a review panel. In other words, rather than allowing judges to step outside the process and launch multiple court challenges that can interrupt and delay proceedings for years, the reformed process would include its own internal system of review to ensure the fairness and integrity of any findings made against a judge.

At the conclusion of the hearings process and before the report on removal is issued to the minister, both the judge whose conduct is being examined and the lawyer responsible for presenting the case against them would be entitled to appeal the outcome to an appeal panel. Rather than making CJC hearings subject to external review by multiple levels of court with the resulting costs and delays, the new process would include a fair, efficient and coherent appeal mechanism internal to the process itself.

A five-judge appeal panel would hold public hearings akin to those of an appellate court and have all the powers it needs to effectively address any shortcomings in the hearing panel's process. Once it has reached a decision, the only remaining recourse available to the judge and to presenting counsel would be to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Entrusting process oversight to the Supreme Court would reinforce public confidence and avoid lengthy judicial review proceedings through several levels of court.

These steps on appeal would be governed by strict deadlines, and any outcomes reached would form part of the report and the recommendations ultimately made to the Minister of Justice. In addition to giving confidence in the integrity of judicial conduct proceedings, these reforms are expected to reduce the length of proceedings by a matter of years.

This would avoid situations we have seen in the past where repeated appeals to the Federal Court have drawn the process out to obscene lengths.

The new process would also provide opportunities for early resolution of conduct complaints, avoiding the need in many instances to resort to adversarial public hearings. Rather than treating all cases as though they might warrant judicial removal, the CJC would be empowered to impose alternate remedies that were proportionate to the conduct at issue and better tailored to the public interest. The public at large would be better represented in these proceedings with the bill codifying a place for public representatives in the review of complaint processes.

For example, it may require a judge to take a continuing education course or apologize for the harm caused by their misconduct.

As far as conduct that warrants judicial removal is concerned, the bill requires that robust public hearings be held. The bill includes a role that will allow the presenting counsel to act as a public prosecutor in presenting a case against a judge. What is more, the judge will have ample opportunity to provide responses and present a defence with the assistance of their own lawyer.

If the hearing panel recommends the judge's removal, those recommendations will be sent to the Minister of Justice subject only to the disposition of the appeal. It will not be necessary for the entire Canadian Judicial Council to take part in the process.

These steps alone would render the judicial conduct process more flexible, timely and efficient without compromising fairness or investigative rigour. In doing so, it would also render the process less costly, more accessible and more accountable to Canadians.

Beyond mere process reforms, the bill would introduce a stable funding mechanism to support the CJC's role in investigating judicial conduct and one appropriate to the constitutionally imperative nature of this duty. It would also add safeguards requiring that the responsible officials establish guidelines consistent with government-wide standards for the administration of public funds, that the administration of those funds be subject to regular audits, and that the results of those audits be made available in public reports. This combination of financial accountability and transparency is critical in ensuring public confidence in the judicial conduct process, and it is overdue.

The provisions established in the appropriation clearly limit the categories of expenses it captures to those required to hold public hearings. Moreover, these would be subject to regulations made by the Governor in Council. Planned regulations include limiting how much lawyers involved in the process can bill, and limiting judges who are subject to proceedings to one principal lawyer. The bill also would require that the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs make guidelines affixing or providing for the determination of any fees, allowances and expenses that may be reimbursed and that are not specifically addressed by the regulations. These guidelines must be consistent with any Treasury Board directives pertaining to similar costs, and any difference must be publicly justified.

Finally, the bill would require that a mandatory independent review be completed every five years into all costs paid through the statutory appropriation. The independent reviewer would report to the Minister of Justice, the Commissioner and the chair of the CJC. The report would assess the efficacy of all applicable policies establishing financial controls and would be made public. Taken together, these measures would bring a new level of fiscal accountability to judicial conduct costs, while replacing the cumbersome and ad hoc funding approach currently in place.

All of these reforms were informed by an extensive process of public consultation. In addition to hearing from Canadians, academic experts and members of the legal profession, the government has had a sustained engagement with two judicial organizations in particular: the CJC and the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association.

The government is deeply grateful for the commitment of these organizations to supporting reform and sharing their perspectives and expertise in a spirit of respectful collaboration with officials from the Department of Justice Canada. I know that passage of these reforms is of the highest priority to judicial leaders, and the government is committed to answering their rightful requests for legislation that would support them in fulfilling their critical role.

I will conclude simply by recommending to my colleagues that we seize the opportunity to renew an institution that is vital to the trust that Canadians place in their justice system. I am convinced that Canada has the strongest justice system in the world, in no small part because we have the most exceptional and committed judiciary in the world. That reality is not inevitable, but it is the result of our sustained commitment and effort to keeping our institutions healthy and keeping our judiciary independent and strong.

Let us renew these commitments again with the passage of this legislation. I look forward to our deliberation and debate.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

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

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

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

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

Judges Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)