Justice Committee on May 11th, 2015

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I think everybody's done a very good job of identifying the things the committee does. Committees in the House of Commons of Canada are also masters of their own destiny, so when we're not busy with legislation or budgetary oversight, we can study any aspect within our purview that we deem reasonable. As an example, this committee, I think for the first time ever, has been part of a vetting of a judicial appointment, and these kinds of things haven't traditionally happened, but because we can do different things from time to time, this has been a recent development in our Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, another question.

[Olena Ponomarenko]

We've heard at our meetings today and earlier that if such an unfortunate occasion happens that the committee of the council of judges of Canada recommends that a judge's judgeship be revoked, this letter go to the justice committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I don't think it has ever happened.

[Olena Ponomarenko]

No, it has never happened, but what is the procedure?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

To be frank with you, I've been around 10 years and I've never seen a letter come in that way. It may be part of the procedure but it doesn't happen.

[Olena Ponomarenko]

Just to clarify, there were a few cases, we were told, when actually there was a recommendation from the council of judges that a certain judge be fired, but normally they would resign. It never happened, actually, but the letter would go here to the committee, theoretically speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Maybe in theory it is supposed to come here, but I have never seen it.

The other thing you should know is that the committee itself is not involved in the appointment of judges.

Do you have another question?

[Vasyl Yanitski]

My question is whether a position in the Canadian Parliament has enough authority to put forward draft bills and to see them through, so that they are actually adopted by the Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll start here, and I'll fix the answers to both.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

It's a very good question. Private members of Parliament do have the ability to put forward private member's bills, including in the area of criminal justice legislation, as they often do. In fact, we just dealt with one earlier today.

It was a bill put forward by a member of Parliament from the province of Saskatchewan to increase the penalties for impaired driving. It passed through the committee today with an amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I would add to this, because this of course is the view of the government, which is interesting and okay. But at the same time the question was about whether there is sufficient.... We are limited in the scope of bills that we can present, as members of the opposition.

A private member's bill, be it from the government side or from the opposition, first of all, goes by lottery. You get a little number, and if you are lucky, you get pretty much one per legislature. I have not been lucky, because I was number 290-something, so we are going to be in an election without having a chance to really pass one.

You are limited in scope, in the sense that it cannot be a monetary bill. It cannot force the government to spend money, so you have to be careful how you present your bill. It can be a motion, also. When there is a majority and you are in the opposition, let's say that it is a bit harder and trickier.

I would just say that if we do a survey of the last four years, maybe four or five bills from the opposition have been adopted at second reading to go to committee. I don't think any really went to the last stage, so that tells you all. Maybe there was one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We did have our researcher check on your previous question.

A letter is sent from the council to the Minister of Justice who could pass it on to the committee for review, but I think the system is so good, in terms of vetting who becomes a judge, that we have very few issues with judges. When we do, they seem to quit before that happens.

Do you have another question?

[Victor Korolenko]

After the meetings in Canada for the past week that we have been here, we became familiar with the achievements of the litigation in Canada. It's obvious that the litigation has gone far ahead, but at the same time I would like to ask if there are any draft bills to amend the legislation over litigation to improve it and to guarantee on a high level the right to access to a fair trial, to the arbitration, and to the terms of reasonable time for the trial.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Can I answer this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Sure, you can answer this one, Madam.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

It's a good question, and I want to address the panel to talk about the fact that those are all principles that are dealt with by the provinces. In our federation, the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. Here at the justice committee we would deal with legislation to legislate over criminal infractions depending on the law, but the administration of justice is dealt with by the provinces. We would not have legislation that could legislate over how litigation happens.

The access to a fair trial is a constitutional right, which is in the Constitution, and there is also the fact that Parliament is independent from the judicial system. Parliament can only legislate on law, but the application of the law has nothing to do with either the government side, or the official opposition, or Parliament itself. The administration of justice is provincial, and the application of the law and the administration of justice is independent—as it should be—from the government and Parliament, which is also a constitutional principle in the Canadian Constitution.

[Victor Korolenko]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Casey would like to respond also.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I think your question was primarily directed to non-criminal litigation, so civil litigation and administrative proceedings. I agree with Ms. Péclet that civil litigation is within the domain of provincial jurisdictions in this country. It is notoriously slow and extremely expensive. It's because of that we have seen a dramatic growth in alternative dispute resolution, mediation, and conciliation, sometimes done by retired judges. There are many making a good living at resolving disputes outside the court process.

Ms. Péclet is quite right that under the Charter of Rights there is a constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. That constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time applies only in criminal circumstances.

The wheels of justice in this country tend to move a lot faster in matters of criminal justice than in civil matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have a question for you from Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It's a two-part question really. You mentioned that you were getting some mentoring from Canadian judges. I think it's written here about eight times or so. I was interested, from your perspective, to see how that's going and the effectiveness of that mentoring.

In one of your footnotes here, you're talking about commercial disputes. One of the things Canada would very much like to have with Ukraine is, of course, a free trade agreement. Our representatives are talking to each other on this, but one of the important parts of these kinds of things are dispute mechanisms within the courts of each respective nation.

A lot of your comments here are talking about local business disputes within Ukraine, with Ukrainian companies, but are you building the mechanism in place to deal with international types of commercial disputes on a trade level?

[Vasyl Yanitski]

First of all, let me express my sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to meet with us and that we have this wonderful opportunity to actually talk to each other, and to be here within the framework of the Canada-funded project regarding judicial education for economic growth in Ukraine.

As you may know, Ukraine is in the process of developing all kinds of reforms, some of them are very substantial, one of them being constitutional reform. Changes to the Ukrainian constitution are being developed as we speak. They will deal with the devolution of powers, the decentralization of powers, from the central government to regional and local governments, oblast level and city level. A significant part of this reform includes the reform of the judiciary, the courts.

Many people in Ukraine express dissatisfaction with how the judicial and court systems work. Therefore, these are very important changes that are being developed and contemplated right now. One of the most important parts is to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.

We want to improve the funding arrangements for the system as to bring back the trust of the people into the system.

The current parliament is very busy. We have already adopted a number of laws that deal with different aspects of the judicial system and a great number are still under development.

We also mentioned commercial courts. Again, there is a lively discussion in the society. Many views are being voiced and some of those views are that we don't.... In Ukraine we have separate administrative courts and separate commercial courts. Some people have said that we should do away with this specialization, but in recent laws that dealt with the judicial system, they have remained.

We've been here for a few days now and I can see that our systems are very different. I like many things about the Canadian judicial system. I like the fact that whenever a case is initiated and filed, it stays in the same city and province all through the appeal process.

In Ukraine, in many cases when a case is first heard and there is an appeal, it moves to a different city. For example, it would have to go to a different oblast. Then, of course, the final appeal is at the supreme court of Ukraine, which is located in Kiev. There are many more movements for the parties involved. I wish we could streamline it somehow, as well.

There was a sort of philosophical question, whether we should do away with the specialized courts, like commercial and administrative courts. The prevailing thought is that the legislation is so complex that it's good to have specialized commercial and administrative courts.

There are many discussions that are still ongoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I want to thank you for joining us today. It was an honour to have you here today.

We're sorry we have to cut this short because we actually have to go and vote in a few minutes.

Enjoy the rest of the week in Canada. I hope you take away as much as you are giving here to us in the Canadian judicial system.

The meeting is adjourned.