Evidence of meeting #39 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you.
I think, Chair, I have 10 seconds left.
It's over to you, Ms. MacGregor. I got the impression that you ran out of time as well. In 10 seconds or less, can you complete your thoughts?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Women's Centre for Social Justice
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.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to pick up where Mr. Brock was leading. Thank you, Mr. Brock.
I'll start with Ms. Devost. You were talking about the suggested language in proposed section 90. Can you explain your rationale? Why are you suggesting that the scope be broadened in the language that you're proposing on behalf of NCCM?
5 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
It's because if a complaint comes in and it's not direct discrimination, the screening officer may interpret this provision literally. Therefore, if it's not a direct conduct of sexual harassment or discrimination, the complaint may get dismissed even though it could be a legitimate complaint because the conduct may appear to be discriminatory. The Justice Spiro case is actually a perfect example.
On the face of it, when the complaint comes in, it may not appear to be discriminatory, but the conduct of the judge may lead one to believe that it is discriminatory as you go along within the complaint process. This is why we want to make sure that, if we broaden the wording, these complaints that could potentially be dismissed are not.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I'm looking at the wording of the provision, and your position is that the way it's drafted right now is not sufficiently broad to give that discretion to the screening officer.
5 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
No, not at all. We believe that if a screening officer looks at this.... For example, if the complaint comes in—if I take the matter of Justice Spiro—you know, sharing emails, interfering with the hiring process at a university, that may not in itself seem to be discriminatory, but the conduct of the judge is discriminatory.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Exactly. It's the conduct, so we feel that if we leave the provision the way it is now, a screening officer will look at this and say, “Oh, well, he was not discriminating against a certain individual, so we're going to dismiss the complaint.”
5 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Then, in relation to proposed section 80, you're just suggesting that the word “lobbying” be added.
5 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
We're suggesting “lobbying, directly or indirectly”.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We do, then, run into the issue of the definition of “lobbying”, and I'm assuming that your suggestion would be....
5 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
However minimalistic lobbying can be, it falls under that category, and it goes to a hearing process.
This is because now we're in a situation where the panel review qualifies what lobbying is. They look at what the judge does, and they do the exercise of qualifying it. For example, in the case of Justice Spiro, they determined that Justice Spiro was voicing a concern, that he was not really actively lobbying, even though it was lobbying.
That's why we say that we want to add “lobbying, directly or indirectly” so that however minimalistic—I don't like to use that word—it seems, it's considered lobbying and it goes to a hearing. Now we have the review panel looking at two cases differently. They're looking at the same law, but they're reading it differently. By adding “lobbying, directly or indirectly”, we're bringing uniformity; it's not left to interpretation.
5 p.m.
Liberal
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?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
It's a work in progress. That's why we're here. We like its goal. I think you had other witnesses who provided testimony on transparency and the disclosure of documents. We do support that as well, but our focus today and for this bill is these two amendments that we propose.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
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.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Women's Centre for Social Justice
In principle we are, yes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Okay, great. Thank you.
In terms of proposed section 84, which deals with diversity, your position is that the language is a good start and it needs more to it. As I understand it, you were speaking more on the training of members of the review panels, to make sure they have training around unconscious bias and systemic racism, those types of important matters.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Women's Centre for Social Justice
That's correct. I think part of the challenge is who has access and opportunity to actually begin the process of a complaint or bring in a complaint. It's understanding that Black and indigenous women, who are systematically discriminated against, are some of the last people to feel they have a voice and an opportunity to complain about a judge because of the inherent biases and racism and discrimination they face at that intersection of gender and race.
For us, it's beyond training; it's more about a culture shift.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Naqvi.
Next we'll to go Monsieur Fortin for six minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Devost, you spoke about lobbying earlier. I'm not sure I understood what you were saying. I understand that we should stop making a distinction between direct lobbying and indirect lobbying, but what kind of lobbying are we talking about exactly? What kind of harmful lobbying are you afraid that a judge might engage in? Can you explain this for us?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Okay.
I'm talking about cases in which judges use their position to lobby.
Let's look at the example of Justice David E. Spiro, who was formerly affiliated with the University of Toronto and the former chair of a lobby group. This judge, at someone's request, called the University of Toronto to influence the appointment of a professor.
Are you aware of this incident?