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.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Okay.
I'll go over it quickly then—
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Oh, I understand the one you mean. He intervened in an appointment process at the University of Toronto.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
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?
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Yes. Thank you.
At any rate, it sheds some light for me on the Justice Spiro matter.
When we talk about lobbying, do any other examples come to mind? I understand that the justice's approach was probably in violation of his duty of confidentiality and a number of other things. In the context of the amendment you are proposing, however, can you think of any other approaches that might amount to lobbying?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
If judges use their office to influence anyone, like the arresting police officer, that's a form of lobbying.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
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?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Thank you for the question.
It's a good question, and one that I haven't looked into. If you want, I can send some comments on that to your office.
In the meantime, my colleague may have an answer for you.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Ms. Devost.
Ms. MacGregor, can you shed some light on this for me?
Also, you are of the opinion that it should be possible to file complaints anonymously. However, are you not concerned that this will create situations where it will be difficult for a judge or the Canadian Judicial Council to determine whether or not the complaint is serious?
In your view, how might we go about such a process?
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Women's Centre for Social Justice
Thank you for that question.
Can I answer the first one you asked my colleague on the panel, around the process for appointing judges?
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Women's Centre for Social Justice
I think the process that's currently in place for appointing judges is flawed. If you actually examine the number of judges and break it down by racial demography, you'll find that the system is heavily whitewashed. In a country like Canada, which has diversity, having this overrepresentation of typically white and typically male judges should tell you something. There is something wrong in the system. Other identities, other individuals, are not being represented.
Do I think something could be changed? Absolutely. A lot could be changed. I'd be happy to send you some recommendations on ways to do that.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.
Next we have Mr. Garrison for six minutes.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today. It has certainly expanded the range of the topics before us. I think that's important.
I want to go first to you, Ms. Devost. We've talked a lot about the lobbying recommendation, but the other recommendation is for proposed subsection 90(3). What brought that to your attention? What experience here are you responding to? Is it the high-profile cases that were dismissed, is it the volume of cases that were dismissed at screening, or is it both?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Thank you for your question.
No, it's just that we want to make sure that there's uniformity. The way this provision reads, it's not limited, but it deals with two specific things—sexual harassment and discrimination. We feel that if a screening officer receives a complaint that does not fall within those two parameters—again, I sound like I'm repeating myself—it will be dismissed. By broadening the provision or the definition, a complaint that is legitimate but that may not, on its face or at the beginning of the process, seem to be legitimate, will not get thrown out or dismissed and will go through the process.
That's why we're looking at this provision. We feel that it would be a proper amendment to make to this bill.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I think I see what you're getting at. I'm trying to do a little parallel here. As a gay man, I have quite often been told that I haven't been discriminated against, by someone who didn't have an understanding of what had actually happened. I'm using that as a parallel. I think that's what you're getting at. Sometimes the person hasn't had lived experience, or they don't have a detailed understanding of how discrimination functions. Something, on its face, might not appear as discriminatory.
Is that what we're talking about here?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Yes, that's one explanation given to it. Yes, definitely.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Are there others, or is that pretty close to the heart of it?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Yes, it's pretty close to the heart of it.
As I said, we don't want somebody to read the provision literally and, as you say, not have an understanding of what discriminatory conduct may be, and then say that this was not discrimination and go ahead and dismiss the complaint.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
My understanding is that we don't actually have good figures on dismissals of complaints and reasons for dismissals. Would you agree that we don't actually have good data on that?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, National Council of Canadian Muslims
We just heard from the witness here that his complaints were dismissed in the beginning.
Yesterday I was reading, and I saw that a lot of complaints are getting dismissed. That was my understanding, that a lot of complaints are getting dismissed at the screening stage.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Right.
I want to turn to you, Ms. MacGregor, on the same topic, the proposal by the National Council of Canadian Muslims on proposed subsection 90(3), and get your reaction to the proposal to broaden the context of things that must be looked at.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Could you give us a little more in terms of why you might agree with that?
5:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Women's Centre for Social Justice
I think her answers were quite explicit, and I completely agree. I really have nothing more to add. She said it very eloquently.