Thank you, Madam Chair.
With all due respect to my Liberal colleagues and, in particular, my friend Mr. Maloney, I don't share his analysis of the importance of this study. This is not a political opportunity to gain points. This is an opportunity to improve access to justice.
Every Canadian has an absolute right to receive timely justice, whether that be in the criminal realm or the civil realm. We're all lawyers. I can anecdotally share with you that this issue of the lack of urgency in judicial appointments is a chronic, serious issue that is undermining the functioning of our judicial system, so much so that the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada had to cry out and make public his real, deep concerns about the pace at which the federal government is appointing justices.
Where I will agree with Mr. Maloney is that since the appointment of our new justice minister and Attorney General, there has been a sense of urgency in his office. He has appointed far more in the time he has held that office than were appointed in the four years previously occupied by David Lametti. David Lametti, in a CBC News report, essentially said, “It's not my problem. I wanted to appoint. I was hamstrung by the PMO.”
The process is very clear. Under the current judicial appointment process, the justice minister is responsible for recommending a candidate for approval. There are three aspects to that analysis: “highly recommend”, “recommend” or “do not recommend”. The justice minister recommends a particular candidate for approval following a due diligence process overseen in part by the Prime Minister's Office.
He was accurate to say it wasn't strictly his decision and his lack of a sense of urgency. He was stymied, essentially, by the lack of urgency in the Prime Minister's Office. That should send a very serious, alarming signal to all Canadians and to all members of the judicial process.
Mr. Maloney says that in the last week alone, they've appointed x number of justices, and today, eight justices. That's great. I haven't seen the news. I haven't seen the reports, so I'm not going to doubt the authenticity of what my friend had to say, but I can tell you that six months ago, when Justice Wagner cried out for assistance and had a personal one-on-one telephone call with the Prime Minister, there were 79 vacancies.
As of January 1, 2024—and anyone can do a Google search through the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada—across this country, there were 78 vacancies. But for the comments of Mr. Maloney, we've improved on the stats by one justice.
Inevitably, the justices who are considered for federal judicial appointments tend to be senior members of the bar. There are mandatory requirements for retirement. There are options for federal justices to change their status from fully engaged or fully active justices on the bench to supernumerary status, which means they only sit for a very limited amount of time per year.
Every year, cyclically, we have a number of justices moving into new categories or flat out retiring. The numbers are always increasing. The fact that we have eight new appointments today is great, but come February 1, we could be down by 12. The problem does not go away. This problem of not having a full complement of federal court justices has existed for decades. Ever since I became a lawyer, there have never been enough justices. When you don't have enough justices, your access to justice is denied—so much so that the Senate, in August 2016, produced a study called “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice”. One of the recommendations was to appoint more judges in a timely manner. Here we are, eight years later, still arguing about how the appointment process is not efficient and how it often takes eight months to a year, if not longer, to appoint justices on the bench. The impacts are profound.
I've quoted for you what Justice Wagner.... Actually, I haven't quoted what Justice Wagner had to say, but I might take this opportunity to do that right now, because I think his words are very telling. As Canada's chief justice sounded the alarm over the serious consequences of judicial vacancies, in a wrap-up, he was “highly critical of the current pace of judicial appointments, warning that languishing vacancies on courts across Canada are exacerbating 'an already alarming situation.'” He said, “These empty positions have a significant impact on the administration of justice, the functioning of our courts, and access to justice for the public.... It has major effects in every province of this country.”
According to Justice Wagner, “There are [suitable] candidates available in every province [and territory], so there's no reason why those [vacancies] cannot be filled.” As noted by Justice Wagner, some courts have been operating for years with vacancy rates of 10% to 15%. “He said it's not unusual to see some positions remain vacant for months, or in some cases, years. This, even though in most cases”—this is quite telling, Madam Chair—“when judges retire they give six months'...notice” to the chief justice of their respective province. This isn't an abrupt decision to retire next week; there is a six-month period in which vacancies could be filled, but it's not happening.
I pulled another article by a civil litigator in Toronto by the name of Kathryn Marshall. She wrote an op-ed in one of our papers not too long ago. The title was “Our judicial system is broken, but politicians don't seem to care”. Well, I can tell you that this politician certainly cares. The entire Conservative bench certainly cares, which is why we brought this motion. She indicated that there was a particular victim from an Ontario town who was “scheduled to testify against her alleged rapist this past summer. But when she turned up for her day in court, she was told her case couldn't proceed because there was no courtroom available.”
She said:
Talk to any lawyer and they will tell you horror stories about turning up for Day One of a trial only to be told there is no courtroom or judge available. For lawyers it is frustrating, but for a victim of a crime who has mustered the courage to come forward, it is beyond devastating.
We all know how our criminal justice system has changed in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Jordan. Jordan has set a presumptive ceiling by which cases must be completed in the lower court and in the superior court. It's 18 months in the lower court and 30 months in the higher court. When you don't have judges to fill the courtrooms, you have serious cases—sometimes homicides, serious domestic violence and serious gun offences—where the judge who is ultimately hearing a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time will often conclude that the Crown has not discharged its onus and that there is a charter violation. That violation results in a withdrawal or dismissal of the charges.
Now, what kind of message is this committee sending to victims across this country, “you don't matter”? We already have a serious issue with domestic victims coming forward. They don't trust our system. We have an opportunity as parliamentarians, particularly in this committee, which should be charged with this responsibility, to ensure the timely and efficient delivery of judicial services in both the criminal and the civil field. In my view, to turn down this very serious, important and relevant study is shameful.
Thank you. Those are my comments.
