Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2016

Opposition Motion—Appointments to the Supreme Court

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I see that people in the House are finding it easier to pronounce “Chezzetcook”. That means they are saying it fairly often, and I thank you for that.

I must say that I am extremely happy to be here in the House after two and a half months of working in the constituency and having the opportunity to be with my constituents. It is good to be back, but I enjoyed my time back home, doing the real work for the people who elected us. That is where they are and we have to do that, of course.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for West Nova, as well.

I have been listening to the debate most of the day today. I do not know what to think anymore about the Conservative Party. In the last two or three days, its members are now, for the first time in 10 years, speaking about Atlantic Canada. I do not know if it was just because on October 15 they noticed that, my God, maybe they didn't do anything in Atlantic Canada, maybe they should think about doing something, maybe they should try talking about Atlantic Canada, and maybe they should try learning more about Atlantic Canada.

There we are. This is what is happening right now.

I can tell members that I and my 31 colleagues from Atlantic Canada have been working hard on many cases. This is just another one that we have been working on. The Atlantic growth strategy we are working on that is customized to make sure it is going to bring prosperity to Atlantic Canada in many ways is one; the infrastructure investment across this country and Atlantic Canada is another; the small craft investment is another one. Those are all big investments, tax cuts, etc. that we have been working on over the last six to nine months.

I am excited to talk about this topic because I want to make the contrast between the former government and our government. That is the objective of my presentation today. With the former government, there were a lot of things done, as my colleague mentioned a few minutes ago, that were not open and transparent; far from it. When I think back, I remember the former prime minister said he would not appoint any senators. Guess what? He appointed 57 of them. There were 57 partisan appointments made by his government.

What is happening here is that we have a government that is going to make some big changes to many of the practices that we have been under in the last 10 years—and by that, I am talking about the Supreme Court and the Senate.

As members know, the Liberal senators are independent. That was done by our leader before he was even Prime Minister. That is a clear sign of a path of openness and transparency.

Let us talk about this new process. This new process speaks on three fronts. The first, of course, is the open and transparent one; the second is Canada's diversity; and the third is the merit base, which is extremely important.

The first one is openness and transparency. Qualified judges from across Canada can submit to become a Supreme Court judge. I believe, and we believe and we know, that there are many highly qualified Atlantic Canadian judges who would be in the pool used by the Prime Minister to choose the new Supreme Court judge. They can apply online, and the government of Canada is actively doing many promotions to invite as many qualified people as possible.

The second one is diversity. The committee must consider if we want gender parity; it must reflect diversity as far as linguistic, cultural, regional, and employment equity representation. That is the big piece of the Canadian diversity.

The third one is the merit base. That means the government will be doing everything it can to attract, as I said earlier, as many qualified people as possible.

I am so pleased to say that our Canadian government has acted on its promise to appoint bilingual justices. That is extremely important because lawyers had been unable to get their message across or argue their cases in the Supreme Court without the help of an interpreter.

That is no longer a problem, which is a significant victory.

Today's debate is primarily about the appointment of a justice from Atlantic Canada. Before I get into that, I want to underscore the excellent work that Nova Scotia's Justice Cromwell did for many years. I thank him for his work. The seat is vacant because he retired.

As we all know, this is not officially in the Constitution, which does state that three justices must be from Quebec. However, regional representation is essential and has long been upheld. It is of vital importance, and we must guarantee it.

The new justice must be from the same region because we can benefit from regional perspective, vision, and knowledge in such matters as maritime law.

Let it be legal culture. Let it be social culture. They need to bring that expertise and their competencies to the Supreme Court of course.

Our government respects this convention. It is taking this decision seriously. This process is simply creating an opportunity for Canadian judges to apply, and we encourage many of them of course. We are confident in Atlantic Canada. Many strong and qualified judges will surface through this process. By being selected through an open and transparent merit-based process will give them that much more legitimacy, which is important.

What does that mean? It means that our open process will allow them to function but it also means that the days of secret backroom deals, side deals, friends, rewards, are over. That is out. That cannot happen through this process. That is pretty impressive. Our Canadian government expects better and will do better.

Of course, I am a strong advocate of the appointment of the next Supreme Court judge from Atlantic Canada, and I have every confidence that our Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice will find many qualified candidates and will make the right decision for Canada, for Atlantic Canada, and for the Supreme Court of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that Atlantic Canada has many eminently qualified jurists and lawyers to fill the vacancy of Justice Cromwell. That is why the Canadian Bar Association has criticized this process. It is why the Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association is challenging this process in court as we speak.

If the hon. member really does believe, as is the case, that Atlantic Canada has many fine jurists and lawyers, how is an Atlantic Canada member of Parliament able to stand by a process that could single out Atlantic Canada by leaving Atlantic Canada as the only region in Canada without representation on the court?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a process that is open and transparent is the right process to have. When we have the qualified people who we have, there is no question that we are going to find a qualified jurist from Atlantic Canada. We are going to be successful in doing so.

Sometimes change scares people. This government is an open and strong government for making sure that the changes that are required are made. This system will allow our jurists to come through with an Atlantic Canadian judge.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his speech.

I must say that I cannot get a certain Adam Dodek quotation out of my head. He said that the process for selecting a new Supreme Court justice appears more complicated than the secret process for electing a new pope.

It goes without saying, of course, that I support this motion in principle. However, I cannot help but think of the Conservative appointments. Since we now have a new government, I am reminded of this new concept of functional bilingualism. If I understand the concept correctly, one can be recognized as bilingual without speaking French. That is completely absurd. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Should we be afraid, for instance, that Atlantic Canada will be represented by its kissing cousins from next door, or by someone who married someone? Will the rules be clear, as the rules on bilingualism should be? Someone who is bilingual must be able to hear a case in French and converse with the lawyers in French.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is worth noting that in our old system, no one was bilingual. It was impossible. We are therefore proposing candidates who can speak French, who have a good level of written and oral comprehension, and who can get by in the language in question.

What is relevant is that we are making progress once again. There is nothing to fear. We are going forward where the previous government would not, and this shows that we are much more open.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion was put forward to confirm that Atlantic Canada would have representation on the Supreme Court. The intent of that motion was very clear. Government members on the opposite side of the House today have spoken in support of the motion. In fact, the Minister of Justice has also said that she will be supporting the motion as it moves forward.

We want to be really clear. Does this mean that the Prime Minister will appoint a judge from Atlantic Canada or not?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion. I know that based on the information that this side of the House has provided the Prime Minister will make the right decision and we will have very qualified candidates to choose from. I am confident this is what will happen.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure to rise today in support of the motion proposed by the member for Niagara Falls. I had the pleasure of serving with that honourable gentleman on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I very much respect his long service in the House and also to Canada.

At the outset, I want to sincerely thank the Hon. Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell for his service to Canada and also for being an excellent lawyer, law professor at Dalhousie law school, and judge of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court of Canada. He is an extraordinary jurist with common sense and the common touch. He certainly has done Nova Scotia very proud, and I wish him much health and happiness in his well-deserved retirement from the Supreme Court of Canada.

Of course, his retirement as of September 1 means that a new judge of the Supreme Court of Canada will be appointed. This impending retirement is what has prompted the new process as well as the debate in the House today, and I welcome that debate.

I would like to outline my connection and interest with regard to this matter in particular. I am a lawyer from Nova Scotia and I am on the justice committee as well. I was called to the Nova Scotia bar in 2008 and practised law in my hometown of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, until I was honoured with the confidence of the people of West Nova on October 19, 2015. In my practice, I worked both as a barrister and as a solicitor and had the opportunity to argue cases at all levels of courts in Nova Scotia. I also had the occasion while articling to assist on a case and actually attend at the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a matter involving a lobster-fishing licence and its nature as tangible property. Clearly that was a case that mattered very much to the region of Atlantic Canada, and it was important that there was knowledge on the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to the different regions that were implicated.

I also served as president of the Western Counties Barristers' Society, and had the opportunity in such capacity to represent members of the bar and also to get to know members of the bench and their impeccable qualities both as jurists and as people. I am incredibly impressed by the calibre, hard work, and dedication of the judges in Nova Scotia. I also know from my colleagues across Atlantic Canada that our judges and jurists are as good as any in Canada, and of course Canada has one of the most respected judiciaries in the entire world. By extension, I have no doubt that there will be excellent applicants from Atlantic Canada for consideration in the new process. Of course the new process requires that the independent committee have at least two jurists from Atlantic Canada be considered for the appointment.

I certainly support that an Atlantic Canadian be selected as the next member of the Supreme Court of Canada. However, why did we need a new process? It is an excellent process that we have instituted, that this government has brought forward. It is independent. There is an advisory board, which is led by a former Progressive Conservative prime minister, Kim Campbell. She has the respect of this side of the House in doing a good job. I believe it shows some question on the current Conservative Party's judgment to not have confidence in the independent advisory board that is led by a former prime minister who was a Progressive Conservative.

The reason that we need a new process, though, is pretty clear. The former government had a process that lacked transparency and lacked the confidence of Canadians. The appointment and the mess they made of the appointment of the Supreme Court justice, when they advanced Marc Nadon, became an absolute distraction from the work of Parliament and an absolute distraction from the good work of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In fact, former prime minister Harper and his government called into question the integrity of the Hon. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. This was uncalled for. This was dangerous to the independence of the judiciary, and in doing so, tried to undermine one of Canada's fundamentally most important institutions to our democracy and the reputation of a person whose integrity, professionalism, and honour are beyond reproach.

Further, the Conservatives undermined confidence in the court itself by introducing private member's bills that sought to get around the charter certification here in Parliament as well as introducing pieces of legislation and passing them with their majority, knowing that they did not meet the constitutional provisions of the charter. The level of hypocrisy that we are hearing today from the other side of the House, in saying that the Liberal Party does not respect the integrity of the court, is quite simply laughable.

Why will the new process carry the confidence of Canadians? Here is why. It is because it is inclusive and requires functional bilingualism to be considered. We know that 13 of the last 15 appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada have been bilingual jurists and that is now considered the norm in appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. This would ensure that the process chooses someone who is functionally bilingual, which is important because there are nuances in the law. Canada has two official languages, English and French. It is important for people who appear before the Supreme Court of Canada to have confidence that they can speak either official language of this country and the nuances of the law will be understood.

The process also seeks diversity, lends itself to confidence through its independence, and also ensures that judges of the highest calibre in this country are appointed. Almost all of the recent appointments, as I mentioned, have been bilingual, and it reflects the functional bilingualism that is important to Canada being officially bilingual.

Over the past number of years, we have seen growing diversity on the bench and bar across Canada. We need to continue to appoint excellent jurists at all levels, including superior courts in the provinces, which will develop a broader, more diverse pool of judges to select for the Supreme Court of Canada. This process is a starting point to ensure not only that judges will have the requisite level of experience and knowledge on the lower courts but that they will be well positioned to merit the seat on the Supreme Court of Canada.

We have seen and must continue to strive for diversity in our law schools, but ultimately, diversity among those on the bench will not only properly reflect Canadian society, but most importantly, encourage more people who have not traditionally been represented as jurists to get into the profession of law, which is so fundamental to our democracy and systems here in Canada.

On the custom of regional representation, I have heard, time and again, the argument made today that Atlantic Canadian MPs are not standing up, that we have been silent on the issue with respect to this new process. I am a member of the justice committee, as I mentioned, and on August 11 I had the pleasure of the justice minister appearing at committee. This was brand new. It was the first time that a minister had done so in contemplation of answering the questions of parliamentarians about the new process.

I had the pleasure of welcoming the minister, along with my committee colleagues, that day, but I also clearly stated that the custom of regional representation has served Canada well as a country. I was not silent that day. I said that this is an important custom that must be respected. The motion today asks for that support and that is why I am proudly supporting the motion. However, it is also important to reflect Canada's regional diversity, which is what the new process is all about, respecting and reflecting the diversity not only of regional representation but of bilingualism, of diversity, and of indigenous peoples being appointed to the court.

The Conservatives attempted the narrative recently that standing up for Atlantic Canada is something they are doing and that the 32 Atlantic MPs are not doing. Stephen Harper infamously said that Atlantic Canada had a culture of defeat. We saw a culture of defeat. It was the 32 seats in Atlantic Canada that defeated the Conservatives in the last election.

That was because the Conservatives had disrespected Atlantic Canada during the 10 years they were in government, reneging on the Atlantic accord, making EI changes that were unfair, slashing funding for cultural heritage such as the Acadians and our official languages, disrespecting veterans, not considering Atlantic Canada when the health transfers were changed, and a lack of respect for the environment. The Conservatives will have to excuse Atlantic Canadians for finding their newfound interest in Atlantic Canada a little insincere.

On the other hand , Atlantic Canadian MPs have been hard at work representing their constituents, working together to advance an Atlantic growth strategy, which includes innovation, immigration, tourism, and supporting small business.

I will stand up for Atlantic Canada, and most particularly for West Nova, every single day of the week, not just on this issue but on all issues. I have done so at committee and will do so again, along with all of my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member for West Nova with whom I have had the privilege of working and serving on the justice committee.

I found it a little ironic that the member for West Nova referred to Chief Justice McLaughlin, because under this deeply flawed appointment process, Chief Justice McLaughlin would have been disqualified at the time she was appointed by former Prime Minister Mulroney.

I want to ask the member how he squares the appointment process with the pronouncement in the Nadon decision, wherein the court said that Parliament—and in this case today, it is the executive branch—was seeking to unilaterally overturn a convention going to the composition of the courts. The Supreme Court in Nadon said the federal government does not have jurisdiction to do that. How does he square the process with the Nadon decision?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question, and I certainly serve with him on the justice committee and respect his thoughts.

With regard to the process we have laid out, it is an inclusive one that includes Parliament. In fact, we had the Minister of Justice come before our committee of Parliament to answer questions. There will be a further opportunity to question former , who leads the independent advisory board. She will come before our committee and answer questions about the new process.

Let us compare it to the former process. That former process was done in secret, was not transparent and did not carry the confidence of Canadians. I am confident that this new system will have the confidence of Canadians and serve Canada well for many years to come.

2017 Calendar

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding Standing Order 28 or any other usual practice of the House, the following proposed calendar for the year 2017, known as Option G, be tabled and that the House adopt this calendar.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

Government Operations and Estimates

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

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you would find that there is consent for the following motion:

That in relation to its study on Canada Post, seven members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates be authorized to travel to Surrey, British Columbia, Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Moose Jaw and Regina, Saskatchewan, and to Winnipeg and Scanterbury, Manitoba, in the fall of 2016, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition motion—Appointments to the Supreme Court

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised when I heard my hon. colleague talking about how the government respects the jurisdiction of the court, when last week the Minister of Justice filed a motion in Ontario Superior Court to overturn a decision by Justice Perell regarding the payment of compensation to a residential school survivor in Spanish, Ontario.

We remember when the Prime Minister made a solemn promise that his government would stop fighting indigenous families and survivors in court, but it has applied the same brass knuckles principle.

Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found what he called a “perverse” misapplication of justice for a boy who was raped by a priest. Nobody argued that, but he could not remember the date he was raped, and Justice Perell ordered compensation.

To have the Minister of Justice, whom I do not hear very often speak on any of the issues under her watch, undermine the Prime Minister and use her authority to challenge an Ontario Superior Court over a payment to a victim of rape in a residential school I find absolutely shocking.

I ask my colleague how that government can say it represents anything decent and different from the last government if the Minister of Justice uses her powers to fight residential school survivors over such horrific acts they were subjected to.

I would like to hear an answer as to why the Liberals are using the courts to fight the survivors.