House of Commons Hansard #120 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.
Richard Lehoux Conservative Beauce, QC
Mr. Speaker, food bank use keeps going up and is now over 20% in Beauce. One in five people who uses a food bank is a worker who can no longer make ends meet. As a result of inflation, the price of food has increased by 11.4%, not to mention the price of bread, 17%; flour, 23.8%; and pasta, 22.5%.
When will the government realize that it is suffocating Canadians with its punitive taxes? It is simple: no new taxes. Is that clear?
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.
Obviously, we are all dealing with this issue. That is why, earlier this year, I asked the Competition Bureau to ensure that there are no unfair practices in the food industry. Recently I called for an inquiry to truly ensure that this was not happening.
I have also asked different CEOs from major food chains in the country to do their part for Canadians. The government is doing its part and I would ask the Conservatives to do their part by voting in favour of our bill to lower prices to help Canadian families.
Gerald Soroka Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, Gianne, a mother who lives in my riding, is worried about the carbon tax that now comprises over 64% of our energy consumption. With an ongoing cost of living crisis, she is already struggling to make ends meet and soon will have to choose between food and warmth this winter.
Will the NDP-Liberal government cancel its planned carbon tax increase so that hard-working Canadians like Gianne do not have to choose between eating or heating this winter?
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, the cost of climate change for Canadians is in the tens of billions of dollars, and it seems like the Conservative Party of Canada does not understand that we are all paying for this. There is no escaping it.
We have to address the issue of climate change as we address issues of affordability, which is why two weeks ago, thanks to the climate action incentive payments, a family of four received $186 in Ontario, $208 in Manitoba, $275 in Saskatchewan and $269 in Alberta. They will be receiving this four times a year.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, based on an email I received yesterday from his parliamentary secretary, I understand that the Minister of Public Safety will, for the first time since the Liberals took power in 2015, be initiating a discussion with the RCMP on the subject of putting defibrillators in police cruisers. Placing defibrillators in cruisers would save over 300 lives a year. That is 30 a month, so time is of the essence.
Therefore, when can we expect to learn that a decision has been made, one direction or the other?
Marco Mendicino LiberalMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising this important issue, and I look forward to co-operating with him on it. I have engaged my office to be in touch with the RCMP to ensure that it has all of the tools it needs. In the meantime, we have continued to make historic investments in frontline officers so that we can ensure consistency of policing excellence right across the country.
Again, I underline my gratitude to the member for raising this question.
Heath MacDonald Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, indigenous people deserve a justice system that treats them fairly and takes into account their reality. Recently, our government made an important announcement in Manitoba addressing the overrepresentation and overincarceration of Métis people in our justice system.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us more about his recent announcement concerning the Red River Métis?
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the traditional strong representation from Malpeque continues.
Earlier this month, we announced a significant investment of $1.68 million to address several issues related to the overrepresentation of Red River Métis people in the justice system. The Manitoba Métis Federation will use this money for programs that will help prevent and reduce crime through diversion of offenders out of the criminal justice system, with appropriate supports. These investments will also help families through the establishment of Métis mediation services.
I think everyone in this chamber agrees that we need to fight the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. This is part of it. Bill C-5 is another.
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, the crisis in our health care is getting worse by the day. Emergency rooms across the country are shutting down and are so stretched that families are forced to wait 10 to 20 hours to get emergency care. This cannot continue. The Liberals must act now to protect and expand our health care system.
When will the government show leadership and invest the necessary funding to ensure that Canadians are getting the care they need when they need it?
Carolyn Bennett LiberalMinister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, as members know, the health ministers will be meeting shortly, in two weeks, in Vancouver. We look forward to that meeting, as it will be about a lot of the issues the member has raised, particularly how we expand health human resources and how we deal with the kind of health transformation that will get people the most appropriate care in the most appropriate place by the most appropriate provider in the most appropriate time. We are all working together on that, and we look forward to those deliberations.
Alain Rayes Independent Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, all of us in our riding offices are hearing from desperate people affected by illness. All parties unanimously agree that we must extend the financial assistance for Canadians suffering from serious illnesses. In its last budget, the government announced that EI sickness benefits would be expanded to 26 weeks.
This measure was supposed to be implemented in the summer or fall of 2022, but, unfortunately, that has not happened yet. Can the minister tell us when this long-awaited measure will be implemented?
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, one of the things the government has been doing is looking at a number of different ways we can enhance things such as EI benefits for Canadians. We are also taking into consideration what the member raised today.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 3, 2022, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments; after the statement, a Member from each recognized opposition party and a Member from the Green Party, may reply for a period approximately equivalent to the time taken by the Minister's statement and each statement shall be followed by a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments; after each Member has replied, or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from constituents that relates to the climate crisis.
The petitioners point out that Canada signed on to the Paris Agreement, which in its text includes a commitment to a just transition for fossil fuel sector workers. This is consistent with Liberal Party platform commitments that have yet to be realized.
Oil and gas workers and coal sector workers were promised this kind of economic support to get them through the transition away from a dependence on fossil fuels, so the petitioners call on Canada to work with fossil fuel sector workers to create a plan, particularly for oil and gas workers, and to follow the recommendations that have been put forward by the government's task force on just transition for Canadian coal power workers and communities.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition about the just transition.
The petitioners say that Canada must address the climate emergency, and they request that the government bring in initiatives that reduce emissions by 60% below 2005 levels, that wind down the fossil fuel industry and related infrastructure, that end fossil fuel subsidies, that transition us to a decarbonized economy, that create good green jobs and drive inclusive workforce development, that protect and strengthen human rights and workers' rights, that expand the social safety net through new income supports and that pay for the transition by increasing taxes on the wealthiest and corporations and financing through a public national bank.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
When we left, the hon. member had used up a whole two minutes of his speech, so that means he has eight minutes remaining.
The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think this is something that may have never happened in the House before, a member beginning a speech on a bill in one seat and continuing it in a separate seat on the very same day. This was made possible, of course, by a standing order change that allows us to sit absolutely anywhere in the House. I was tempted to do it from the Prime Minister's seat, but that would have involved a little too many logistics. I was not sure we would get back to the debate, so I will do it from this seat here.
We are debating Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, and we are at second reading. I want to talk about the substance of the bill. It is actually, I think, a very good bill, and I will deal with that in a minute.
First, I want to talk about the fact the government is once again rushing this debate through and imposing closure. As I consider its actions, the thought that occurs to me is that, out there in the normal world, there is a saying. It is that “your lack of planning does not equal my crisis,” but this is the House of Commons of Canada. As long as they have the support of the New Democrats, the Liberals can be as disorganized as they want and can create crises for themselves and then impose limits on democracy and open debate in order to rush through crises of their own making.
In the case of the bill, which has now been time allocated, a version of it was introduced as Bill S-5, a government bill in the Senate, in May 2021, but it died on the Order Paper, because the Prime Minister, in his infinite wisdom, decided to call the least necessary election in Canadian history, which resulted in our having exactly the same seat breakdown we had prior to the election. However, it did cause everything on the Order Paper to be wiped off the Order Paper, and when we resumed in the autumn of 2021, a new bill was introduced on the Order Paper, on December 1, 2021, as Bill S-3. Subsequently, that bill was dropped and Bill C-9, the bill we are presently debating, found its way onto the Order Paper on December 16, 2021. It then sat on the Order Paper, undebated, for exactly six months to the day, until June 16, 2022.
The House rises in time for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, which is on the 24th of June. The bill, therefore, had a couple days of time for debate before the House rose. Then, with a whole summer going by, it did not come back until very recently, when we had been here for a month. This makes the point that the reason there is a rush, if there is a rush at all, is that the government has caused a delay. I should point out as well that the purpose of the bill is to make changes to the Judges Act, which was implemented in 1971, so we are talking about changes to something that has been in place for 50 years.
Saying this constitutes the kind of crisis that warrants putting limits on debate is, in my view, simply unreasonable and simply a reflection of the fact that it is now reflexive for the current government to put time limits on all debates on everything.
Now, let me talk about the substance of the bill.
Bill C-9 deals primarily with judges, but as for the provisions it replaces, this new process would also apply to persons other than judges who are appointed under an act of Parliament to hold office under what is known as “good behaviour”. The question of what constitutes “good behaviour” is a matter that needs to be updated from time to time, particularly in the world of the law and the actions of judges, because if something goes wrong in the court system and if judges or courts act inappropriately, we say that the law is brought into disrepute. Bringing the law into disrepute is the worst thing a judge can do. What constitutes “disrepute” does change over time as we get greater sensitivity, for example, to gender issues, which lie at the heart of the present piece of legislation, or to concerns relating to the ability of people who face various forms of disabilities to communicate with the courts and so on.
Standards within society do change. I think they usually improve, and it is reasonable to update this from time to time.
Right now, the way it works is that, should a federally appointed judge be found to be potentially in breach of their responsibilities, the issue is sent to the Canadian Judicial Council for review. The bill would establish a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct, allegations that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office, and would make changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice.
The bill would specifically modify the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office and another for offences that could warrant other sanctions, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands.
Currently, if misconduct is less serious, a single member of the Canadian Judicial Council holds the initial review and may negotiate with a judge for remedy. I should mention as well that the Canadian Judicial Council was set up under the existing law. It dates back to 1971 and is mandated to promote efficiency and uniformity and improve the quality of judicial services in all superior courts in Canada.
The reasons a judge could be removed from office include infirmity, misconduct, failure in the due execution of judicial office, and the judge's being “in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office”.
Under the new rules, a screening officer could dismiss complaints rather than referring them to the review panel, should they appear frivolous or improper. Certain things, such as a complaint that alleges sexual harassment or discrimination, may not be dismissed. The full screening criteria would be published by the Canadian Judicial Council.
These amendments address the shortcomings of the current process by imposing mandatory sanctions on a judge when a complaint of misconduct is found to be justified but not to be serious enough to warrant removal from office. Again, such sanctions could include counselling, continuing education and reprimands.
In the name of transparency, this legislation would require that the Canadian Judicial Council include the number of complaints received and how they were resolved in its public annual report, something that is a very sound idea.
Since its inception in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council has completed inquiries into eight complaints considered serious enough that they would warrant removal from the bench. Four of them, in fact, did result in recommendations for removal.
Under the new process, as laid out in Bill C-9, the Canadian Judicial Council would continue to preside over the judicial complaints process, which would start with a three-person panel. If the complaint is serious enough that it might warrant removal from the bench, it could be referred to a separate, five-person hearing panel.
As I am out of time, I will just make the observation that, on the whole, this is a good piece of legislation. I am glad it is before us. It could have been before us earlier. I very much welcome the opportunity to vote in favour and send this off to committee, but of course I object to the rush we have been put in to do that.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I agree. It seems everyone is supporting the passage of the legislation to committee, and the Conservative opposition seems to be saying it is the government that sets the agenda and that if we had called it more often then maybe it would have been passed already. What it is not indicating is that even though we can call the legislation, ultimately it is the opposition that will determine the number of speakers and will cause legislation to get into committee or not get into committee, unless we bring in time allocation.
Because we brought in time allocation, we are finally going to see this legislation go to committee. Many of the stakeholders out there want to get a sense of when the legislation will ultimately get through the House of Commons, and my question is to that effect. Does the member believe or does the Conservative Party believe it could pass this legislation before the end of this year, or are the Conservatives suggesting it will be 2023 before they agree to see it pass?
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will observe that in terms of there being a rush, I was just saying that the Canadian Judicial Council dealt with eight complaints and dismissed four judges over the course of the past half-century, so I am not exactly sure where the rush is. Clearly, the government does not actually see it as a rush; I mentioned the delays.
Which of the following is the fault of the opposition? Was it the fact the bill was introduced before the 2021 election and then the Prime Minister called an election? Was that the result of an action of the opposition, or was it the fact that the bill was reintroduced in the Senate, then reintroduced in the House of Commons, and then the government waited for six months and did not bring it forward until a day or two before the House rose for the summer? Was that the opposition's fault? I am just unclear as to which of these things that have led to a year and a half's delay is the fault of the opposition. If the parliamentary secretary gets a chance to get up and speak again, maybe he will be able to address that question.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to talk a bit about that earlier, but I would like to elaborate. A year and a half ago, I rose in the House to move a motion calling on the government to create an independent complaints commission for sports. It took some time, but that commission was created a year ago. I want to commend the government for that.
That commission may not yet have enough power though, because the various sports organizations have to register voluntarily. The system is not perfect yet, but it addresses the problem of sexual misconduct in sports, or at least the complaints management part of it.
There is a problem in the military, however. Former Supreme Court Justice Deschamps issued a report in 2015 recommending that this type of commission be set up to address sexual misconduct in the army, but that has not happened yet. It does not make any sense.
Today, we are talking about a bill about judges. That is good.
I would like my colleague to tell us about the importance of setting up this kind of independent commission to manage sexual misconduct complaints.