Debates of Dec. 9th, 2022

Canadian Heritage

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill C‑18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Taxation

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I am tabling a petition calling on the Minister of Finance to suspend the federal excise tax and the carbon tax for Canadians until the cost of living crisis has been resolved. They remind the House of four facts, including that next year the clean fuel standard will raise the cost of living by $1,300, and that the estimated cost of extra mortgages will be about $7,000.

My constituents say they are expecting, because of the continuing tax hikes, that many Canadians will not be able to make ends meet. Therefore, they are asking for the Minister of Finance to suspend the federal excise tax and the carbon tax.

Domestic Violence

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of nearly 700 constituents and British Columbians. Children who have grown up witnessing domestic violence are more likely to become involved in domestic abuse in their adult life. Often, as we know, Canada's family law and judicial system can be ill-equipped to deal with allegations of domestic abuse in custody and visitation decisions. Studies by the Rise Women's Legal Centre have concluded that Canada's current family law legislation makes it possible for domestic abusers to continue to have access to their children.

Therefore, the undersigned, nearly 700 people, call upon the Government of Canada to pass amendments to the Divorce Act and other federal family law legislation that recognize the rights of survivors of domestic abuse and their children to be protected from future domestic abuse, and that revoke custody, access and visitation rights for a parent found guilty of a violent crime against their partner or the primary caregiver of the children in question.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 916 and 917.

Question No.916—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

With regard to government forecasts related to a recession in 2023: (a) is the government forecasting a recession in 2023, and, if so, when does the government forecast that Canada will (i) enter the recession, (ii) exit the recession; (b) which industries are projected to be the most negatively impacted by the recession and what are the forecasts on how each of those industries will be impacted; and (c) what are the government's forecasts related to the depth of the recession and when the recession will be at its worst?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the 2022 fall economic statement, or FES, released on November 3, 2022, is the most recent economic outlook published by the federal government. It is based on the Department of Finance survey of private sector economists conducted in early September 2022. The average of private sector forecasts has been used as the basis for economic and fiscal planning since 1994, helping to ensure objectivity and transparency, and introducing an element of independence into the government’s economic and fiscal forecast. It can be found on pages 9 to 12 and 43 to 45 of the FES or at FES-EEA-2022-en.pdf on canada.ca.

In the FES, the Department of Finance did also develop a scenario that illustrates a slower growth track relative to the September survey. This scenario is not a government baseline forecast; it is one of many plausible paths the economy could follow. This scenario was presented in the FES for illustrative purposes to facilitate prudent economic and fiscal planning. It can be found on pages 12 to 13 and 44 to 45 of the FES or at FES-EEA-2022-en.pdf on canada.ca.

Question No.917—

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

With regard to the Minister of National Defence and the recommendations of the Honourable Louise Arbour following the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) which of the recommendations will the government (i) fully implement, (ii) partially implement, (iii) not implement; (b) of the recommendations which will be fully implemented, what is the timeline for when each implementation will be complete; and (c) for each recommendation which the government will not fully implement, what is the rationale for not fully implementing it?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, National Defence is committed to building an inclusive and diverse defence team, free from harassment, discrimination, racism, sexual misconduct and violence.

That is why the Minister of National Defence accepted former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s independent external comprehensive review in its entirety and welcomed all 48 recommendations in the report. She also committed to immediately implement 17 recommendations.

The minister further committed to updating Parliament by the end of the year and looks forward to doing so.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Madam Speaker, furthermore, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 912 to 915 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.912—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

With regard to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program, broken down by province and territory, and by fiscal year: (a) what is the total amount of student debt owed; (b) what is the total amount of interest charged on student loans, since November 2015; (c) what is the total amount that the government has collected in repayments of student loans; (d) what is the total amount of new loans delivered to students who (i) are full-time and part-time, (ii) are from low-income and middle-income families, (iii) have dependents, (iv) have permanent disabilities; (e) what is the total amount of new grants delivered to students who (i) are full-time and part-time, (ii) are from low-income and middle-income families, (iii) have dependents, (iv) have permanent disabilities; (f) how many new applications have been received under the (i) Repayment Assistance Plan, (ii) Repayment Assistance Plan for Borrowers with a Permanent Disability; and (g) how many borrowers have defaulted on their student loans since November 2015, broken down by fiscal year?

(Return tabled)

Question No.913—

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

With regard to government dealings with GC Strategies, since January 1, 2016: (a) has the government paid GC Strategies for services related to any applications other than the ArriveCAN application, and, if so, what are the details, including (i) the name of application, (ii) the amount paid, (iii) the goods or services provided by GC Strategies, (iv) the date of payment, (v) whether the contract, or other form of payment, was awarded on a sole-sourced basis or through a competitive bidding process; and (b) has the government paid GC strategies for any other goods or services, and, if so, what are the details of each, including (i) the date of payment, (ii) the amount, (iii) the summary of goods or services, (iv) whether the contract or other form of payment was awarded on a sole-sourced basis or through a competitive bidding process?

(Return tabled)

Question No.914—

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

With regard to government advertising on health topics, in 2021 and 2022 so far, broken down by year: (a) how much has the government spent on advertising related to (i) COVID-19, including vaccines (ii) nutrition, (iii) fitness or active living, (iv) other health topics, broken down by topic and amount spent on each; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of media outlet?

(Return tabled)

Question No.915—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

With regard to the measures in Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), to increase the maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years imprisonment for certain firearms related offences: (a) how many people have been convicted of each of the related offences since January 1, 2016, broken down by year and offence; and (b) of those convicted in (a), how many received the maximum sentence, broken down by year and offence?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the third time and passed.

Judges Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that I have about 18 and a half minutes left. I will do my best, but I cannot promise that I will use up all of that time. I am just pointing that out for the benefit of the person who is speaking next.

Now that all the Christmas wishes and greetings have been sent, I want to come back to Bill C-9, which I spoke about in June, as I mentioned. It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at third reading for a number of reasons. One of them is that the community has been calling for this bill for quite a long time. It has been calling for a review of the system for removing judges who engage in conduct unbecoming of the profession.

This bill will also help shorten the process and, incidentally, reduce the cost associated with assessing judicial misconduct, while still maintaining sufficient procedural equity that a judge who is facing sanctions can make their case and ultimately exercise their right to full answer and defence. In a way, this bill is streamlining a process that, in the past, was unfortunately inconsistently applied and abused, as in the case of Judge Girouard, who has been mentioned quite a bit in the House. It took nearly a decade to come to a final decision on the acts he was accused of.

It is worth mentioning that this bill introduces a mechanism to deal with less serious complaints that would not necessarily require removing a judge who has committed wrongdoing. This mechanism would still allow the judge to be punished for their actions. It is no longer a purely black-and-white system where there are only two possible outcomes to a sanction: either to reject the sanction outright or to remove the judge from office, which is the ultimate sanction for misconduct. Under the old law, there was no in-between. The new bill allows for a slightly fuller range of options, with different shades of grey—not that I am naming a particular book—in terms of the sanctions that can be imposed.

Realistically, we cannot expect Bill C‑9 to change much on a day-to-day basis, because not that many judges face possible sanctions, which is a good thing. My colleagues have said that about eight cases have come under the microscope. This is not something that happens very often.

However, the bill will affect the way people perceive the justice system. If a judge is put under the microscope, we can expect the process to elicit far less criticism and complaint from the public, because it will presumably be much more effective.

As I said, we will vote in favour of the bill. Based on what my colleagues have said, most if not all members of the House will do likewise. The only real criticism we heard during members' speeches had less to do with the content of the bill than with the timeline of its passage, which should take place in the coming days.

This is not our first time studying a bill like Bill C-9 in the House. We saw a previous version, Bill C-5, which ended up dying on the Order Paper because the government decided to call a basically useless election in August 2021, so again, this is not the first time we are indirectly talking about Bill C-9 in the House. However, there is so much consensus on it that, hopefully, this will be the last time.

Bill C-9 upholds a principle that is absolutely critical in our democracy, namely, the principle of security of tenure for judges. This principle is set out in section 99(1) of the Constitution. I think section 99(1) bears quoting.

It states:

the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

With respect to this aspect, Justice Dalphond, who is now a senator, spoke to Bill S‑5. He said the following:

By imposing a process that makes it the responsibility of judges, first and foremost, to deal with allegations of misconduct against a judge, the Judges Act protects judges from acts of intimidation or retaliation by the executive power or litigants. In addition, since the act provides for parliamentarians to exercise their constitutional power to remove a judge only after having received the report and recommendation of the council in this regard, Canadians can rest assured that this measure, intended to be exceptional, will only be taken when it is truly justified.

This essentially separates the different branches of democracy, namely the executive, legislative and judicial branches, by ensuring that if a judge is removed, it is not for purely political reasons, for example.

Although the current system for removing judges in cases of wrongdoing is recognized as one of the best in the world, there was room for improvement. I will name a few of the drawbacks that have been identified.

As I mentioned, the current process can be extremely long. Along the way, there is always the possibility of countless appeals and judicial reviews. Under the act, the review panel was seen as a sort of administrative tribunal that opened the door to using the regular court system, meaning filing an appeal, reviewing a decision or applying for a judicial review. As a result, some cases dragged on for over a decade.

One of the problems that was identified is that a judge who may be at fault could have a financial interest in dragging out the proceedings with stalling tactics, because the judge still gets paid while the process is underway. They can keep contributing to their retirement fund, so the benefits continue to add up. The judge therefore has an incentive to make sure the final decision on their alleged conduct does not come out too quickly.

That is something that has been corrected through proposed section 126 of the new bill. Proposed subsection 126(1) states:

For the purposes of calculating an annuity under Part I, if a full hearing panel decides that the removal from office of a judge who is the subject of a complaint is justified, the day after the day on which the judge is given notice of the full hearing panel's decision is the day to be used to determine the number of years the judge has been in judicial office and the salary annexed to the office held by the judge at the time of his or her resignation, removal or attaining the age of retirement unless

(a) the decision is set aside by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, or by the decision of an appeal panel if the appeal panel's decision is final;

(b) the Minister's response under subsection 140(1) provides that no action is to be taken to remove the judge from office; or

(c) the matter of removal of the judge from office is put to one or both Houses of Parliament and is rejected by either of them.

Should the complaint be rejected, the judge could retain all benefits associated with their office. From now on, pension and benefits accumulation ceases as of the day on which notice of the decision is given. That removes any incentive for a judge to draw out proceedings.

As I also mentioned, one of the benefits of the bill is that it now offers a wider range of sanctions than was available under the old act. The act did not, for example, allow for mandatory sanctions, so it made them seem like half-measures. The parties could make them mandatory by mutual agreement, but there was no real possibility of imposing anything. That is no longer the case. There is now a range of different measures.

Let me read some more of the bill. Proposed section 102 of the new bill provides as follows:

If the review panel does not refer the complaint to the Council under section 101, it may dismiss the complaint or take one or more of the following actions if it considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances:

(a) issue a private or public expression of concern;

(b) issue a private or public warning;

(c) issue a private or public reprimand;

(d) order the judge to apologize, either privately or publicly, by whatever means the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances;

(e) order the judge to take specific measures, including attending counselling or a continuing education course;

(f) take any action that the panel considers to be equivalent to any of the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e);

(g) with the consent of the judge, take any other action that the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances.

It uses the word “order”. That means it would be mandatory, and the panel has a lot of latitude.

There are plenty of measures that can be taken to improve the quality of a judge's work in the future, without having to resort to the extreme punishment of removing their right to sit on the bench. The bill improves what can be done within the system while also reducing the burden of what is required to make the review process work.

In the past, under the Judges Act, no fewer than 17 judges might be needed to convene a review panel to examine a case. There is currently a shortage of judges. The courts are operating at a slower pace. If a judge were to be accused of something, we cannot afford to take 17 judges out of the system when there is a shortage everywhere.

Under the new version of the act, a panel can be formed with slightly fewer judges than what was required in the past. The bill also creates an internal appeal process, which will limit reliance on external courts and therefore limit the possibility of invoking the legal system for disciplinary matters involving judges.

I am making an aside on this aspect because the issue of tying up courts and judges cannot be solved by Bill C‑9 alone. We had a discussion about Bill S‑4 and the possibility of making greater use of virtual tools to hear cases. This debate may continue in the days to come. That would help, but even if we add the option of virtual hearings, if there are no judges to hold these hearings, it does not matter that platforms like Zoom are available because the system will not work.

That is why, in addition to Bills C‑9 and S‑4, it is important that the Minister of Justice quickly appoint judges to fill vacancies. Currently, there are nine vacancies. The chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court is even recommending that a dozen judges be added to those currently sitting. This would increase the minimum number of justices that can sit on the Quebec Superior Court. Let us hope that this message will be heard by the Minister of Justice.

Basically, Bill C‑9 is about improving people's trust in the judicial system. However, as I said, it may be relatively limited in scope, because most people will not read the contents of Bill C‑9. If a judge were to commit a wrongful act, people might be interested in this new process that exists to reprimand judges.

Beyond the possibility of reprimanding a judge who has already been appointed, if we really want to improve public trust in the system, we must also address the issue of judicial appointments. Some work has been done. The Liberals have mentioned that they are going to abandon the infamous Liberalist, but that may not be enough. The process is still potentially partisan. The power to select and recommend who will be appointed as a judge is still in the hands of the executive branch of government.

That is why the Bloc Québécois recommends creating a truly all-party committee tasked with evaluating candidates for judicial positions in courts under federal jurisdiction, such as superior courts.

This is what Albania did in hopes of joining the EU. It had to change a lot of its judicial practices to meet EU standards and bolster public confidence in its institutions.

At present, Albania's justice minister has no power over judicial appointments. An independent committee is in charge. The justice minister's primary responsibility is to oversee sound administration of the courts. The minister monitors statistics to ensure that hearings are progressing without wait lists or undue delays, but is not actually responsible for appointing judges. That allows for true separation between the powers of the executive and the judiciary. The House may consider following suit as it develops a different judicial appointment system.

It is on this wish that I will end my speech. Bill C‑9 is a good thing. It is an improvement that has long been called for. It may have taken a long time for it to come to fruition, but we commend the initiative nonetheless. There is still work to be done on the judiciary. The Bloc Québécois will always be a very approachable partner when it comes to improving the legal system. I think that begins with a review of the judicial appointment system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the importance of the passage of the legislation. It is encouraging to see the type of unanimous support the legislation is receiving. That speaks well of the legislation itself. It also adds value to what I have made reference to in the past, which is public confidence in our judicial system and its independence.

Then the member started to talk about the appointment process, which has always been of keen interest to me. Where I disagree with the member is that she seems to think the appointments are political appointments when in fact they are not. I truly believe that about the judicial appointments that have been made to date.

The member mentioned that there are some other countries looking at it, and I expect there are a lot of countries looking at it. Can she cite a country with which she feels comfortable in the way a judge is appointed?