Debates of June 15th, 2023

Judges Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to put this on the record, I believe the member was referring to Bill C-10.

Virtually from the beginning, the Conservatives were all about trickery and the types of things they could do to play that destructive role. Nothing has changed. I am hoping that we will get a glimmer of hope this evening from some individuals saying that this is legislation they could support, that they do not have to continue to delay it and that they could respect what has taken place and look at it.

At the very least, the Conservatives could take into consideration what we did as a Liberal Party when the Conservatives proposed something with Rona Ambrose. There, we had unanimous consent; it was passed through.

I am suggesting that, out of respect for the process and so forth, this does not have to be one of the bills that the Conservatives are playing games on.

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

Madam Speaker, does my colleague believe that a party should do what it says it is going to do?

For example, with Bill C-9, if a party says we have to adopt this bill immediately, and then offers a delaying amendment, is that consistent? In the same way, if we have a hybrid Parliament and a party votes against the hybrid Parliament, but votes overwhelmingly using the hybrid tools that they were just saying needed to end, is that consistent? Are these contradictions by the Conservative Party that Canadians need to know about?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, really and truly, we just cannot make this stuff up. We have to see it to believe it. The member is right on.

Canadians need to know just what the Conservatives are actually up to. The idea that out of 106 people in the Conservative Party, when it came time to vote to get rid of the voting app, 77 of them actually used the voting app that they want to get rid of.

It may be that or saying that they support Bill C-9 and want it to pass, but then they move an amendment. Traditionally, when the Conservatives have done that, what they are really saying is they want to talk and talk, as the leader of the Conservative Party said last week about the budget. He said he was going to speak until the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. We did not change it, and four hours later, it passed. It is a game.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of discussion about the last-minute amendment brought forward by the good member for Langley—Aldergrove, who is a very constructive member of the justice committee.

I must say that I am quite disappointed that this is now being used as a tool to delay the passage of a very important bill. As we know, Justice Wagner, the chief justice of Canada, has asked for the expeditious passage of Bill C-9. Could my friend and colleague comment on why it is so important that we get this passed before we rise?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize the efforts and the judicial community as a whole. However, it is not just the judicial community. Ultimately, I believe it is about public confidence in the system. This streamlines the review and investigation process replacing the judicial review that goes into Federal Courts into something that is far more effective. It has been recognized as that. It will save time, it will save money; it will assist in making sure that the public have confidence by adding, for example, a layperson to the process. It will ensure additional public confidence in our judicial system.

When we get a Supreme Court judge appealing to us to get it passed, I do not know why the Conservatives would want to continue to filibuster.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, in the Senate, the legal committee passed two very important amendments that the government rejected. These two amendments were supported by the Canadian Bar Association, which has 37,000 lawyers as members, the Advocates' Society and also the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, which has 1,200 judges.

There is overwhelming support for the amendments that the government is rejecting. These are solid amendments that would provide a little more certainty and clarity around the entire process.

ISG senators, appointed by the Prime Minister, voted in favour of these amendments, yet the Liberal government is yanking those amendments from this bill. Why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I understand that there are senators who actually supported the amendments but they had to originate from somewhere. My understanding, correct me if I am wrong, is that they originated from Conservative senators who caucus with the Conservative members of Parliament still. I suggest that maybe one is being influenced by the other. After all, the member even indicated that one of those amendments was introduced at committee stage. There might be something at play there. I do not know. I do not want to imply too much.

What I do know is that the Senate does a lot of fine work and the Minister of Justice did address the issue of those that we will support, those we will not, and gave an explanation for all.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to hone in on one of the amendments that is being proposed by the Conservatives, which is with respect to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, my understanding is that when there is a case involving a judge that is going forward, that leave is granted, but that is the law of the land. In all cases involving the Supreme Court, leave needs to be granted by the Supreme Court.

With the processes already in place to ensure there is due process, that is, the need to have safeguards for someone who is accused of misconduct, with the processes that we are putting forward, leave like any other case is not automatic. I know that is something that the Conservatives are quite insistent about.

I think it is clear that what we are trying to do is to streamline the process so that it does not cost excessive money and does not take an enormous amount of time for a resolution on a matter that involves the misconduct of a judge.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member was right when he commented about streamlining and making things more efficient. As I have said, there are even potential cost savings. This would also allow for an expanded disposition that could include anything from apologies to educational programming. It creates a better atmosphere in many ways.

Most importantly, given the independence of our courts and the position taken by some judges in support of the legislation, I would suggest that we accept that and move forward with the legislation.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are going to bring it home. For their home, our home, my home, let us bring it home.

To begin, it felt great to be sitting momentarily over on that side of the House. I know we will be there soon and I am looking forward to it.

There has been some discussion, and in the limited time left, I want to present the framework before we actually discuss the amendments. There has been some discussion as to whether we should be debating these amendments or just rubber-stamping them and going ahead.

I am going to read something. I do not normally do this and I normally speak without notes, but this time I think it is important that I get this right and read it word for word. An article states:

Our job as Official Opposition is to say, particularly when we agree with the principles of the legislation, “Here are amendments that will make the legislation stand up to scrutiny, and there are amendments that will actually make the legislation do what it purports to do.” The problem on the government side is they consistently refuse those amendments.

The amendments we are putting forward have actually been supported by many members of the judiciary. They are supportive. They say they support the legislation, and it says here that we should be able to bring the amendments forward, but according to this, the government of the day was stopping it.

The article continues:

Even when they make sense, even when they’re reinforced by the public and by experts, they systematically refuse all the amendments....

That is just what happened. Our amendments are being refused.

The article states, “...which is why they have a such a poor record in terms of product recall.” That is interesting.

Let us read some more about this. The article says:

So we like to make the case for those amendments. Of course, if the government were willing to co-operate, it would be in their interests...And if they said, first off, “Okay, here’s a piece of legislation; we know you support it in principle; we’re actually willing to work with you on amendments,” then I think it would be fair to say the approach would be different and we wouldn’t have to make the case in the House of Commons necessarily around those amendments because the government would be working with us.

It seems like we had many negotiations. The amendments were not put in place. That is exactly what is going on here.

Do members know who said that? It was the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. That is his quote.

I think my comments, when I am over there, might be used against me, but I do not think so. I do not think I will say the exact opposite when I am in a coalition as opposed to when I am in opposition.

Let us just continue. The article says, “The principle of this place is members are here to represent their ridings”. I could not agree more.

It continues, “They’re here to speak out on issues and they’re also here to offer suggestions to the government.” That is just like what we are trying to do right now.

Then it says, “Now, we have a government that doesn’t want those suggestions”.

Oh, my goodness; the government wants to bring in time allocation. How many times have we had time allocation in this Parliament so far? Number 40 is tomorrow. How many times did the NDP rail against the Harper government?

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

You did it 150 times.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. This is not the time for cross-debate. The hon. member only has one minute before I cut him off, so I will let him continue on.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will finish off with more of the quote. It says:

To say only 15 MPs are able to speak to all of your average bills, that is very clearly contravening what Canadians want to see here. They want to see vivid debate, they want to see a government that actually listens to the improvements that can be made to bills and they want to see their member of parliament being able to speak out. When you say only 15 can speak on this, or only 12 can speak on this, you’re disenfranchising all of those other ridings across the country....

I really believe my case is closed. I know our members have aptly talked about this, but there are two particular substantive amendments. This is not any type of minor thing; these are amendments that have been supported by the NDP. Some of them were brought to the floor by the NDP. We are standing strongly for these, one of which is to have judicial review—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member will have to wait until the next time this matter is before the House. He will have 15 minutes to continue his speech.

It being midnight, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)