Debates of June 15th, 2023

Judges Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this late hour in Ottawa, where it is almost 11 p.m., to speak to the Senate amendments to Bill C-9.

I would like to start by saying hello to my constituents in New Westminster and Burnaby. In British Columbia it is almost 8 p.m. and so the sun is still up. I know that is also the case in the ridings of the member for Langley—Aldergrove, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country and my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. For the people of British Columbia and for everyone listening to the debates in the House of Commons, we are in the thick of things. I know that there are some constituents listening and I applaud the fact that they are listening after supper to what is happening in the House of Commons.

The NDP will support Bill C-9 and the recommendation on the amendments. I will come back to that in more detail later. First of all, I am concerned that the Conservative Party is once again trying to block a bill. This has been going on in the House systematically for years. As I have said before, there are two blocks in the House: the Bloc Québécois and the block-all Conservative Party, which never misses a chance to block a bill, even the ones it says it supports.

We just heard an excellent speech by my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove who spoke about—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind members that, if they have something to say, they should be respecting the rules of the House and waiting until it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I was just complimenting my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove by saying that he gave an excellent speech. He talked about the fact that the Conservatives support the bill and that they want it to be passed. After 50 years, it is time for us to make that change.

However, at the end of his speech, after spending 20 minutes talking about how important it is to pass the bill, he presented an amendment that is going to further delay the passage of the bill. I do not understand that contradiction at all.

What is more, earlier, the Conservatives voted against a motion to maintain the hybrid Parliament. However, today, they used the hybrid application 291 times to vote on the matter of a hybrid Parliament. I have to say that that includes the Bloc members as well. Together, they used the hybrid app 291 times to vote against the hybrid Parliament. That is another contradiction. I think that everyone can see that there is a problem here. Members are saying that they do not want a hybrid Parliament, but then they are using the hybrid application to vote against the hybrid Parliament. I will move on to another subject because Parliament already ruled on that.

Let us get back to Bill C‑9. An amendment has been tabled that will further delay the passage of the bill, and that is unfortunate. The process has been lacking for 50 years. The public does not support it and it is not particularly clear that justice will be served through this process. Furthermore, it does not allow people to have more confidence in our justice system.

It has been 50 years. First, there were the promises from the former Harper regime, which wanted to amend this process. It did nothing, and that is not surprising. There were a lot of broken promises.

I spent 10 years in the House during the Harper regime, and we saw that regime's lack of respect for Parliament. We saw broken promises, including the promise to set up a process for judges and for complaints about the judicial system. We saw that time and time again.

Then the Liberals came to power and promised to do the same thing. It was put off. I think that the member for Saint-Jean said it well earlier. We ended up with a bill passed by the Senate, but it took years to get to that point. This evening, we believed that the bill would finally pass. There was a consensus. However, the consensus has just been broken again by the Conservative Party amendment.

We certainly support this process to modify the entire complaints process for the judicial system. We believe it is important to put this in place as quickly as possible. This means that we must vote. It seems to me that, once again, because of this party that blocks everything, the government will have to resort to a time allocation motion to pass the bill and bring the legislative process to a successful conclusion. Instead of going round in circles, we must pass this bill.

As all parties have said, including my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, this bill is necessary. However, the Conservatives moved an amendment to further delay passage of this bill.

There is no doubt that New Democrats support the modernization of the complaints process, no doubt at all. We also support aspects of the bill that allow for varied sanctions, such as counselling, continued education and other reprimands. With the current system, which is hopefully not going to continue for much longer, though with the delays that we are seeing provoked tonight, we will have to see about that, the current option is really only removal from the bench. That is why we believe that increasing public confidence in federal judges is absolutely essential, and we need a modernized complaints system.

We believe that this system could have been put into place already. We will recall that this was moving along and then, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister called what was, I think it is fair to say, an unnecessary election in the midst of COVID. At a time when Canadians were preoccupied with getting through COVID, the Liberals provoked an election. Canadians right across this country basically told parliamentarians to get back work, that they were going to give us the same Parliament we had before the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election.

That has caused further delays that have brought us to tonight, when we were hoping to see passage of the bill. That is obviously not to be because of the blocking amendment brought forward by the Conservatives. New Democrats believe there are many other aspects of the judicial system that we need to be tackling. My colleague, the NDP justice critic from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, has been extraordinarily eloquent about this. Yes, he worked on Bill C-9, and yes, he worked to improve it. He brought forward a number of amendments, which I will come back to in just a moment.

The reality is the member from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke had a tremendous influence over this bill moving forward and the quality of the bill. He sought to improve it at a number of different stages, but he has said, and he is right, that we need to move on to other things. There are other pressing issues, such as the opioid crisis and systemic racism in the judicial system. These are all things that need to be tackled, yet we are still dealing with Bill C-9, hopefully with not too many more delays.

Because it has taken so long, because COVID delayed it and because finally, after 50 years of moving it forward, a completely unnecessary election derailed it, we have finally gotten to the point where Bill C-9 was sent to committee. This is where the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke had substantial impacts. I am going to talk about the amendments that he brought forward at the committee stage that are very relevant to the recommendation we have tonight, which is to accept two Senate amendments and reject the rest. That was prior to the Conservative amendment that would delay all of this discussion, but I think there was substantial consensus around the idea that two of the Senate amendments should be brought forward.

What NDP members brought forward at committee is the following. First, there was an amendment that would have expanded the definition of “discrimination” in clause 12 of Bill C-9 by adding “or improper conduct that is substantially similar to discrimination” to the grounds which would have prevented dismissal at the screening stage in paragraph 90(3) of the act.

This concern, as we know, was brought to committee by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which appeared as a witness because, in both the current process and under new provisions in Bill C-9, complaints could be dismissed without proper investigation at the initial stage because the behaviour does not meet a narrow legal definition of discrimination.

This was an important amendment brought forward by the member. As members would have heard when I asked the Minister of Justice just a few minutes ago, ultimately Liberals and Conservatives voted against that amendment, so it failed. It would have made a difference. We are talking about looking beyond the issue of judicial conduct to the issue of discrimination, which is fundamentally important, as the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has said on so many occasions, and as has our leader, the member for Burnaby South, yet that amendment was rejected.

The second amendment that was brought forward added a requirement that when there is a decision to dismiss a complaint at the initial stage, both the decision and the reasons for dismissing that complaint would be conveyed to the complainant, instead of just a summary of the reasons. The complainant would receive both the decision and the reasons for the dismissal of the complaint.

This amendment was brought forward by my old colleague Craig Scott, who was a member of Parliament. He was a fantastic member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth who took over after Jack Layton passed away. He is a law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and he appeared as a witness on this study. He detailed for the committee that no such information was provided to him when he was a complainant proceeding through the judicial review process. He had gone through the process and understood that information was not providing transparency. In other words, it was not leading to that growth in public confidence that is so critical in a democracy.

The amendment was aimed to provide openness and transparency and, as one of the high points of Parliament at the committee stage, all members of Parliament from all parties at the committee agreed to that amendment. It helped to improve the bill.

The third amendment that the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke tabled added a requirement that when a review panel made a decision on a complaint, both the decision and the full reasons would be given to the complainant. This added to what Craig Scott, the former NDP MP for Toronto—Danforth, brought forward.

Those two amendments, in series, helped to ensure that the bill would increase transparency, and this was important.

There was discussion around the right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. The member for Langley—Aldergrove raised that idea in his speech. The reality is that we now have a twofold system of appeals, as the Minister of Justice described in discussing the Senate amendments. In a very real sense, that has helped to provide for the appeal process without making it an unduly long process.

Let us come now to the heart of the matter, which is the issue of the Senate amendments. There are two amendments that the government has proposed accepting from the Senate. The first is removing the words “as far as possible”. The member for Saint-Jean talked about this a number of times during her speech.

It is from the section requiring panels that convene to investigate complaints to reflect the diversity of Canada. We support this amendment, as well as the Senate amendment that adds sexual misconduct to the list of complaints that may not be dismissed without a formal investigation.

Those are two amendments that the Senate has put in place that the government is proposing be retained and that the NDP supports as well.

There were a number of other amendments, including the amendments regarding the Federal Court of Appeal. As I mentioned, we now have a two-stage process for appeals, so the rejection of those Senate amendments, to our mind, seems to be a fair-minded approach.

The most important thing is that we have been going back and forth for several years. There has been no change in the complaints process for 50 years. Improvements are obviously needed. However, we have been going around in circles for three years now. At committee, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke managed to get the NDP amendments I just mentioned adopted to improve the original bill, which is extremely important. This contributed to the quality of the bill.

The bill was then referred to the Senate, which proposed a number of amendments that we can support.

As members know, supporting these two Senate amendments is a bitter pill for the NDP to swallow. Our official policy is actually to abolish the Senate, which is a second chamber made up of non-elected members, as New Zealand and a number of other countries have done. Senators have been appointed, and not elected, for years. I would say they do not have the same credibility as the members of the House of Commons.

Other countries have abolished their second chambers, but that is not just an international phenomenon. Some of these upper, unelected chambers have been abolished right here in Canada, including in Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario. It makes no sense for unelected people to make decisions that have consequences for a population without being accountable. As members of Parliament, we must be accountable.

When I make a decision, I have to be accountable to my electors in New Westminster—Burnaby. I hope that some of them are watching me this evening. Who are the senators accountable to? That is the big question. I know that this is concerning and I know that these questions are being reviewed. It is true that it is important.

Nonetheless, the NDP is voting in favour of these two amendments because they make sense, even though they originate from the Senate. The most important thing to the NDP is that the bill be adopted with the recommendations that the government proposed and that it be sent back to the Senate so that it can get the Senate's seal of approval. The process will then be complete and we will finally have an improved judicial complaints process.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could expand on the issue of the importance of public confidence in the system. For me personally, that is one of the driving forces in terms of why Bill C-9 is of the utmost importance, among other things, and I hope to be able to expand on that shortly.

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

Madam Speaker, public confidence comes from transparency. The member is absolutely right that public confidence comes from a process that people feel makes them heard and understood. That is why we would put all of these measures in place and, I would suggest, have varied sanctions.

Part of the problem with the existing system is that it only has one penalty, with the current option being removal from the bench. However, there is a tendency to take other issues that may not warrant removal from the bench less seriously, because there are fewer options available to ensure that those complaints are upheld. Part of the exercise of getting the bill through is to ensure improving public confidence by giving options so that a judge could have continuing education, other reprimands and counselling, all of which are appropriate where there has been judicial malfeasance.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, but I could not help but notice that, throughout the night, the member being upset with us tabling an amendment.

Let me clear here. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke moved an amendment to the bill earlier in the process, which was removed by the government senators. We decided that we were going to retable it to bring it back, because we thought it was a good amendment, yet this member was actively speaking against us doing so. By doing so, he was actually speaking against his own colleague's amendment that he was so passionate about including into the bill, which is a little bit ridiculous.

The member kept on saying throughout his speech, in effect, that “We are doing all of this” and “We are doing that”, but I could not help but wonder that he was speaking against his own colleague's amendment. When he says “we” is he referring to “we” as him and the government or him and his party? He has been speaking against his own colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, all night, because he does not want to accept the amendment we put forward, which is the same amendment that his own colleague put forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague. He does engage in disinformation, and this is one of those examples.

What happened, of course, was that this was brought forward at committee by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. It was not upheld at committee, and the reality is that there is now in place a twofold appeals process that the member is aware of and that the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has endorsed. In terms of what needs to move forward from the Senate and what needs to be tucked away, it is very clear.

However, the problem we have in terms of moving legislation through is that the Conservatives are always putting forward amendments or motions that block legislation. They do not move it forward. In this particular case, given the length of time that this has taken and given the importance of the issue and of actually modernizing our judicial complaint process, when we were almost at the finish line, the Conservatives have drawn us back again. That is what I object to.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He said it: This bill has been in the works for a very long time and has been the subject of a lot of work, particularly by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. The bill has been amended, improved and enhanced. The member is somewhat disappointed tonight to see yet another amendment from the Conservative side that risks delaying its adoption.

I just want to make sure that my colleague agrees with me that if the Senate had not interfered, the bill would have been passed already. We would not have had a Conservative amendment that further slowed the process. Basically, if it were not for the Senate, we would not be here having this discussion tonight.

Does my colleague agree with me that this step, unfortunately, may also have been too much?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Saint‑Jean is right. It is true. That is why the NDP has been calling for the abolition of the Senate for decades.

We are talking about a Senate appointed by the Liberals and the Conservatives. We have seen the Senate block very worthwhile bills on several occasions. It is obvious that this process of sending bills to an institution that is not democratically elected is detrimental.

My colleague is quite right. In this case, the bill would have been adopted already had there not been this step. That is something to think about for Canadians who want to abolish the Senate.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was troubled to hear the leader of the official opposition tell the national media that his party intends to use every opportunity to obstruct the work of the chamber and gum up the works of Canadian democracy. It makes it somewhat difficult to understand whether interventions in this place, at this late day in the session, are made in good faith or whether they are indeed part of this effort to slow down the work of our Parliament. Could my dear colleague reflect on Bill C-9 and offer his thoughts on what is going on here when it comes to the Conservatives' interventions?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is an extraordinarily strong parliamentarian. Every time when he rises in the House to ask a question or to give a speech, I know that everyone listens to him very attentively because he represents his constituents, who inhabit a region as big as France, extremely well. It is just an enormous part of northern British Columbia. They are incredible communities with extraordinary representation. The member does incredible work, and I know that every weekend, he is down in another part of his riding, making sure that he is hearing his constituents.

The reality is that this does delay the bill, but we have seen Conservatives blocking dental care, blocking a grocery rebate that thousands of people in each of their ridings would benefit from and blocking affordable housing. All these things that the NDP is pushing the government to do, Conservatives try to block. Blocking dental care is incomprehensible to me. Eleven thousand people on average in a Conservative riding would benefit, including seniors, people with disabilities and families with youth under 18. Conservatives, including the member for Carleton, fought so that Canadians in those Conservative ridings would not have access to dental care. How does it make any sense at all to block something that is in the interests of their constituents?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to set the record straight.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby was suggesting that my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands was spreading misinformation. I want to read into the record a quote from his colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, from December 9. This was after he came back from committee for third reading, when we voted unanimously. He said:

As for the appeal and the fact that the Bloc did not support my amendment to make it to the Federal Court of Appeal, I would just say again that the Supreme Court is likely never going to hear an appeal regarding a judge's disciplinary complaint, because of the very high standard....

At that time, the member was still supporting the motion of the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, and we had a similar motion, to have one appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. That is what his colleague stood for. We were expecting to have support from the NDP on this, because that is the way his colleague was speaking in December.

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

Madam Speaker, it was the process that I felt was disinformation.

What we have is my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, whom I respect a lot, quoting directly from Hansard. I will certainly look at that quote. I have no reason to doubt his quote. I know he is an honest person. I will look at the blues and come back to him in due time.

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

Madam Speaker, before I start my comments on the bill, I want to recognize a terrible and tragic traffic accident that members might have already heard about. It was in Manitoba on the Trans-Canada Highway by Highway 5. A semi collided with a bus.

I do not know all the details, but as a result of that accident, 15 seniors have died and another 10 are in hospital. Which hospitals I could not say; what we do know is that there will be a very high fatality rate. Hopefully, those who are in hospital are able to recover. I would like to express my best wishes and prayers to the family and friends of the deceased and to the family and friends of those who are being taking care of.

As well, I compliment the first responders for the truly amazing work they do. They were very quick to get to the scene, whether SARS, ambulances, police or firefighters, and no doubt have contributed to saving lives. I just want to recognize that. I am sure my colleagues here this evening, and in fact all members of Parliament, share in the families' grief and wish them all the very best.

Having said that, allow me to share some thoughts on a very important piece of legislation and issue that all of us are very much aware of. This is legislation that would amend the Judges Act and create a new process, and one would think that there would be eagerness to see this legislation pass.

I thought it started off so well. I might be a bit biased, but I think that what the Minister of Justice had to say was very clear. A number of amendments have been brought forward by the Senate, and he provided detailed comments on the suggestions the Senate has put forward. I can honestly say that generally speaking, at times the Senate contributes to making legislation that comes through the House that much stronger, and to that extent makes it better for Canadians. I think it is quite encouraging when we get these amendments coming forward.

The Minister of Justice made comments, as I said. He explained why we can accept a couple of amendments and why we cannot accept some others. Then he went on to talk about the importance of the legislation and why it was important that we attempt to see quick passage of the legislation.

Right after that, when the member for Langley—Aldergrove, the critic, began his speech, I started to feel pretty encouraged by his opening remarks. He talked about how the legislation was good, saying that the Conservatives support it and that they saw the value in it when it was in here earlier.

The legislation has already gone through a number of steps. It was introduced quite a while ago. Members were already familiar with the legislation. It went to committee, and yes, there were some healthy discussions that took place at committee stage. Then it went through report stage and third reading and was passed, and off to the Senate it went.

If one followed some of that debate and discussion, one might have been of the opinion that the legislation had virtually unanimous support of the House. It is always a good thing when we get that kind of support. Then the member got to the tail end of his speech, and at the tail end of his speech, what does he say? In fairness to the member, he might have been slipped the amendment; I do not know. Maybe he created the amendment. Maybe the House leadership told him to remember what the leader says: speak, speak, speak and hold things up wherever he can. That is the essence of what the modern Conservative far-right party says today.

The member then indicated very clearly that he does not like the legislation to such a degree that he wants to see some amendments, so he moved an amendment. In all honesty, I was not really surprised, because the member was putting in place a sequence that we have seen the Conservatives do on many different pieces of legislation. There is, however, a bit of a difference on this legislation, because ultimately the member made it somewhat clear that they support its passage.

I thought maybe there was a chance the bill would pass here this evening after listening to the beginning of the comments. When he moved the amendment, I think he surprised a lot of people. It surprised me to a certain degree. I was a bit disappointed, because after all, as I said, the bill amends the Judges Act. In essence, it streamlines the review and investigation process. Think about that. Not only does that ensure there is a higher sense of equality, justice and so forth, but it also makes the system a bit more efficient. There is even money to be saved. Moving this particular amendment sends a message that it is similar to other pieces of legislation, and I get the sense that the only way we are going to have a chance at passing this legislation is if it is time allocated.

Once again, as a government, we have to go to the Bloc or the New Democrats to try to explain the behaviour of the Conservatives, which is not that tough nowadays it seems, to ensure that we can pass this legislation. It is the type of thing that we really cannot make up. Think of the types of things we have witnessed, like how they move amendments, and the type of voting we have witnessed.

I am kind of losing context of time, but a few hours ago or two hours ago, we had a vote on the hybrid motion. I know the NDP House leader made quick reference to it. It is a hard thing to resist. It really and truly is. Think about it. We had a vote on something the Conservatives oppose. They do not like the voting app and the hybrid system, so they voted against it.

[An hon. member]

Until they have to use it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is just as my colleague said: until they have to use it. They used it on the motion that I just finished talking about, the motion that says we want to enable members to vote by hybrid or vote using the voting application. Members would not believe that out of the 106 Conservatives who voted, 77 actually used the voting application to vote. I do not quite understand it. It is that Conservative logic. If we then fast-forward a couple of hours, what do we see? We see yet another amendment brought forward as a tactic to postpone the vote on this bill.

I asked the member for Langley—Aldergrove why he moved the amendment and I asked him how many Conservative members he would like to see speak now, and whether he could give us an indication. Members were here for the response from the member. He said his party had lots of members who want to be able to speak on the legislation.

How many more days do we have until the normal session would come to an end? It is somewhat limited, but I have told the House leader that, personally, I do not mind. I enjoy being inside the chamber. I enjoy the debates. Honest to God, with hand on heart, I will come back in July, I do not mind, if the members opposite want to have debate. Having said that, I think there might be a number of members who would like to see the Conservatives stop with the games and the filibustering and recognize that part of being a responsible official opposition means allowing legislation to pass without having to incorporate time allocation.

[An hon. member]

It helps Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It does. It helps Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

[An hon. member]

This is the biggest audience you've had in a while.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, ever since the member from across the way walked back over. This legislation would help Canadians. In one of the questions I put across was the issue of public confidence.

The Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary on justice talk about the importance of public confidence in the system. It is important to recognize that, so when members say this legislation is in the best interest of Canadians, it is. It would make a real and tangible difference. Canadians want to see the independence of our whole judicial system, whether it is with policing, our courts or the process of our Crowns laying charges.

Around the world, Canada is recognized for our judicial system, and it is complemented by the fact that there are many checks in place to ensure that it is not politicized. We recognize that it is a joint responsibility, where we work with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities, to ensure we have a judicial system that has the confidence of the public.

I do not say that lightly, because there have been incidents where we have seen the need for reforms or changes. A good example of that is with the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. God, I wish she came back.

Rona Ambrose had an idea to make changes that would impact our judicial system. It came about because of a number of judges who had made comments regarding gender discrimination, if I can put it that way. They offended a great number of people, and there was a genuine concern among the public and questions of confidence in the system. Rona Ambrose, the former leader of the Conservative Party, came up with the idea of instituting some sort of educational program. I cannot remember all the details, because this was a number of years ago, but government members, members of the Liberal caucus, saw the value in the principles of the legislation, and we actually embraced the idea.

When we did the consultations and canvassed our judicial system for its reflections on what was being proposed by the then leader of the Conservative Party, we found it had garnered wide support, much like Bill C-9. With that support, what did we eventually see? Yes, there was some frustration, but it was not coming from the government or the Liberal Party. In fact, caucus colleagues of mine often talked about how we could ensure that legislation saw the light of day. They wanted that legislation to pass.

We had the support of all members of the House, and it passed unanimously. There was no trickery or anything of that nature. No one said, “We'll pass this if you do this.” There was no trading or bargaining processes. We recognized the value of the legislation and agreed to get it passed through the system.

Interestingly enough, I believe a couple of provincial legislatures looked at this. My daughter raised the issue, and she is in the Manitoba legislature. They were looking at what we did here in Ottawa and how it could be potentially duplicated in provincial legislatures. That is how Ottawa can demonstrate leadership on an important issue.

If one understands and appreciates the sense of independence of our justice system, then factors in all of the work and effort that has gone into this piece of legislation getting to the point it is at today, one sees it has been a long journey, a journey that ultimately went through all forms of different stakeholders. The ones I emphasize are the courts, or those directly involved in courts, the judges.

There was consensus, a very broad consensus, that this is the type of legislation communities, including the judicial community, would accept and want to see passed. When the Minister of Justice talked about the legislation earlier, he made it very clear to everyone that this is legislation where there has been pressure coming from the outside, from the judicial community, suggesting that the legislation be passed as quickly as possible.

Interestingly enough, and it might have been at third reading, but I can recall talking about that previously. That is why I was encouraged, even back then, because the Conservatives did not seem to hesitate.

There are amendments and a number of things I am no doubt missing, but having said that, let me suggest to members opposite it is not written in stone. We could pass this legislation tonight, or at least get it to a stage at which it could be voted on. Let me put it that way because we cannot seek unanimous consent now, but we can at least get it to a stage where it could be voted on as early as tomorrow.

I would ask Conservatives to do what the Liberals did when Rona Ambrose brought forward a good idea, which was to recognize the idea for what it is and support our judicial system. Let us show the public we have confidence in the system, get behind the legislation and allow it to get to a point where we can pass it tomorrow. That can be done.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure members would remember when we were in Centre Block, when something similar with Standing Orders came about. It was basically because the Liberals did not get up on a Monday morning, and the NDP had put a motion together. They did not get enough people to pass it, so the Speaker then had to actually get the vote so we could expand that.

What happened then was that the Liberal Party decided to put together a motion to completely take away the role of the opposition. That was when we ended up with the “elbowgate” issue. The only reason that this motion stopped was because, for three days, people were going after the Prime Minister for his active role.

As the members—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's comments actually have no relevance with respect to Bill C-9.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member's time for asking a question is up. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary could respond, if he so wishes.

I want to remind members that, when they are asking questions and giving speeches in the House, what they say should be relevant to what is before the House.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I apologize for that, but my reaction was to the time he took when he was speaking about the importance of Standing Orders. That was the relevance.