David Lametti

[Justice, January 30th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, our government has always been very clear with respect to concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause by the provinces, and we are considering all our options.

We are strongly committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected by the charter, a charter that was created to protect minorities across Canada.

We have been clear and we will continue to be clear in the future.

[Justice, December 13th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

I am very proud that Bill C‑9 received the unanimous approval of the House. That sends a very clear signal. We take our responsibility toward our justice system very seriously.

The changes our government proposed to the Judges Act will strengthen the process for handling complaints against federally appointed judges. The changes will ensure that the judicial misconduct complaints process will reach final decisions in a fair and timely way and at a reasonable cost to the public purse.

We will work with the other place to get this bill passed—

[Firearms, December 13th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member, hon. members and Canadians across Canada that conditional sentence orders are only available where there is no threat to public security. The person who is best placed to make that determination, according to the evidence, is the sentencing judge, who has all of the information in front of the bench and makes that determination. We are proud to follow policies that work and abandon policies that do not.

[Firearms, December 13th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, we all want a safer society where serious crimes should be met with serious consequences. However, we also have a duty to follow the evidence and set aside failed policies that did not work. That is exactly what we did with Bill C‑5. We are putting resources where they are needed to ensure that our society is safer.

[Firearms, December 13th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, our community's safety is obviously a priority. We have always said that serious crimes will have serious consequences, but we can also recognize that our justice system required reform. With Bill C‑5, we abandoned policies that were unnecessarily harsh, especially towards indigenous people and Black or marginalized people. These policies clearly were not working. We are proud that Bill C‑5 passed and that it will have a positive impact on Canadians.

[Justice, December 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing throughout Canada with vacancies. We have implemented a transparent and efficient process, and we are filling the positions as they come up. We are doing it in a diligent manner. As I said, the results are excellent. The diversity and quality of judges being appointed is exceptional.

[Justice, December 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. I attended the Hon. Chief Justice Marie‑Anne Paquette's swearing-in ceremony a week and a half ago in Montreal. I can confirm that the bar association and the chief justices are very pleased with the quality and diversity of the people that we have appointed to the Quebec Superior Court. We appointed 10 people to that court this year, and there are still nine positions to fill. We are working on it. I hope to have good news soon.

[Judges Act, December 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, at the outset, if there is a doubt about a ruling, there is an appeal process. When there is a substantive question, one can go to appeal.

What we are talking about here is when a judge perhaps makes a remark or is engaged in an activity that impugns the conduct of the judiciary. One of the main things we have done here is allow for disciplinary action to be taken in minor cases with concomitant consequences.

[Judges Act, December 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, indeed, this is probably one of the reasons we are here.

I mentioned the case of Justice Girouard over the past number of years, in which there were a number of judicial reviews to the Federal Court and appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal from those judicial reviews. It ended up ballooning the process in terms of cost and rendering the process much more complex, and it took years.

I know that serious discussions were undertaken by the CJC and the chief justice discussing the mechanism, and appeals to the Federal Court were considered. What the judges came up with was a transparent process to hear and provide for appeals within the system in a linear fashion with, finally, the possibility of seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

I think the hon. member is correct to say that leave to appeal to the court is not meant to be frequently obtained, but there has been a sufficient degree of attention paid within the linear system of vetting, hearing and rehearing cases so that there is a sufficient degree of protection put in the system for someone to challenge a first ruling and move from there. We have built a good balance that maintains efficiency and—

[Judges Act, December 9th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work at committee and with respect to collaboration on justice issues generally. We have a very high degree of collaboration among all the parties in the House, and I am very proud of that fact.

I think we have reached the right balance here. I point out to the hon. member that the substance of this process was elaborated on by the Canadian Judicial Council, which is led by the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, who is the Chief Justice of Canada, and chief justices across Canada, in collaboration with superior court judges across Canada. I think there is an important developmental part of the bill that was undertaken by the judiciary.

We had a high-profile case of judicial misconduct over the past number of years in which dilatory tactics were used, and it ended up costing the taxpayer time and money. The people who suffered the most during that process were the judges. They felt that their reputation was being impugned by the actions of one of their members. Therefore, they had a very strong incentive to participate in the process and to elaborate on a process that they believed was fair.

Then the bill came here and there were good recommendations at committee. There were not many, but they were important ones. Therefore, we have taken on our role responsibly to work with justices, maintaining independence on each side and coming up with a process that will serve Canadians. That is ultimately what both the judiciary and parliamentarians do.