David Lametti

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the very sincere place whence the question comes. When those kinds of suggestions are being made, whether it is here in this House or in committee, when that kind of constructive dialogue that makes legislation better is the subject matter of debate, I am all for it.

However, when debate is done and procedural shenanigans are added simply for the purpose of slowing down the passage of legislation, when it is no longer the case that bettering the bill or furthering debate is the point of the exercise, then it is time to have a vote and move on. We are not serving Canadians by just putting sand in the machinery, by putting sand in the cogs. We are serving Canadians when we are trying to better pieces of legislation and when we are playing our various roles as parliamentarians.

I agree with the hon. member if that is the sentiment, but far too often that is not the sentiment from the other side. It is merely shutdown tactics to try to slow or stop the government from moving forward.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the quality and diversity of appointments is an important part of the picture, and this piece of legislation is an important part of the picture, because it reinforces the principle of judicial independence. It reinforces the principle of judicial responsibility in the management and maintenance of high standards, which helps the administration of justice and the confidence Canadians have in the justice system.

I would also add that we have added, as a government, based on a private member's bill from Rona Ambrose, former member of Parliament and former interim leader of the Conservative Party, measures to better train judges at the outset, so they will be better judges when cases come before them.

When we put all that together, we are putting together a justice system that not only reflects the diversity of Canada but also reflects the quality and the competence of Canadians and gives us better justice.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, on this bill, we actually introduced it in the Senate, as we had done in the previous Parliament, because we thought that was an appropriate place in order to manage our time efficiently. However, we had a ruling from the Speaker that it had to be introduced here because of the financial impact it might have. That explains the delay: We tried to introduce it in the other place before we introduced it here.

That being said, we use both houses as best we can, and as a minister I certainly try to use both houses and get legislation through as fast as I can. I do my best to make sure I have dialogue with my colleagues across the way, so we get legislation through more quickly, and I think my colleagues across the way have responded positively on a number of different occasions. We have come together in the House precisely to pass legislation in the criminal law sphere that is important to Canadians.

As a minister, I am doing my best to work with the opposition. Some days we run out of time.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I am not always privy to the same information the House leaders or parliamentary secretaries to the House leaders are privy to.

What I can say is that in my previous life I was a university professor, and we had debates around the table in a variety of different contexts, whether it be the classroom or a seminar or a faculty council. We often would say to each other, do not repeat what someone has said. We should add what we have to say, add what is new, add what is different and give a gloss, but if we are just agreeing with someone, we should just say we agree with X or Y.

We do not do that often enough in the House. The phenomenon that the hon. member points to is real, with people getting up and repeating the same, often pre-written speeches over and over again. That leads us to a point at which we are not serving Canadians anymore. We are not adding. That is not a debate, in any sense of the word. That is just talking, and it is talking meaninglessly, in a sense. I am not saying the words are not meaningful, but someone else has already said it and it has already been recorded into the Hansard.

We are here today because that has happened far too often. All sides are guilty of it but, in particular, in this case, the opposition often uses this as a tactic simply to slow things down for the purpose of slowing things down.

It is frustrating. It is frustrating for Canadians. It is frustrating for judges, who would like to be able to get their house in order in terms of their own discipline, but are having to wait longer than they should for a bill that ought to be fairly straightforward.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee and on justice issues generally. I recognize the sincere place from which this question comes.

I have always said publicly that I am never closed to a good idea. That being said, the margin for manoeuvre in a nine to nothing Supreme Court of Canada decision, which is very clear, is pretty minimal. There are a lot of needles that would have to be threaded in order for that kind of proposition to be possible.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her passion and her principle. It is a principle I agree with.

There comes a time when there is not the level of co-operation needed in the House on a variety of different bills, and in order to better serve Canadians we need to set limits on debate. When debate becomes just repeating the same thing over and over again on a variety of different bills, when the opposition is opposing simply to oppose rather than to be constructive, then we are here, using time allocation as a mechanism. I do not like it either. On the other hand, I see the need to get this bill done. The chief justice has come out publicly, as have other chief justices.

We saw the time and costs that were involved in the case the hon. member referred to. The bill is something that all or most of us will agree on and that we ought to pass quickly. I implore our colleagues to do just that.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for all the work that he does in helping to support not only me in my role as Minister of Justice, but also all colleagues through the justice committee and his interactions with colleagues, which I think colleagues on the other side of the House will unanimously say is positive.

This bill is about judges' maintaining their independence but also maintaining the ability to discipline themselves in cases where the behaviour of a judge will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The legislation itself was 50 years old. It was taken on by the Canadian Judicial Council, the council of all the chief justices of federally appointed courts across Canada, and reformed. A process was created that was not only fair in terms of hearing all sides, but also streamlined in terms of its appeal routes.

We have seen very recently a case in which a judge fought tooth and nail and sought judicial review at every step of the way, costing a lot of money and a lot of time. Then, before the House had the opportunity to censure that judge, he resigned with his pension.

Therefore, we have a more streamlined process, a fair process and one with clear routes of appeal. It is designed by justices who, quite frankly, were fed up that their reputation was being brought into disrepute, so we have a better system, a less costly system and a fairer system. For that reason, it is important. It was in front of the Senate in the previous Parliament. Senators made some minor changes to the bill, technical changes that are very acceptable and have now taken their place in the new iteration of the bill.

It is long overdue. The justices want it. The Canadian Judicial Council asked us again this fall to get it going, so here we are.

[Judges Act, October 26th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fundy Royal, and my critic, for his question. It is an important one.

Obviously, our hearts go out to the Bosmas, to the victims of the Quebec City mosque massacre and others who have been impacted by this ruling by the Supreme Court.

I remind the hon. member that, as the Attorney General, we defended the previous legislation in front of the Supreme Court, allowing judges the discretion to have consecutive sentences and building our argument on that. That argument was rejected. It is not that the sentencing was changed; these people are still serving consecutive sentences, but what the court has added is that there is a possibility of parole at various points in time.

I would remind the House that eligibility for parole is not the same as parole. A life sentence is a long time, and a parole hearing, yes, is still there. I know that has a negative impact on the families if they choose to come and testify again. It was a nine to nothing decision, which was a serious statement by the Supreme Court of Canada.

We will work with victims to support them. We have recently appointed a new ombudsperson to help, although the office remained open during the period of time we were searching to fill that role, and I think we can move forward in supporting victims, but recognizing the very clear ruling of the Supreme Court.

[Justice, October 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, public safety is our top priority. The kind of circumstance the hon. member has just described is not the kind of circumstance that would carry with it a minimum mandatory penalty. It would go to the other end of the sentencing spectrum precisely because public safety was at risk and the act itself was serious.

What we are doing, and what experts such as the former supreme court justice Michael Moldaver are suggesting, is that we concentrate our limited judicial resources on precisely those kinds of situations by freeing up resources from situations where public safety is not at risk.

[Justice, October 20th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and congratulate him on his recent appointment as the second critic on this file.

Public safety is our priority, and serious crimes will always carry with them serious consequences. Former supreme court justice Michael Moldaver, whom nobody in the House could accuse of being soft on crime, has said precisely that we need to dedicate more of our judicial and penal resources towards combatting serious offences and treating those offences seriously, and conversely, taking away some of the resources for crimes that should not be punished by incarceration.

Public safety is our number one priority.