SoVote

Jun/16/22 4:56:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I think that if the House were to ask for unanimous consent to pass this bill, we would be able to pass it very quickly.

27 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/16/22 4:56:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Uqaqtittiji, does the member agree that there have already been a lot of consultations and there has already been a lot of public engagement warranting the quick passage of this bill?

31 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Jun/16/22 4:57:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I think there have been a lot of consultations. I listed a number of associations from the legal perspective, from the broader perspective and also from the general public that were invited to comment on the proposed legislation. I mentioned that this legislation, or the deliberations about updating or modernizing this approach, has been talked about for about seven years now. There has been a lot of opportunity for a lot of input. It was widespread. I have all the confidence that there has been a lot of opportunity for anybody who has wanted to provide input to have done so. I think it has been honourably encapsulated in the legislation we have proposed before the House.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/16/22 4:57:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, it is clear there is widespread support in the chamber for this piece of legislation, and it has been suggested by some that the only reason it is still being debated is that there is some trading going on between parties. I know the member cares about the quality of the discourse in this place. Could she share her reflections on her aspirations and what it would take for this place to rise past more transactional politics and focus more fully on the most critical issues we face?

90 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Jun/16/22 4:58:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. I do care about the discourse in this chamber. I think we are at our best when we share our best ideas in addressing the biggest challenges before Canadians. I think that is how we can best serve Canadians on all of the issues, challenges and opportunities that face Canadians today. I agree with him. I encourage all sides to constantly find ways to share our best ideas and work together so we can create an even better Canada.

85 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/16/22 4:59:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned unanimous consent. It is possible when parties speak to each other. We are in a Parliament, so the parties must talk, negotiate and use diplomacy. Is that happening right now? Are the parties in talks to reach unanimous consent, given that we all agree?

49 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Jun/16/22 4:59:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I am not part of the team that is negotiating on this particular bill and what is actually happening in this House. It is with great hope that they are talking about it and that they are putting unanimous consent as an option on the table. I do agree with many who have spoken in this House to say that there is widespread agreement and that we should pass this swiftly.

73 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/16/22 5:00:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation. Meegwetch. I really had hoped to be allowed to ask the member for South Surrey—White Rock a question, and I will tell members why, because I think they might enjoy this. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock mentioned that she used to practise law, and I used to practise law. However, the member was actually part of the governing party when we were both first elected in 2011 when she helped me with a family law case. I just wanted to put that out there. One of my constituents had a grandchild pretty much kidnapped by a non-custodial father who took the toddler to New Hampshire. I was going crazy, as were the mother and other members of the family, trying to figure out how to get the baby back. Speaking of judges I do not like, I would mention the family court judge in New Hampshire who thought that a court order from the Supreme Court of British Columbia for full custody of the little girl was something out of a Cracker Jack box that the judge was free to ignore. It was quite the case. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock gave me some very good advice, which helped me get the baby back. She is now 16 and living with her proper family, and so it all came out quite well. I want to talk about Bill C-9, which would reform the Canadian Judicial Council. As I was speaking of a U.S. judge, it reminded me of this whole experience when I was at Dalhousie law school. We had one professor who challenged us on a case one day. We spent hours trying to figure out the rationale for the judge's decision. It made no sense to us. Obviously, the judge had ruled it, and so we had to figure out the legal reasoning, because there must be legal reasoning. It was a contract case and it made no sense. After about an hour of us tearing our hair out and putting forward solutions, our professor asked, “Is it permissible to ask if the judge was bribed?” The judge was, which is why the decision made no sense, and he was thrown off the bench for it. This was an episode for us in real-life judicial reasoning. Sometimes the judge is bribed. Now, I do not know if this has happened in Canada, but it might happen sometime, and this is why we need a judicial review process. This particular process has been in place since 1971, and there are good and real reasons that it needs to be fixed. There is another real-life case that I found explanatory. For the general public who may be watching this debate today, it has been a little dry, so I figured I would give a real-life example, which some members may know. The judge is from the Quebec Superior Court, Michel Girouard who, I think 13 days before being elevated to a being a judge, was caught on video buying cocaine. This is similar to a Netflix true-crime story. Judge Girouard was challenged in 2010 when there was a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council. It is pretty clear that when a judge is caught on video buying cocaine from one of his clients who was then before the courts that we really do not want that particular gentleman on the court. If we want to talk about something that brings the justice system into disrepute, that would be it. The case started in 2012 and did not end until 2021, when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Judge Girouard's appeal. At that point, he had managed to use every possible legal avenue to fight the finding that he was not qualified to be a member of the judiciary. He fought it, and for those of us who are trained in law can imagine, there are many ways to be creative and litigious, and this gentleman was very litigious. Not only that, under the previous law that we had, the people of the province, the taxpayers, had to pay all of his legal fees, because he was a judge and it was under the judicial complaints process. I will point out one thing that Bill C-9 would do. We obviously learned a lot from that experience, and we do not want to have someone who is challenged dead to right who should not be a member of the bench, able to keep exploiting every possible appeal and then charge the taxpayer for the legal fees. Also, there should be a way of limiting how many accesses to judicial review through the federal courts someone in this situation should have. Bill C-9 would do something quite straightforward that I have not mentioned yet today. If a judge going through this process wants to find ways to appeal, they are all in Bill C-9. The only court that a judge who is being challenged in this way can get to is the Supreme Court of Canada, at the very end of the process. The judge cannot keep finding a judge somewhere to hear some aspect of a complaint the judge is fighting. Just to make it clear, under this legislation, there would be complaints, a screening officer, a reviewing member, and they can create certain kinds of review panels and hearing panels together, but they are not clogging up the regular court system. The judge that is the subject of the complaint is precluded from going to any other court, but at the very end, has the right to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The law also gets rid of the idea that the people have to pay for the legal costs of a judge. The opportunity to appeal to the courts under the new process, proposed section 158 of Bill C-9, specifically bars any legal challenges or other forms of judicial review. This is a very helpful change. Everything about the way the bill has been constructed has been the subject of a great deal of consultation due to cases, and there have not been a lot of cases. Let us face it, in the 40 years since the Canadian Judicial Council was created, as far as I could find, and it was the same figure that the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke used, which means it is probably right, was that there were only 14 reviews in the last 40 years. This speaks to a very high level of ethics and integrity within our judiciary. However, if someone does have a problem, there are very large stakes in getting this right. We do not want frivolous complaints from, for instance, people who have lost cases in front a judge and that disaffected previous litigant having the right to make a judge's life hell, to pursue them and subject them, in social media or wherever, to unfair charges. The judge subject to a complaint clearly has rights and has to be treated fairly. That side of getting the balance right is well reflected in Bill C-9. The other aspect is we do not want public confidence in our justice system to be shaken by having someone serving as a judge who clearly does not meet the standards of ethical conduct, the way it is expressed in this new bill. The ones that used to be there are infirmity, misconduct, failure of due execution and, this is the new one that is relatively traditional, the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office. In the time remaining, I want to mention that all of us here should think about the benefits of this new approach. The system we are currently under really has a binary choice: The judge is off the bench or the judge is on the bench. This new system says that maybe the judge needs some training, some counselling or a warning. There is a different approach here, again something short of the kind of misconduct that says the judge must leave the bench altogether, that allows for help. One can imagine these are stressful positions. Mental health issues affect everyone in every profession, so there could be conduct that is questionable, but, on the other hand, overall the person is a good judge. Bill C-9 would allow that judge in that circumstance to be treated fairly, but it also protects the public and the taxpayer from judges who would do absolutely anything to stay on the bench, even if, as in the case I cited, they have been caught on video buying cocaine. With that, I hope we can expedite the passage of this bill. It has been around even longer than some members have mentioned, because it was Bill S-5 in the last Parliament in the Senate and died on the Order Paper when the last election was called. Let us get this bill passed.

1549 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/16/22 5:10:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I agree with so much that was said in the intervention by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands today, again reinforcing the many reasons that we need to be moving forward with these changes to the Judges Act, getting this bill to committee and moving forward on what we are all agreeing on today. I may be new in this role as a member of Parliament, but I cherish every moment to stand up and speak in this chamber, and I hope that never changes. I reflect on the fact that our time may not be being used in the most efficient way right now. We have so much that is happening. I am hearing from constituents who are worried about the climate crisis that we are in and are struggling to make ends meet, and I am wondering if the member can share a bit about how she feels about using our time in the best way possible to speak to the concerns that we are hearing from constituents day in and day out.

178 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/16/22 5:11:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to look at every piece of legislation, but we are spending an entire day on a piece of legislation that nobody can oppose and on which nobody can suggest the need to get it to committee for amendments. This is a bill that was essentially drafted by the Canadian Bar Association after numerous studies looking at the Canadian Judicial Council and with the full engagement of the existing Canadian Judicial Council, so it is an excellent piece of legislation that has been well drafted. I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. It has been almost three years to the day since this Parliament passed, on June 18, 2019, the motion declaring that we are in a climate emergency. We have yet to act as though we understand that we are in an emergency, and I think the more we talk about anything else, the closer we go to a place that is a point of no return for our own children.

170 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Jun/16/22 5:12:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an impactful bill. It will help shorten these processes, establish a mechanism to deal with complaints ranging from the less serious to the more serious, and ensure that the misconduct is punished. Does my colleague agree with fast-tracking the adoption of this bill?

50 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/16/22 5:13:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. It is a good bill. It is well drafted and clear. It is the result of a decade or more of study and reflection. I think we have a duty to do whatever we can to adopt this bill as soon as possible.

48 words

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Jun/16/22 5:13:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I agree that the fight against climate change is very important. It is the greatest existential challenge of our generation. I hope that she will also agree that everyone needs to work together to fight climate change, and that doing so takes social cohesion. It is very important, especially for minority groups, such as racialized people, that a bill like this one is passed. Canadians of all backgrounds will then have confidence that, if they appear before a judge or a court, they will be respected and judged on the merits of the case. They will not be concerned that a judge may have an unwarranted bias that may undermine justice. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

136 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/16/22 5:14:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need to have a system that gives each and every Canadian and Quebecker confidence that the system is fair and free of racism. We currently live in a society where systemic racism is found in every institution, group, and province, because racism is built into the system, even though not everyone is racist. That is why we need to do more.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/16/22 5:15:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, as always in the House, it is a pleasure to rise to speak and raise the voice and the message from my constituents in the eastern interior riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. I will be splitting my time here this afternoon with our opposition House leader, the member for Barrie—Innisfil. I want to start my intervention and notes on Bill C-9 today with a bit of a personal parliamentary perspective. We are hearing a lot of criticism here today on this bill. I will say at the forefront that I agree with this specific piece of legislation on the need to modernize our judicial system and to improve confidence in it in a timely fashion. We will hear from our Conservative colleagues some reasonable questions, comments and perhaps amendments to strengthen it. At the end of the day, when we talk about a general intent and the high level of opportunities for us to build strength and confidence in our judges and a process for removal if necessary, we would be deeming that appropriate. As a bit of context on this piece of legislation, it was tabled six months ago, and this is the first opportunity to discuss it. It is not as if it had been debated for weeks and months on end here in the House of Commons. This is the first time we have had a few hours to discuss it. In my limited time here of two and a half years as a member of Parliament, I have seen that we have to learn how we can most effectively find ways to get our voices onto the floor of the House of Commons on issues that are important to our constituents. I will take some time and note a bit of the background on the bill, but I will talk as well in general about some of my concerns and frustrations with the government's direction or tone or intention or narrative when it comes to building confidence in our Canadian judiciary. The bill before us would update a piece of legislation. When I was looking at the background, I had to go online, and it was kind of interesting. The current process for complaints of misconduct against judges was introduced in 1971. Pierre Elliott Trudeau was our prime minister, and the minister of justice and attorney general at that time was future prime minister John Turner. I think we could agree in the year 2022 that there have been amendments over the years but that we are going to need to tweak and change and edit legislation over the course of time. I will give credit to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who just spoke for a few minutes and gave some very tangible examples of how we need this reform to go. Right now, one of the issues is that if a serious complaint is made through the process of the judicial council and if the misconduct is deemed less serious, the individual member may negotiate a resolution to the process. That lacks accountability and transparency, and I think there is agreement that we need to reform that process. The proposal in Bill C-9 would change that so that if it is deemed less serious, there still is an opportunity. A member would review it and could either dismiss the complaint if it was wholly without merit or refer it to a three-member review panel. This would provide an opportunity to make sure all reasonable and credible allegations of misconduct, and their severity level, would go through a proper process, which again would give Canadians confidence. I will also note from my colleague from the Green Party's intervention that there have not been many of these over Canadian history. That speaks to the integrity, the ethics and the strength of the bench in Canada for decades, but I also think we need to update this to make sure that, again, the cases that are deemed “less severe” would still require a review in a public, transparent process in terms of the review panel, the hearings and so forth. One of the things I want to raise when we talk about building confidence in the judiciary is the government's intention when it comes to mandatory minimum sentencing. One of the pieces of legislation we have debated here is Bill C-5. That can relate to, and the government is proposing to remove, several mandatory mandatory minimum penalties. The government is saying that if we oppose the removal of those mandatory minimum penalties, we do not support the Canadian judiciary and the discretion of judges. That is not the case. We believe, as Conservatives, in victims' rights and in supporting those who have gone through trauma or issues and have gone through being a victim of a crime. There deserves to be a minimum punishment. One of the things we talk about when we talk about removal is that this is not for simple things like simple possession. I want to list the things that we have been standing up for, as I believe confidence can still be maintained in our Canadian judiciary and individual judges. A number of mandatory minimums are being removed related to gun crimes. Mandatory minimums are gone for robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking, importing or exporting, knowing it is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent. The mandatory minimum in all of these cases is gone, and the list goes on. Also, some of the legislation we have been dealing with would eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers by eliminating six mandatory minimums in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of a schedule 1 or 2 substance. What does that mean? It means heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth. There would be a removal of those mandatory minimums. This, again, is the first time we have been dealing with the bill in this Parliament, as it was over in the Senate. The government prorogued at one point, and then it called the election, so it has been stalled several times. This is the first time that we have an opportunity. I have advice to the Bloc and the NDP, which are complaining that I would like to stand up and have a 10-minute intervention on confidence in our Canadian judiciary: It is that I do not believe in the direction the government is going when it comes to eliminating mandatory minimums. We may agree on the need for reform; there is what is in the legislation, but, most importantly, it is what is not in the legislation, and we have an opportunity to stand up here in the House of Commons and raise those concerns. It also gives me the opportunity to be the voice for my constituents as well when we talk about the process. Bill C-9 is one example, and Bill C-5, which is terribly flawed, in my opinion and in the opinion of our caucus and in the opinion of many members of law enforcement as well. One of the things that we are not seeing, among the easy things to do, is a whole bill dedicated to reforming this. It means that they are not putting in legislation to address some of the other things. We are calling it out when we see it. A perfect example is the lack of services for those in the Canadian justice system who are dealing with addiction or battling addiction. We are seeing changes in an effort, through legislation, to try to distract us from the lack of investment in mental health and addictions treatment for those who truly need it. We are taking mandatory minimums away from people who are trafficking and preying on some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet we are not providing the resources to get them the help that they truly need. When we have a bill like this, it is an opportunity to talk about the views from our community on the portfolio of the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice. It is an opportunity to perhaps find agreement on this, yes, but I can also find time to join the floor of the House of Commons and say what is not in forthcoming legislation, what is perhaps not in budget bills to address some of the flawed aspects of the government's intentions. I will just say this as we wrap up, and I have always said it: Somebody who is battling addiction does not need prison time. That is a universal agreement in our country, of law enforcement, I believe, and of the House. We need to target our resources and our criminal justice system on those who are preying on these people and victimizing them. At the same time, we need not only pieces of legislation like Bill C-9 to increase confidence in our justice system; we need investments that can actually get victims, those who are dealing with addiction, out of our justice system and into proper help to get back into a better trajectory in life and a more positive future for themselves. I will say in review of this bill that it is time for an update. I look forward to questions and comments and I appreciate the opportunity to speak broadly about confidence in our justice system.

1597 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Jun/16/22 5:25:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell his party to let him speak more because, especially in his conclusion, he talked about diversion-related values that I would like the Conservative Party to address more often. I would like to hear more about that interesting idea. In the current context, I would like to ask him what measures he would propose to make this a little more efficient, if he were the justice minister. There seems to be a lot of tension in the House today. In closing, I would like to point out my colleague's good taste in clothing. I really like his tie.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/16/22 5:26:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment on my tie, and members will note I am wearing the “loud MacLeod” tartan today, which represents the Glengarry county part of my riding. To the member's comment, I will go back to the opportunity to speak more broadly about criminal justice reform and reform to our justice system. On this piece of legislation, I know some of our Conservative colleagues, from conversations, look forward to hearing from witnesses, and many of them have been quoted in various debates today. I think we may find some reasonable amendments to strengthen the legislation, and I will defer to them specifically on that. I had the opportunity to speak in general support of the bill, and again, we will see where it goes in committee, and also to raise some of the things that are not in the government's justice agenda and legislation.

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/16/22 5:27:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to other legislation, Bill C-5, which is on minimum sentences, and he is very offended by the fact that that legislation was brought forward. Getting rid of minimum sentences does not mean someone who commits an act would get off scot-free. What it does mean is we would be providing more opportunity for judges to use their discretion. Judges, in vast majority, are very well educated and have a very good understanding of the system. They can take a look at the circumstances and are in a better position to be able to give a disposition. I would not want him to give a false impression that, because we are getting rid of minimum sentences, people would get off scot-free. That is just not accurate. My final thought is regarding the calling of the legislation. Surely to goodness the member would realize that, even though it was introduced and had first reading in December, there are many other legislative agendas. The Conservative Party never approached the government to call for Bill C-9 either. It is here today because the Bill C-14 debate collapsed last night. Bill C-14 was another piece of legislation that was extended because of the Conservative filibuster.

212 words

All Topics

Mr. Eric Duncan

Jun/16/22 5:28:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that people would get off scot-free. What I am saying is that Conservatives believe that, for the serious cases I listed, with the removal of mandatory minimums in Bill C-5, there should be a floor, a benchmark or a minimum punishment for some of the most severe and serious crimes being committed to go after the people who are going after our most vulnerable. Again, I alluded to this in my comments. These are highly educated judges, and I have respect for our judiciary. I also have respect for victims. I believe when somebody is committing robbery with a firearm or extortion with a firearm, or they are producing heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth, there should be a benchmark and a minimum. They would have the discretion to go higher, but there would at least be a floor. It is standing up for victims and their rights. I will not apologize for that, and I reject the premiss that to support mandatory minimums in these serious cases is somehow saying we do not trust our judiciary. I trust the need to stand up for victims and for there to be proper consequences for those who harm them.

206 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/16/22 5:30:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Uqaqtittiji, does the member not realize this bill would actually enhance fairness because of the mechanisms that would be established, and that, through the enhancement of these fairness systems, it would help improve the protection of victims?

37 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 90