44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 9, 2022 10:00AM
- Dec/9/22 10:24:14 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his remarks on what I think is an important bill.
There is an obvious tension, always, between the independence of judges and the right of the public to have transparency about the conduct of judges. In this bill, it is very clear that we are going to make a significant improvement over the current situation, in which neither the complainants nor the judges complained about are served well. I wonder if the minister thinks that with this bill, we have finally reached the right balance between the independence of judges and the rights of those who may have complaints about judges.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 10:44:26 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, it is hard for me to thank the member for his speech, which was essentially a long recitation of the Conservative's commitment to tough-on-crime policies, which have clearly failed. However, my real disappointment with his speech is that we have done some work in this Parliament, particularly on the study on the rights of victims where parties have worked together to try and improve the justice system.
My question is about the bill and confidence in the judicial system. I wonder whether the Conservatives actually believe that the justice system and judges, in particular, have to look more like the face of Canada for the public to have confidence in that system.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 11:28:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, every single month we lose a member of the Canadian Forces to death by suicide. Clearly, more needs to be done to prevent these tragic losses for the forces and for the families. One of the barriers to serving members getting the mental health supports they need is the fact that self-harm remains a disciplinary offence under the military code of conduct. For more than six years, the families have been asking this government to act.
Will the Minister of National Defence support my proposal to remove self-harm as a disciplinary offence so that serving members can get the mental health supports they need and deserve?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 12:40:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill.
I know that for many people in the public, an act to amend the Judges Act is not the most exciting thing they can imagine for a Friday afternoon, but the bill deals with things that are fundamental to our system, even if they are not exciting. Things like the rule of law and an independent judiciary make sure that our democracy can continue to function. We have to have a citizenry that has confidence in our institutions and confidence in the judges, and the bill is about making that confidence more apparent.
I have to say that I am troubled by exchanges like the one that just took place between the Liberal and Bloc members. It is true that we have to be able to question our institutions, but the kind of exchange that takes place where someone asks for someone to name a judge who is political is not helpful when it comes to keeping confidence in our judiciary. A blanket charge that the appointments that are taking place are political is not helpful either, so if we want to talk about the system, let us talk about the system and how it functions, but the wild charges do not contribute to confidence in our system, and I say “a pox on both your houses” for that, frankly.
One of the things I will give credit to the Liberal government for, on which it has done better than any previous government that I have seen, and as a former criminal justice instructor I have been watching this system for more than 30 years, is the diversity of appointments to the bench. Diversity is an important thing, because if Canadians do not see themselves reflected in the legal system, it is hard to have confidence in that system.
I will point to two things that I think were quite historic this year in and of themselves, but that also contribute to confidence.
The first, of course, was the appointment of Judge O'Bonsawin to the Supreme Court of Canada. I was very pleased to see her take her seat this fall. It really broadens the perspective of the court to have the first indigenous woman sitting there, and I think the court will make better decisions because of that diversity.
The second, which is sometimes overlooked, also took place this fall, and that was the appointment of Justice Shannon Smallwood as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, so an indigenous woman as a Supreme Court chief justice for the first time.
What does this mean for the public? I do not think it means very much, but in the judicial system it means a whole lot, because as a chief justice she takes her seat on the Canadian Judicial Council, which is the body that is in charge of the discipline of judges. Therefore, for the very first time we are going to have a racialized woman sitting in the group that makes decisions about whether judges have acted fairly or discriminatorily. I think these two appointments are extremely important.
I will also say that the current government has done a good job of increasing the number of women appointed to the bench. Again, my belief is that the more diverse the group that is making decisions, the better those decisions will be and the more confidence the public will have in those decisions.
We are happy to support the bill. There is no doubt that the current system for dealing with complaints against judges is long, complicated, costly and non-transparent. The bill before us would be a significant improvement in how we deal with complaints against judges.
The main way I see an improvement here is not just with respect to the cost and the complicated process, but by providing for some intermediate, I guess I would call it, sanctions. We are stuck with a system right now in which, if someone misbehaves on the bench in what I would call a minor manner, or if it is a correctable problem, there is no choice but to recommend that they either stay on the bench or be removed from the bench. The bill is a significant step forward in allowing the Canadian Judicial Council, other judges, to say that a judge may need some remedial training. They may need a time out, just like with kids, a suspension for a while, or other things that do not result in removal of the judge from the bench.
Now, in committee there were a few amendments, two of which I put forward, to address transparency, and I just want to point out one of the odd things in our current system. There are two points at which complaints currently can be dismissed, and they are at the initial screening level and then after a decision by a review panel. The current system, before being amended by Bill C-9, maintained this curious practice of saying, “We're going to give you a summary of our reasons for our decision, but we're not going to give you the reasons. If you want the reasons, you have to file an appeal.” What is the first thing that happens when someone files an appeal? They are given the reasons. Anybody who looks at that with a basic sense of logic and fairness would ask, “Why do we not release those reasons?”
Two amendments were adopted by the committee that reversed that presumption. The presumption now, going forward, will be that unless there is a public interest or a privacy concern, complainants will get the reasons for complaints against judges being dismissed. That is very important for the individual complainants and their confidence, but it is also important for confidence in the system as a whole.
The two other amendments I put forward were rejected, and I will take a minute to talk about both of those.
One of those was brought forward by the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I think it raises a very important concern, but unfortunately other parties on the committee did not share my view of the council's suggestions. It said that at the initial stage, the reasons listed for dismissing a complaint would be that it does not amount to discrimination. The council's concern was that in law, discrimination has a very narrow definition, so cases could get dismissed without being investigated.
Therefore, the council put forward the proposal that we add in that section, “discrimination or actions substantially similar to discrimination”. Because it is the gatekeeping function at that first step, it was suggested that we broaden that a bit more. I was disappointed that the other parties did not agree to that suggestion. With respect to that one, I was moving the amendment on behalf of complainants who wanted there to be a broader look at those complaints before they are dismissed.
With respect to the other amendment, I was on the side of judges. There is still a significant flaw in this bill, although we will support it because it is an improvement. I put forward an amendment saying that the appeal for a judge on the decision of the Canadian Judicial Council should not be to the Supreme Court of Canada, but rather to the Federal Court of Appeal. Let me explain that very obscure difference. What we are dealing with here is judges judging judges when it comes to complaints. The Canadian Judicial Council is composed of judges. If the appeal is made to the Supreme Court, there is no right of appeal. The Supreme Court accepts only applications for leave to appeal, meaning it will decide if someone's case is important enough, and it has a very high bar for hearing cases. The Supreme Court has said it will hear only cases that are of substantial national importance or that raise important constitutional issues. It hears only about 8% of the requests to hear cases, so in fact, we are leaving judges to be judged by their peers, with nobody from outside getting a look at that decision. I find that disappointing.
Some of my colleagues have said to me that the Court of Appeal is also judges. However, there is a different function. When the Canadian Judicial Council makes a decision on complaints, it is defending not just the complaint, but the whole confidence in the judiciary and the whole integrity of the judicial system. It has a bit of a different function. If a complaint is referred to the Court of Appeal, its appeal court judges look only at that case and the procedural fairness for that judge. Fortunately, there are very few of these cases. I am prepared to support the bill, but I am concerned that we have not left an effective appeal mechanism against what I will call at this moment the closed club of the Canadian Judicial Council.
Having said that, I would like to have seen those two amendments added. They were not. It is still a good bill. It is still something we should proceed with.
I have to say, and cannot let it pass, that this could have been done before the last election. It could have been done in the last Parliament. Sometimes I just do not get why my colleagues on the Liberal side are so slow to get things done that have broad support within the House of Commons. However, I am glad to see it here. I am glad to see it moving forward. I am glad to see we are going to get this done. It will contribute significantly to confidence in the complaint process by being more transparent and by being quicker, but it will also contribute to the overall confidence in our judiciary while still protecting the independence of judges.
1664 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 12:51:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right and I apologize for failing to mention that the Conservatives had supported the amendment on the appeals by judges. I got mine in first, and that is why it was the one considered, but honestly, I appreciate their support and I think we share that same concern. Maybe, in our attempt to get a faster, more efficient process, we took it a step too far when it comes to those appeals.
Do I think the independence of the judiciary is protected? Yes, I do. I think it is protected, but again, to me, there are other things besides independence and confidence in the complaints process that are important. I am going to say again that I think the work the government is doing to make sure we have a judiciary that reflects the face of Canada is also important.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 12:53:11 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that I respect the work the member for Saint-Jean does in this chamber. She is a very diligent and thoughtful member of Parliament, and I respect her contributions.
I will extend my same caution: Whenever we talk about the impartiality of judges, we need to keep our focus on the system and not on the individual judges. We inadvertently do damage, both to the judiciary as a whole and potentially to individual judges, when we talk about the appointment process in individual terms. I agree with her that we have to be able to question that process, but I urge us to keep our focus on that process.
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 it has set for leave to appeal to the court.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 12:55:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her question, because it is a serious concern. Unfortunately, what happens in our systems is that the funnel starts removing diversity very early.
If a person is ever going to be a judge, they have to go to law school. The ability of various communities to get their kids into law school is highly differentiated. Certainly we are talking about Black Canadians and indigenous Canadians. The number of people who are represented at the law school level is far below what it should be. We start narrowing the funnel at law school.
Then someone has to practise law for 10 years. We have a time factor. Even if we improve the diversity in law schools, which we are doing, it is going to be a 10-year time lag before someone is eligible for an appointment to the federal judiciary. That funnel is narrow, and it takes time.
I do not know the details of Alberta. Being a British Columbia MP, I have not looked at the appointments in Alberta, but I am hopeful that the initiatives of both law societies and law schools to get more women and people of colour into law school and into the profession will eventually produce a more diverse judiciary.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
