SoVote

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Dec/9/22 10:19:40 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and I concur with his comments. I support the bill. However, this bill is cold comfort to my constituents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, whose son Brian was murdered by a co-worker. That co-worker shot Brian and three other co-workers point-blank in the back of the head. That killer was the first person to have a consecutive parole ineligibility period imposed on him by a trial judge. Mike and Dianne were absolutely devastated with the Supreme Court's decision in the spring to strike down that law. They were even more disappointed with the minister's response, which was to say that he respected the decision and would not take any further steps to respond to it or fill the void left as a result of the court decision. Respectfully, what can the minister say to Mike and Dianne?

148 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Dec/9/22 10:20:53 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support on this particular bill. It is important that we move on this bill expeditiously. I appreciate the support he has given personally, as well as the support his party has given, at all stages of this bill. I thank my critic as well, the member for Fundy Royal. I would say to Mike and Dianne that the eligibility for parole that the Supreme Court has imposed in the Bissonnette case is not automatic. It does not mean that the person convicted in this case will be granted parole. It merely means that the consecutive life sentences stand, but there will be a possibility of parole after a fairly long period of time. It was an unequivocal Supreme Court decision. The court clearly said, in a unanimous decision, that parole ineligibility could not stand. I have never rejected the possibility of acting. I am always open to good ideas, as the hon. member knows and has known throughout my period as the Minister of Justice. I will continue to reflect on that case.

182 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Dec/9/22 10:22:23 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I always enjoy hearing him speak. He went on at length about how Bill C‑9 will maintain the public trust, and he also talked about the separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, which is just as important and is also maintained in Bill C‑9. However, if there is one thing that makes us question that balance upon which the public trust relies, it is the judicial appointment process that precedes the potential removal of a judge from office, which one hopes would be a very infrequent occurrence. I would like the minister to comment on the possibility of revising the appointment process to make it as non-partisan and transparent as possible, thereby bolstering public confidence in the judicial system.

139 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Dec/9/22 10:23:12 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. In 2016, we established a non-partisan and transparent judicial appointment process that ensures exemplary quality and greater diversity among judges across Canada, including in Quebec. I can tell this House that the Barreau du Québec and Quebec lawyers are very pleased with the quality and diversity of the individuals appointed to the Quebec Superior Court. We have already appointed 10 judges to the Quebec Superior Court this year, and we still have nine vacancies. The process is ongoing as we continue to fill these positions. I hope to have good news very soon.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

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

Hon. David Lametti

Dec/9/22 10:24:48 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

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.

260 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Dec/9/22 10:26:39 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice would be aware that at the justice committee, Conservative members put forward a common-sense motion. It was a proposal to amend Bill C-9 to include an automatic right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, not the trial court, and that was rejected by the other members of the committee. They argued that the Supreme Court of Canada is already there for appeals. However, we know that is only a faint hope, because it is unlikely that any case coming out of the CJC will ever make it to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like his comments on that.

110 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Dec/9/22 10:27:25 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

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—

211 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/9/22 10:29:13 a.m.
Watch

There is time for one last question. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

16 words

Secretary

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

Dec/9/22 10:29:17 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to the issue of public confidence in the judicial system. The minister made reference to those high-profile cases where a judge is being judged by the public, if I can put it that way, because of a particular ruling and questions of doubt are planted. When I look at the legislation, one aspect is important to recognize: We assist in ensuring public confidence in the system when we put in the checks we are putting in today. Could the minister provide his thoughts on the—

95 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/9/22 10:29:57 a.m.
Watch

I would like a very brief answer from the hon. minister.

11 words

Brief

Hon. David Lametti

Dec/9/22 10:29:59 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

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.

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Dec/9/22 10:30:35 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. Before I do that, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

43 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/9/22 10:30:52 a.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Dec/9/22 10:30:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, this legislation would reform the process by which the Canadian Judicial Council undertakes reviews of complaints brought against judges for alleged misconduct. The judicial complaints review process was established more than 50 years ago, in 1971. It has a number of problems in that it can be timely, cumbersome and costly. These problems have been publicly recognized by the Canadian Judicial Council, which consists of 41 members, including all chief justices and associate chief justices of federally appointed courts. For years, there have been calls to reform the process. The process, as it currently stands, can involve up to three layers of judicial review: the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and, upon leave being granted, the Supreme Court of Canada. That process can take years and, in some cases, even as long as a decade. This bill seeks to address that by streamlining the process, although, I would submit, it does so somewhat imperfectly from the standpoint of ensuring procedural fairness. Nonetheless, the process the government has come up with is supportable, notwithstanding some shortcomings that Conservatives raised at committee. The bill also seeks to enhance transparency by requiring that the Canadian Judicial Council, in its annual reports, to publish the number of complaints and how those complaints were resolved. The bill would enhance accountability. Under the current process, where a judge's misconduct is not at a level that would warrant their removal from office, such cases can be settled behind closed doors with really very little transparency. This bill would change that by providing for mandatory sanctions. Those sanctions could range from requiring the judge to issue an apology to requiring the judge to undertake counselling or professional development training with regard for the nature of the misconduct and circumstances of the case. The bill, on the whole, would protect the independence of the judiciary, which is vital to our democracy and integral to the rule of law, which is something that, unfortunately from time to time, the current government has not respected. In addition, with some imperfections, the bill would maintain procedural fairness, both from the standpoint of the complainant as well as for a judge whose conduct is being questioned by way of a complaint. It is good that this bill has been brought forward. It is a bill that is the product of consultations that took place in 2016, the substance of which have been incorporated into this bill, on which there is generally consensus. However, I will say that it did take the Liberals five years after those consultations ended to get around to introducing a bill. Moreover, when the government finally got around to introducing a bill in May 2021, it went nowhere because of the Prime Minister, who called a completely unnecessary and opportunistic election. Following the unnecessary election, the Liberals reintroduced the bill in the Senate last November and then suddenly decided one month later to pull the bill from the Senate. The Liberals then reintroduced the bill, Bill C-9, last December in the House and proceeded to let it languish for months on end. For six months, they sat on their hands only to finally bring it up for debate at second reading in June, just before the House rose for the summer, and here we are at Christmas still dealing with the bill. I highlight the process to underscore how dysfunctional the Liberal government is. Here, we have a bill around which there is general consensus, and it has taken the Liberals three bills to proceed. While the bill would enhance public confidence in the judicial system, and judges are central to that system, the same cannot be said more broadly about public confidence in our justice system, as a result of the policies of the Liberal government, policies and actions for which the government gets a failing grade. For the Liberals, it is always about the criminals and never about the victims. This, after all, is a government that allowed the position of victims ombudsman to be left vacant for nine months. Finally, in September, the Liberals got around to filling that vacancy. It was not the first time they left that position vacant, the federal advocate for victims, the ombudsman. They left the position vacant for nearly a year in 2017 and 2018. By contrast, when it came to the prisoners ombudsman, when that position became vacant, the Liberals saw fit to fill it the very next day. That is quite a contrast. When it comes to an ombudsman for prisoners, the vacancy was filled the next day. When it comes to the ombudsman for the rights of victims, the government has presided over leaving that critical position vacant for nearly two years out of the seven years it has been in office. This is a government that just passed Bill C-5, the do-no-time, soft-on-crime bill, as it has come to be known, which eliminates mandatory jail time for serious firearms offences and for serious drug offences, including trafficking and production of schedule 1 drugs such as cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. This is at a time when we have an opioids crisis. When 21 Canadians a day are dying as a result of that, the government's priority is to let those who put that poison on our streets serve their sentence at home, instead of behind bars where they belong. That is a government that has failed to engage in that dialogue, which is so critical between Parliament and the courts. The minister failed to respond to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the very reasonable and just law passed by the previous Harper government to give judges the discretion to apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods for mass murderers, including the mass murderer responsible for the murder of my constituent Brian Ilesic. His parents, Mike and Dianne, are very deeply troubled by the inaction of the minister, and I am glad that today he at least acknowledged he was open to reviewing that decision. That is the first time he has said that. In closing, I will just say that the bill is a supportable bill, but it is cold comfort for victims and their families who, time and again, have been abandoned by the government.

1055 words

All Topics

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

Dec/9/22 10:41:04 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, one cannot help but recognize, in many of the spins the Conservatives like to put, as though they are tough on crime, is that they seem to want to marginalize the true value of our judicial system, in particular, our judges. They do that by saying they do not have confidence in judges, and therefore, they need to not only support the minimum sentences of today, along with the many problems that are a part of that, but also would like to see additional minimum sentences. Does the member not believe that judges are in a better position to be able to give a disposition, rather than instituting or putting on them minimum sentences in every situation?

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Cooper

Dec/9/22 10:41:56 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, the courts have not struck down minimum sentences across the board. Mandatory jail times have always been a part of our Criminal Code, or have been for many decades, and continue to be. In fact, none of the provisions, I believe, in Bill C-5 were struck down by the courts, certainly not by the Supreme Court. It was a choice made by the government to remove those mandatory jail times because, for the government, it is always about putting the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims. The Liberals provided little rationale on why they picked those specific provisions, which involve serious firearms offences and serious drug offences.

112 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Dec/9/22 10:42:54 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill, and I listened to the speeches given by my other colleagues. One point that kept coming up from the Conservative side was about protecting victims. It was pointed out that, in the review process, victims' views were perhaps not sufficiently taken into account in cases where a sanction was warranted, but not necessarily removal. However, an amendment adopted in committee would allow for victims to at least be notified of the reasons why their complaints were not successful. Does my colleague think this is a step in the right direction? Could Bill C-9 not have done a little more to protect victims?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Cooper

Dec/9/22 10:43:49 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, yes, I believe that amendment is an improvement to the bill. Any time there is an opportunity to have input from the victim, it is a step in the right direction. That is important, and we must continue to do work to ensure that victims are heard throughout our court process and, in this instance, a judicial complaints process.

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 145