SoVote

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

Context: House Hansard - 145 - Dec/9/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 145 - Dec/9/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 145 - Dec/9/22

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

Dec/9/22 12:32:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, at the justice committee, the Conservative members put forward what we thought was a common-sense proposal to amend Bill C-9 to allow one appeal directly to the Federal Court of Appeal, not to the trial division where things became bogged down with the Girouard case. This proposal was made because we thought there should be some judicial overview on the work of the Canadian Judicial Council. I wonder if my colleague would have a comment about that.

81 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 145 - Dec/9/22

Ms. Christine Normandin

Dec/9/22 12:33:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very specific and interesting question. I reviewed the work that was done in committee, the recommendations that were retained and those that were not. When we look at the proposed structure, we see that there are nevertheless many possible appeal processes. From the very first level of appeal by the review panel, there is the possibility of appealing to the reduced hearing panel. That is the first option. Next an appeal can be lodged with the appeal panel, which is set out in the bill. Thus, there is a second possibility of appeal, and after that, a third, but only by leave of the Supreme Court. The process already provides for three stages of appeal. I think that should be enough to respect procedural guarantees and fairness. There are already three levels of appeal as is the case in regular courts. Would it be appropriate to add another to ensure procedural fairness? I believe that, with the process that has already been put in place, there are sufficient guarantees to ensure respect for the rights of judges under review.

187 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 145 - Dec/9/22

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Dec/9/22 12:52:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the work that he did in committee that he mentioned in his speech. It is always interesting to see what arguments were presented there. First, for the record, I want to confirm to my colleague that I am not suggesting that there are judges who are impartial because of the appointment process, but rather that we must ensure that the appointment process itself does not give the appearance of partiality. With regard to the addition that he wanted to make to the bill of the possibility of appealing to the Federal Court of Canada, we know that not all appeals in the justice system are appeals as of right. Did my colleague want the appeal to the Federal Court to be an appeal as of right? If so, would that not be opening the door to unduly lengthening the proceedings? If he was talking about an appeal with leave, which is mostly the case at the Supreme Court, one must, at the very least, show that there are grounds for appeal, rather than just using this as purely dilatory measure.

191 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 145 - Dec/9/22

Mr. Randall Garrison

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