SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 145

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 9, 2022 10:00AM
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border