SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 214

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)
  • Jun/15/23 9:54:12 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this bill has had widespread support among all the parties in the House and from the many stakeholders who have spoken in support of it across Canada. We are at a very critical juncture here, in that we are reflecting on some of the proposals from the other place. The bill has gone through an extensive process in the House, and I am wondering if the minister could tell us why it is important that we get this bill passed before we rise and why it is important to ensure that the new process is in place before September.
101 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree
  • Jun/15/23 11:45:31 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-9 
Madam Speaker, the member's comments actually have no relevance with respect to Bill C-9.
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)
  • Jun/15/23 11:49:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-9 
Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of discussion about the last-minute amendment brought forward by the good member for Langley—Aldergrove, who is a very constructive member of the justice committee. I must say that I am quite disappointed that this is now being used as a tool to delay the passage of a very important bill. As we know, Justice Wagner, the chief justice of Canada, has asked for the expeditious passage of Bill C-9. Could my friend and colleague comment on why it is so important that we get this passed before we rise?
102 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree
  • Jun/15/23 11:52:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, just to hone in on one of the amendments that is being proposed by the Conservatives, which is with respect to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, my understanding is that when there is a case involving a judge that is going forward, that leave is granted, but that is the law of the land. In all cases involving the Supreme Court, leave needs to be granted by the Supreme Court. With the processes already in place to ensure there is due process, that is, the need to have safeguards for someone who is accused of misconduct, with the processes that we are putting forward, leave like any other case is not automatic. I know that is something that the Conservatives are quite insistent about. I think it is clear that what we are trying to do is to streamline the process so that it does not cost excessive money and does not take an enormous amount of time for a resolution on a matter that involves the misconduct of a judge. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that.
185 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border