- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Fundy Royal
- New Brunswick
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $124,175.10
- Government Page
- Jun/11/24 5:08:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin. He compares the new system to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom requires, with regard to applicants for a wrongful conviction, for the commission to consider that there is a real possibility that a wrongful conviction occurred.
In the case that he has put forward now for Canada, the new rule will be that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Minister Lametti urged the committee to consider the importance that this is not simply another avenue or another appeal.
What the minister has done is remove the requirement to appeal. What we will be doing is opening the floodgates for everyone who is convicted, at first instance, who feels they did not get a fair shake, to now go back into the system. This revictimizes victims.
We know that the government is failing when it comes to justice. The stats bear that out. I will not list them all, but virtually in every way that one measures, crime in this country has gotten worse. Flooding our justice system for re-hearing cases of those that have been convicted of serious crimes only serves to revictimize true victims.
If the minister knows of individuals who he feels have been wrongfully convicted, he is in a position to do that. As justice minister, there is currently a process for those who have been wrongfully convicted. This process, as put forward, is deeply flawed. I would ask him to reconcile the U.K. standard, that there is a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice or wrongful conviction, versus his new made-up standard, of which there is no international parallel, that a miscarriage may have occurred.
285 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 4:47:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the bill, as amended from committee, is now a significant departure from what was presented by the minister's predecessor, former minister Lametti, on the miscarriage of justice bill. Originally, when the bill was presented by former minister Lametti, he noted:
It is important to note that the miscarriage of justice review process is not an alternative to the justice system, nor is it another level of appeal. Rather, it provides a post-appeal mechanism to review and investigate new information or evidence that was not previously considered by the courts.
In a radical departure from what was originally proposed, at committee, the minister has had Liberal members appeal the bill so that there would no longer be a requirement to appeal a court decision before someone could avail themselves of the wrongful conviction path. The standard by which the new Liberal-appointed commission would look at a wrongful conviction is whether one may have occurred. That is the lowest threshold of all international comparisons, and it is a much lower threshold than Canada's current threshold, which is that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred.
Did the minister consult with his predecessor about the radical departure, which would create a two-tiered justice system and result in a revictimization of victims' families when they have to go back before the courts?
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:50:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know we are in this situation because a radical justice minister and a radical government have pushed this agenda.
I want to get the member's thoughts on this quote from 32 law professors. They state:
We disagree as law professors that providing access to MAiD for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness is constitutionally required...as Minister Lametti has repeatedly stated.
I asked the minister, when he appeared at the justice committee, who was right, these 32 legal experts or him. He said, of course, that he was right.
I want to ask the member this. Does he believe that these 32 legal experts are right or that the former minister of justice was right?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this legislation was a needed response to a Supreme Court decision, but I feel it could have gone further. It could have been tighter. There are a number of offences now that will not meet the threshold for inclusion in the registry, and there will be people who should have been included who will not be with the passage of this legislation.
Absolutely what happened with the issue around Bernardo's transfer is a travesty. It should have never happened. A witness came to us in our study on the government's obligation to victims of crime, and she said that in Canada we no longer have a justice system. We have a legal system, but not a justice system. I remember her words because I think of what happened with Bill C-75 to change our bail laws to create a revolving door that puts criminals back out on the streets. I think of the fact that Bill C-5 removed mandatory penalties for serious crimes against individuals. I also think of instances like the transfer that was put in place for Paul Bernardo. The government, by changing legislation, made that transfer inevitable. That is laid completely at the feet of the government. When it changed the law to put in a requirement that minimal holdings be implemented for each prisoner, it made that inevitable.
Absolutely we have a lot of work that needs to be done to protect our communities and to protect victims.
248 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the work of My Voice, My Choice and its appearance at our justice committee.
As Conservatives, we initiated a study on the federal government's obligation to victims of crime. One of the many issues we heard around publication bans was about victims having the right to have their voice heard and taking back their agency, especially in the context of publication bans.
It was a unanimous finding of the committee that the government had been falling short on its obligation to victims of crime. We support measures that give a voice back to victims of crime. It is important that their voices be heard, and we support that every step of the way.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 10:12:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, be concurred in.
I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.
The seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights speaks to improving the response to victims of crime. I can honestly say, and I think all Canadians agree, if we believe what we are seeing in the news, that the response of the government to victims of crime has been woefully inadequate. I can go further. When we talk about victims of crime, we are also talking about the victims' families, and that came through loud and clear in our report. Once again, even today we are talking about the impact on victims of crime and their families of the government's soft-on-crime revolving door justice system.
I will speak to some of the measures in our report.
One of the things we heard loud and clear was the need to address the unfair situation of sentence discounts for multiple murders. What that means is that in Canada, someone who is convicted of first-degree murder receives a life sentence but is eligible for parole in only 25 years. What this has led to is a ludicrous situation. For example, in Moncton, New Brunswick, an individual killed three of our Mounties, three police officers, just trying to do their job, and that individual would have received a 25-year parole ineligibility, the same as if they had killed one person. We have seen situations of mass murder in this country where someone kills three, five or six people, and they would receive the exact same parole ineligibility as if they had killed one person.
We believe, on this side of the House, that every life should count, every victim should be counted and every victim's family should be respected. That is why when we were in government, we brought in legislation for ending sentence discounts for multiple murders. This meant that an individual who committed multiple murders would receive multiple consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. It is why the individual who killed the three Mounties in Moncton received a 75-year parole ineligibility. Other mass murderers in Canada sentenced since that legislation have received similar sentences.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down that provision. We all know that a charter dialogue takes place between the legislature, Parliament and the Supreme Court, and it is absolutely scandalous that the government has not responded to that Supreme Court decision. We have called on it for over a year to respond to this decision, to make it right and to listen to victims' families.
When we were studying the response to victims of crime, that came up more often than not. One of our great witnesses was Sharlene Bosma. Many members will remember that name, as it was her husband who was killed by a mass murderer, someone who murdered at least three individuals. What Sharlene said left a lasting impact on me as well as on many members, certainly on this side of the House.
She said that through the whole process of attending hearings every day, attending court and working to ensure a conviction of this individual who took the life of her husband, the one solace she took when he was sentenced is that her daughter would never have to attend parole hearings and face this monster. However, with one decision from the Supreme Court, that has been ripped away. Now this individual will be eligible for parole in what is left of his 25 years, and Sharlene Bosma, her daughter and other victims' families will have to face unnecessary parole eligibility hearings. Once again, the government throws up its hands.
Even in today's headlines it is reported that one of the worst killers in Canada, one of the most notorious, the Scarborough rapist, Paul Bernardo, has been moved, to the horror of the victims' families and all Canadians, from a maximum-security prison, where he should have spent the rest of his life, to a medium-security prison. We see, on the other, side feigned outrage. We see crocodile tears. We hear “How could this happen? We're going to look into this”, but now we are finding out every day that the Minister of Public Safety knew. Now we are finding out that the Prime Minister knew.
Why did it happen in the first place? Part of the reason it happened is the government's own legislation. When the government brought in Bill C-83, which amended section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it meant that, when considering transfers from one institution to another, the litmus test brought in by the government is that offenders have to be held in the least restrictive environment. When the Liberals passed that legislation, and when they refused to act when they found out about this transfer, they made this an inevitability. This is on the Liberal government.
I also want to address bail in this country. This came up again and again in our victims study. There are victims who are unnecessarily victimized. They are victims because our justice system has failed to protect them from repeat violent offenders. Just last week, we had a witness at justice committee, and what she said left an impression on me. She said that we do not have a justice system; we have a legal system, but many victims do not see justice in our system.
Canadians fail to see justice when this government, through Bill C-75, put in a principle of restraint when it comes to bail. It has led to the outrageous situation of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, individuals who have been caught for firearms offences and are out on bail, committing another firearms offence. This is happening in Toronto, and the Toronto police helpfully provided us with the statistics. While out on bail for a firearms offence, offenders commit another firearms offence and get bail again. This is outrageous. The Liberals will say, “This is too bad. It is unfortunate that gun crime is taking place”, but it is taking place as a direct result of both their actions and their inaction, their failure to respond to a revolving-door justice system. I can tell members that Canadians are fed up with it.
There is only one party that is committed to ending the revolving door, committed to ensuring that victims voices are heard, committed to appealing the measures in Bill C-75 that have led to this revolving door, committed to ending the outrageous situation in which individuals who commit gun crime are given no more than a slap on the wrist, and committed to ensuring that individuals who commit arson and burn down someone's home are not eligible to serve their sentence with a conditional sentence. What is a conditional sentence? It is house arrest. Under our Criminal Code, somebody could burn down a house and serve their so-called sentence playing video games from the comfort of their own home.
When we were in government, we brought in legislation to change that, to end the revolving door, to have consequences for criminal actions and to protect the most vulnerable. We made sure that sex offenders were listed on the sex offender registry. We made sure that sex offenders served their sentence in prison and not in the community where they offended.
However, under the current government, with both actions and failure to take action, we have a situation where communities are more and more in danger. Members do not have to take my word for it; this information is publicly available. Violent crime is up 32% in this country. Gang-related homicides are up almost 100% in this country. The approach of the revolving door, of allowing repeat offenders to continue to offend, is not working, and a Conservative government, led by Pierre Poilievre, will address—
1347 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 2:09:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we mark Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, we are reminded that individuals and families often feel the fallout long after a crime is committed. Victims and survivors of crime can carry undue burdens, such as physical or psychological trauma, financial loss or property damage.
The federal government has a critical role to play when it comes to protecting victims and survivors of crime. In 2014, the Conservative government of the time created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. This enshrined the rights of victims into federal law for the first time in Canadian history. Conservatives remain committed to ensuring that the voices of victims and survivors of crime are heard, that their rights are protected and that community safety is always the top priority of our justice system.
Conservatives will never abandon victims and survivors of crime. We will restore balance to our justice system and demand accountability from anyone who threatens the public safety of Canadians.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 2:52:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, well, Canadians take offence to a government that will not listen to the pleas of all 13 premiers, who have seen violent crime go up by 32% in the last eight years. Out of 44 shooting homicides in Toronto last year, half were committed by someone who was out on bail. In a single year in Vancouver, 40 people were arrested 6,000 times. After eight years, in this Prime Minister, career criminals have never had a better friend.
Does this justice minister honestly stand by his claims that our broken bail system is working?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 3:03:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of a soft-on-crime Liberal government, Canada's justice system is badly broken. A young police officer was shot and killed by someone with a lifetime firearms ban and a serious criminal history, yet they were out on bail. The Liberals' broken bail system is putting Canadian lives at risk, yet the justice minister refuses to answer the call of all 13 premiers, and police associations across the country, to reform the bail system.
Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to do what his justice minister has refused to do and commit to reforming the Liberals' broken bail system?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has hit on a great point. We have all heard the expression “justice delayed is justice denied”, and in our country currently, under the Jordan principle, justice delayed can result in a case being completely thrown out. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a case is taking too long, charges have to be dropped against an offender.
That is why I call into question the government's narrative on the urgency of this. This bill, as I mentioned in my speech, was introduced originally as Bill C-23 a couple of years ago. What happened in the intervening time? An unnecessary election reset the clock, and here we are today studying Bill S-4.
The Conservatives support Bill S-4. There are some necessary improvements in there, but we need to maintain our focus on supporting victims and their families.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 10:51:25 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. I mentioned in my remarks that the evidence is coming in. Sometimes we do not know what we do not know, but now we know. We know that violent crime is up 32%. We know that the homicide rate in Canada has increased every year for the last three years and is at the highest level it has been since 2005. That would lead any logical person to conclude that what is happening right now is not working.
That is why I made reference to our need to refocus our justice system and realign it to protect communities, protect victims and support their families. We need to end this practice of a revolving door that puts offenders, without treatment and any acknowledgement that they have improved, right back on the streets to reoffend. That system is not working.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 10:49:53 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-4
Madam Speaker, we recognize that we must continually be looking for improvements to our system, but we also have to be steadfast in our concern about victims in our justice system. I will continue to bring that forward for this bill, for other government legislation, for private members' bills that we move forward and in response to the Supreme Court decisions that I made reference to.
We need to make sure victims are a focus, and what we are looking for in this particular legislation is a reference to victims. We want to hear from victims to make sure their interests are looked after.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/22 4:50:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Mr. Speaker, the irony today, as we are now debating Bill C-9, is that we see the government invoking closure when this legislation could have already been in place. Had we not had an unnecessary pandemic election, it most certainly would have been in place.
While the minister is here, I want to ask a question with respect to our justice system and the recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. There are many victims and their families who have spoken out about the need to respond to the ruling that values each and every life that is taken when there is a case of mass murder in Canada. These cases are rare, but they do happen. The families of victims have said they do not want to go through the burden and retraumatization that is involved with parole hearings.
Sharlene Bosma appeared at our justice committee and spoke eloquently about how she was grateful that her daughter would not have to attend parole hearings to keep her father's killer behind bars, where he belongs, having killed three individuals.
I would ask the minister if he has consulted with the families of victims on a possible government response to this very unfortunate ruling.
209 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it warms the heart to hear my hon. colleague is proud to be a member of the House tonight. I commend him for his work on the justice committee.
In light of the compressed timeline we are dealing with, we all recognize the government needed to act with extreme urgency when this decision came down. Is the member open to working with members of all parties on the justice committee in the fall to hear from witnesses who may have ideas on how this legislation, which will have already passed by then, could perhaps warrant further amendments to the Criminal Code to best close this loophole?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his work on the justice committee. It is good to work with him.
The point is that we have a justice committee, and when the government brings in legislation and it gets to committee, we study it and bring in experts. LEAF has made commentary and no doubt would be a witness if this bill were before our committee. Likewise, the National Association of Women and the Law has made commentary in public and would also likely be a witness at our committee.
That is the point. Without being rushed, we would be able to study this bill at committee and hopefully improve it if necessary. However, by its being introduced last Friday, we do not have that opportunity. We need to act with urgency, but in the fall we need to make sure that if there is any way to improve the law beyond this, we take further action.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 11:23:38 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. There are many different judges and many different types of law in the cases that they are presiding over. However, the fact is that there needs to be a robust complaints process in place. Misconduct could take place both inside and outside of the courtroom and is not necessarily confined, as the member mentioned, to criminal cases.
We look to this bill as an improvement on the existing process, particularly for offences that do not warrant removal but warrant some type of sanction that could include training or otherwise. As I mentioned, justice delayed is justice denied, so we look at having a streamlined process as an improvement, but by no means is this the end of the conversation. As has come up many times now in questions and answers, victims have to play a more prominent role, both in this and throughout our criminal justice system.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 11:21:40 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his steadfast support for victims.
It is always concerning to me. I currently sit on the justice committee and when we discuss a bill, for example Bill C-5, which we voted on this week, often the word “victim” does not come up in the conversation whatsoever. It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied, so one avenue of improvement with this bill is streamlining the process for offences that do not warrant removal from the bench so that we would have an outcome and have an impact on the judge who is the subject of the complaint sooner rather than later, as is currently the case with a too protracted process.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 10:57:22 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, as we approach the final sitting days of the House before it rises, this is likely my last opportunity to speak before we all return to our ridings for the summer months. In light of this, I would like to start off my remarks today by acknowledging the great people of my riding of Fundy Royal, whom I am honoured to represent here in this 44th Parliament.
On the topic at hand, we are here today to discuss Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act. I will begin by going over a bit of a summary of the bill.
The legislation would amend the Judges Act to replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It would establish a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge’s removal from office and would make changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice. As with the provisions it replaces, this new process would also apply to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour.
In short, the objective of the legislation is to update the Judges Act to strengthen the judicial complaints process. The existing process was established in 1971, so it is due for a refresh. We can all agree that strengthening and increasing confidence in the judicial system, and taking action to better respond to complaints that it may receive from Canadians, are good things. Canadians are really depending on this Parliament to strengthen our judicial system.
As it stands, the judicial system in Canada has been weakened by COVID delays and a lack of resources for victims in particular, like, as I have mentioned, the vacant victims ombudsman position. There really is no excuse today for that when we see so many stories ripped from the headlines that impact Canadian victims. We also see legislation like the bill the parliamentary secretary just mentioned, Bill C-5. The victims we have talked to, whom we have seen and heard from at committee, are concerned about that bill and its predecessor bill, Bill C-22. The victims ombudsman had a lot to say about it.
I would love the benefit of hearing from a victims ombudsman, except we do not have one. We were supposed to have that position filled back in October, so for many, many months it has been vacant. That is completely unacceptable, not only for victims and their families but also for all Canadians. I should note that when the position of the federal ombudsman for federal offenders in our federal prison system became vacant, it was filled the next day. We can see where the government's priorities are.
Bill C-9 was originally introduced in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. The previous version of the bill did not complete second reading. We heard commentary across the way about delays, with some asking why we are talking about delays. Why was that bill not passed? Well, the Prime Minister called his snap pandemic election in August 2021. That is what happened with that version of the bill.
The bill was reintroduced in the Senate last year as Bill S-3, but the government had an apparent change of heart, dropping Bill S-3 from the Senate Order Paper in December of 2021 and introducing that bill in the House of Commons as Bill C-9. That is where it has languished for months until today, just days before we go into our summer recess.
The bill would modify the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office, and another process for offences that would warrant sanctions other than removal, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Currently, if misconduct is less serious, a single member of the Canadian Judicial Council who conducts the initial review may negotiate with a judge for an appropriate remedy.
It may be helpful at this point to provide a bit of background on the Canadian Judicial Council, what it does and who its members are.
Established by Parliament in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council is mandated to “promote the efficiency, uniformity, and to improve the quality of judicial services in all superior courts in Canada.” Through this mandate, the Canadian Judicial Council presides over the judicial complaints process.
The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of 41 members and is led by the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, who is chairperson of the council. The membership is made up of chief justices and associate chief justices of the Canadian provincial and federal superior courts. The goal of the members is to improve consistency in the administration of justice before the courts and the quality of services in Canada's superior courts.
Returning back to the bill itself, the reasons a judge could be removed from office are laid out. These include infirmity, misconduct, failure in the due execution of judicial office and “the judge [being] in a position that a reasonable, fairminded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.” A screening officer can dismiss complaints should they seem frivolous or improper, rather than referring to them to the review panel. A complaint that alleges sexual harassment or discrimination may not be dismissed. The full screening criteria will be published by the Canadian Judicial Council.
The minister or Attorney General may themselves request the Canadian Judicial Council establish a full hearing panel to determine whether the removal from the office of a superior court judge is justified. The Canadian Judicial Council is to submit a report within three months after the end of each calendar year with respect to the number of complaints received and the actions taken. The intention of this bill, as stated by the government, is to streamline the process for more serious complaints for which removal from the bench could be an outcome.
As I mentioned earlier, these amendments would also address the current shortcomings of the process by imposing mandatory sanctions on a judge when a complaint of misconduct is found to be justified but not to be serious enough to warrant removal from office. Again, such sanctions could include counselling, continuing education and reprimands. In the name of transparency, this legislation would require that the Canadian Judicial Council include the number of complaints received and how they were resolved in its annual public report.
To clarify, the Canadian Judicial Council’s process applies only to federally appointed judges, which are the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal courts, the provincial and territorial superior trial courts and the provincial and territorial courts of appeal. The provinces and territories are responsible for reviewing the conduct of the judges at the provincial-territorial trial court level, who are also provincially appointed.
Since its inception in 1971, the Canadian Judicial Council has completed inquiries into eight complaints considered serious enough that they could warrant a judge's removal from the bench. Four of them, in fact, did result in recommendations for removal. A ninth inquiry is under way, but has faced delays due to public health restrictions imposed by the Province of Quebec, such as curfew and indoor capacity limits.
Under the proposed new process laid out in Bill C-9, the Canadian Judicial Council would continue to preside over the judicial complaints process, which would start with a three-person review panel deciding to either investigate a complaint of misconduct or, if the complaint is serious enough that it might warrant removal from the bench, refer it to a separate five-person hearing panel. If appropriate, a three-person review panel made up of a Canadian Judicial Council member, a judge and a layperson could impose such sanctions as public apologies or courses of continuing education. If warranted, a five-person hearing panel made up of two Canadian Judicial Council members, a judge, a lawyer and a layperson could, after holding a public hearing, recommend removal from the bench to the Minister of Justice.
Judges who face removal from the bench would have access to an appeal panel made up of three Canadian Judicial Council members and two judges and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, should the court agree to hear the appeal.
I know that sounded very convoluted and lengthy, but believe it or not, this would actually streamline the current process for court review of council decisions, which currently involves judicial review by two additional levels of court, those being the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, before a judge can ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The amendments would provide for a funding mechanism for the new process. The financial impact of the review process has been raised by a number of stakeholders. I want to encourage the Liberal government to take its fiscal responsibility to taxpayers into consideration with all government policies, but this bill is as good a start as any.
I would like to take a moment to point out that we have the former leader of the Conservative Party to thank for paving the way to having this bill before the House of Commons today. The Hon. Rona Ambrose introduced her private member's bill, Bill C-337, in 2017. This legislation would require the Canadian judiciary to produce a report every year that detailed how many judges had completed training in sexual assault law and how many cases were heard by judges who had not been trained, as well as a description of the courses that were taken. It would also require any lawyer applying for a position in the judiciary to have first completed sexual assault case training and education. Last, it would result in a greater number of written decisions from judges presiding over sexual assault trials, thus providing improved transparency for Canadians seeking justice.
The original premise of Bill C-337 was in response to a complaint about the behaviour a federal judge who was presiding over a case of sexual assault in 2014. The Canadian Judicial Council of which we speak today launched an investigation into the behaviour of that judge. Ultimately, in March 2017, the Canadian Judicial Council sent a letter to the federal Minister of Justice recommending that this judge be removed from the bench, and the minister accepted the recommendation.
The bill before us today works to expedite and facilitate the complaints process so that extreme cases like the one I just referenced can be fully and properly reviewed without causing too much disruption in terms of time, costs and delays in processing smaller but still important complaints.
Earlier this year, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights received correspondence from the Canadian Bar Association stating its support for the legislation as written in Bill C-9. In part, its letter reads as follows:
The CBA commented on the state of the judicial discipline process in its 2014 submission to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). On the subject of judicial discipline proceedings, our 16 recommendations were to ensure that the objectives of balancing the independence of the judiciary and the public’s confidence in the administration of justice were respected in the process. The CJC and Justice Canada responded with its own reports, which culminated in the present amendments to the Judges Act proposed by the Minister of Justice.
The letter from the Canadian Bar Association goes on to say:
In the view of the CBA Subcommittee, Bill C-9 strikes a fair balance between the right to procedural fairness and public confidence in the integrity of the justice system with the discipline of judges who form the core of that system. The proposed amendments enhance the accountability of judges, builds transparency, and creates cost-efficiencies in the process for handling complaints against members of the Bench.
I would like to pause here briefly just to say that at a moment like this, looking at a bill like this, it seems to me that it would be a very good time to have a federal ombudsman for victims of crime to hear the perspective on how the judicial complaints process is or is not currently working and how this bill would or would not be able to meet those challenges or rectify those concerns.
In testimony given to the justice committee on June 3, 2021, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime at that time raised what she described as a “most critical” issue, which was the legal recourse or remedy that victims have if their rights are violated.
She stated:
Currently, victims do not have a way to enforce the rights given to them in law; they only have a right to make a complaint to various agencies. This means that victims have to rely on the goodwill of criminal justice officials and corrections officials to give effect to or implement their statutory rights under the bill. This means victims count on police, Crown prosecutors, courts, review boards, corrections officials and parole boards to deliver, uphold and respect their rights.
But my office continues to receive complaints from victims that are common across all jurisdictions in Canada. Victims report to us that they are not consistently provided information about their rights or how to exercise them, they feel overlooked in all of the processes, and they have no recourse when officials don't respect their rights.
While the bill we are discussing today is, as I said earlier, a step in the right direction, there is certainly more work that needs to be done to make sure our justice system in Canada works for everyone who comes into contact with it, and I will add especially victims. One way this can be achieved is by immediately filling the position of federal ombudsman for victims of crime, which has now been vacant for nine months. There is absolutely no excuse for this position to have remained vacant for nine months when other positions are filled immediately, including, as I mentioned earlier, the position of ombudsman for those who are in our federal prisons.
By contrast, as I was mentioning, when the offenders ombudsman position became vacant, the Liberal government filled it the very next day, as it should have been. It should be filled right away, but so should the position of the ombudsman for victims of crime.
In 2021, the Canadian Judicial Council published “Ethical Principles for Judges”. I would like to reference excerpts from this publication to add some context into the role and duty of the judiciary.
They read as follows:
An independent and impartial judiciary is the right of all and constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic governance, the rule of law and justice in Canada....
Today, judges’ work includes case management, settlement conferences, judicial mediation, and frequent interaction with self-represented litigants. These responsibilities invite further consideration with respect to ethical guidance. In the same manner, the digital age, the phenomenon of social media, the importance of professional development for judges and the transition to post-judicial roles all raise ethical issues that were not fully considered twenty years ago. Judges are expected to be alert to the history, experience and circumstances of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and to the diversity of cultures and communities that make up this country. In this spirit, the judiciary is now more actively involved with the wider public, both to enhance public confidence and to expand its own knowledge of the diversity of human experiences in Canada today.
As was just referenced, social context and society overall change over time, and critical institutions like the justice system must grow to reflect these changes. Much of the time, this simply requires education on emerging issues or a more updated perspective on older issues.
In order to grow, there is a crucial partnership that must be respected between the judiciary and Parliament. While the Parliament and the courts are separate entities, there is a back-and-forth conversation between the two that is essential to our democracy and our judiciary. We have recently seen examples in which that conversation, unfortunately, was desperately lacking. On Friday, May 27, of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the punishment of life without parole in cases concerning mass murderers.
When confronted on the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Liberal government is determined to stick to their talking points by telling Parliament and concerned Canadians that we should not worry about mass killers actually receiving parole, because that possible outcome is extremely rare. What that actually means is that this government is comfortable putting these families through a revictimizing, retraumatizing parole process, even though, at the end of the day, it is essentially all for show because, according to the government, we just need to trust that a mass killer will not receive parole anyway.
In the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling, the decision stated, “A life sentence without a realistic possibility of parole presupposes the offender is beyond redemption and cannot be rehabilitated. This is degrading in nature and incompatible with human dignity. It amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.”
What the court is saying here is that keeping mass killers behind bars for the number of years that a judge has already decided would adequately reflect the gravity of their crimes amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment”. Personally, I and many others feel and believe that having the victims' families endure a parole hearing every two years for the rest of their lives is the real cruel and unusual punishment, and the federal government has a duty and a responsibility to respond to the court’s decision, something that it has not done and has shown no inclination to do.
Essentially, the Supreme Court also ruled on May 13 that one can drink one’s way out of a serious crime. We have called on the government to respond to that as well, and we look forward to debate on the response that needs to be coming. Just because the Supreme Court has made these rulings does not mean that this is the end of the road. What it means is that there is a discussion and a dialogue that has to take place, and now the ball is in our court. It is for us to deal with these decisions in Parliament. The Liberals can now create legislation that responds to the Supreme Court’s decisions, and this legislation can be used to make sure that victims, survivors and their families can live in a country where they are equally protected and respected by our justice system.
Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, is a step in the right direction. I will note that there is much, much more to be done to make sure that the justice system is fair and balanced for all.
3218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/22 2:40:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is incomprehensible. Canadians simply do not buy this Liberal logic. According to Liberal logic, the justice minister's bill tackles racism by decreasing jail time for gun crimes, but the public safety minister's bill tackles racism by increasing jail time for the exact same crimes.
They cannot have it both ways, so which one is it?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 7:12:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are on the main estimates, and the justice estimates are within those main estimates. This relates to the justice system in Canada and we need more justice in this country. That is precisely why I am speaking about these main estimate-related issues.
When confronted by the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling, the Liberals are saying we do not have to worry about parole hearings. What that actually means is that the government is comfortable with putting these families through revictimizing and retraumatizing parole processes, even though at the end of the day, it is essentially all for show because, in the government's words, the killer will not receive parole anyway. This process does not benefit anyone involved but is particularly devastating to the families of victims.
I recently spoke to a mother who suffered the loss of a child due to the actions of a drunk driver. I spoke to her about the parole process she had to endure. She said the process was traumatizing and that as soon as some time had passed and she was able to take a step forward in the grieving process, the offender involved applied for parole or appealed the Parole Board decision and she was snapped back to the worst day of her life.
This is a cycle that repeats itself over and over. That is the real life sentence. Like the mom I spoke with, the families impacted by the Supreme Court's decision on reducing life sentences for mass murderers will spend the rest of their lives grieving the loss of their loved ones.
I have read the Supreme Court ruling, and we are speaking about the estimates and the justice estimates within them. The Minister of Justice speaks about a charter dialogue, a dialogue that happens between the courts when they make charter decisions and Parliament as we enact laws, including laws within our Criminal Code. The ball is now in our court in this Parliament. The ball is in the government's court to respond to the court decision. We know from the ruling that the door has been left wide open for Parliament to respond. For the sake of victims, for the sake of our communities, for the sake of ensuring that families do not have to go through repeat parole hearings and for the sake of the life of every victim, we need to make sure that we, as a Parliament, respond.
The Conservatives call on the government to respond to this particular decision of the Supreme Court with legislation that ensures every life in Canada counts and that families are not revictimized over and over again. They have already suffered far too much.
I thank members for listening this evening. Let us take up the challenge that has been put before us and enact strong legislation that keeps our communities safe and protects victims and their loved ones.
489 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
