SoVote

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Jun/16/22 3:36:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was going to heap more praise on Mr. Dufresne, but somehow I do not think he wants any more. I know he is a very humble man. We are rounding the corner on this session of Parliament, and before I get to the Thursday question, I want to thank a few people. I certainly want to thank the clerks, our deputy speakers, the administrative staff who support this place, the pages, and particularly the Translation Bureau, which has been through a lot over the course of the last couple of years with the hybrid Parliament. I sincerely believe that we have moved beyond the hybrid Parliament system and that we are going to return to this place in a normal fashion with a return to normalcy, and I look forward to that. I also want to thank the Parliamentary Protective Service, PPS, the Sergeant-at-Arms and everybody in charge of protecting Parliament. They have had a busy time as well. I thank everyone who supports this place, the cooks, the cleaners, the drivers and the maintenance staff. I thank everyone who works to ensure that this place functions properly and safely. This is all done with the greatest of respect in our symbol of democracy. I want to thank them all. I think they deserve a hand. As we approach the final days of this session, I ask the government House leader what the calendar of the House is expected to be as we get into next week.

252 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/16/22 3:37:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start by echoing the comments of thanks by the opposition House leader. To all those who serve the House and for everything they have done, particularly over the last year, I offer our deep and sincere thanks. The opposition House leader rightfully named all those we rely on to do the jobs on a day-to-day basis that we do in serving Canadians. We will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act this afternoon. Tomorrow, it is our intention to call Bill C-11 on online streaming at report stage. On Monday, we will be returning to the second reading debate of Bill C-21 respecting firearms. In the afternoon, we will go back to Bill C-11 for debate at third reading. We will also focus on finding a way to expedite the bill currently on notice concerning the self-induced extreme intoxication defence standing in the name of the Minister of Justice. Finally, we have had discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, with regard to the participation in the proceedings of the House and its committees, the provisions related to the COVID-19 vaccination be suspended beginning on Monday, June 20, 2022.

234 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:39:19 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:40:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-10

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-10, an act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, to amend the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

79 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Jun/16/22 3:40:28 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, who has seven minutes remaining.

36 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/16/22 3:40:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, with regard to where I left off on speaking to Bill C-9, this provision has many things that the Conservatives will support. I was just outlining the substance of the changes to the judicial review process. Of course, if this bill passes, there will be a screening officer and then there will be a series of panels. We had gotten to the hearing panel, which would be the first review of the misconduct. The panel can direct it in one of three ways: One would be an outright dismissal; the second would be putting into place sanctions, which I outlined; the third would be sending it to a full hearing panel. One of the unique features of this particular process is that if a sanction less than full removal is done, there is a secondary appeal process, which is called the reduced hearing panel. This panel actually brings in all new evidence, so in many ways it acts like an appeal process to the sanctions from the original review panel, but it is all new evidence and all new process. It does not even rely on the work, so even though it is an appeal process, it is a new judicial process as well. What I find interesting, and I plan to ask about it at committee if I get the opportunity, is that what could actually happen is that, at the initial panel, the individual justice could be sanctioned, as I outlined earlier, to an apology or a public rebuke from the panel. The justice could appeal that and then be sent to a full hearing for the potential removal. Therefore, the appeal to get less of a sanction could actually go back and have more of an impact, and in fact eventual removal, which could have a chilling effect on justices who want to appeal the process. Perhaps I am misunderstanding that section. As I said, I look forward to potentially exploring that at committee. At the initial review panel, if the charges are serious enough to justify a potential full removal, it would go to what is called a full hearing panel. That full hearing panel would have full evidence and there would be a presentation of the evidence by what is called the presenting lawyer or presenting counsel, in many ways a prosecutor, and they will conduct that. From there, the process stems out and then it actually funnels all back in. Both the reduced hearing panel and the full hearing panel would then go back into one process, which would be a traditional appeal process, and the actual discussions and reasons are reviewed at that appeal process. If, in fact, that appeal process is unsatisfactory to either the presenting counsel or the justice subject to the complaint, there would be at that point a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Once all of those rights to appeal are exhausted or expired or waived, it would then go to the Minister of Justice, who can bring it in front of Parliament to potentially have that justice removed. There are a couple of key elements to this, and I find this part quite well done. There is a move in here to increase the transparency. Much more of the hearings, the decisions, the reasoning, the discussions and the lawyers' debate would be public. Of course, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. On that as well, there would also be annual reports. Obviously, justices have an incredibly important function in our society and in our legal system. What is nice is that there would be a publishing of reports saying how many complaints there are, how successful they are and what the eventual outcome of those complaints is. This is nice. This is a piece of legislation that is clearly designed. We will discuss it, hopefully pull it apart and make it even better at committee, but it is clear that it intends to improve government efficiency. When I look at the global landscape, I have to say that we are not winning when it comes to our government's effectiveness or efficiency. It takes us months to get passports. We have seen the SNC-Lavalin affair and the WE scandal. This continuous corruption and tiredness, this poor, antiquated system, the uncompetitive WE system, is holding Canadian business back and holding Canadian jobs back. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new leaf for the government. Maybe it will move on from being a tired, corrupt, inefficient government and actually go forward and try to be better for Canadians. Quite frankly, we are in a global race and we are losing when it comes to government effectiveness and efficiency. I always appreciate members on the other side trying to give me a helping hand. I look forward to having greater discussion. I would encourage all members to read Bill C-9. It is certainly not the most contentious piece of legislation we will read, but it is important. As final words, I would like to thank all the justices who are out there working hard trying to protect victims, trying to keep our cities and streets safe, and trying to make Canada a better place.

870 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/16/22 3:47:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that this is one of those days and one of those debates where we seem to unanimously be supporting a piece of legislation. The next logical step here is to send it to committee and to let the committee start to do its work so we can keep the process moving. Will Conservatives let us have a vote on this? Will they let the debate collapse so we can vote on it and let it go to committee to do that work? If the member does not have an answer to that, would he be willing to commit, once he has finished his speech, to go into his whip's lobby and talk to the whip about doing that so we can see this piece of legislation move forward, or will this be another one of those pieces of legislation that we all agree on but the Conservatives will just not let pass?

161 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/16/22 3:48:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly go to our whip's office and tell him that we need important, diligent debate on this issue, as we need it on everything. I appreciate that. I thought I was fairly persuasive in the fact that I asked his colleagues two substantive questions about the bill, and they had no idea what was there. It is sad that the government does not know its own legislation. The speech I made was about 95% substance. I went through the procedure. It was not filibustering. It was meant to be a meaningful conversation to bring up issues for debate and discussion. I was hoping the questions might reflect that.

113 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Jun/16/22 3:49:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be much debate on Bill C-9. It appears to have unanimous support. However, my question for my Conservative colleague is about what comes next after this bill. Does he think that the next issue in line for amendments should be the process for appointing judges, so that we can improve the process?

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/16/22 3:49:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and I intend to work with my colleague on judicial appointments. I have been troubled, as I think a lot of Canadians have been, by some of the news stories. It appears there is some connection or correlation between donating to the Liberal Party and being appointed as a justice. I appreciate this question.

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jun/16/22 3:50:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the member's thoughts. As my colleague from the Liberal Party suggested, this is a time when we are in this House and we all agree on something, which is nice. I would like to see the bill fast-tracked so we can focus on really important issues. I have been talking a lot about the toxic drug crisis. I know my colleague cares deeply about this as well. The expert task force on substance use made it unequivocally clear that criminalizing people who use substances causes more harm. BIPOC Canadians are impacted more than other Canadians. Reforms to the justice system would help eliminate systemic racism. Does my colleague agree that we need to fast-track this bill and get on to these really difficult challenges that we can address by working together?

139 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/16/22 3:51:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's deep-found concern, empathy and sympathy for all Canadians who are unfortunately addicted to substances across the country. I have certainly seen it in our towns of Port Hope and Cobourg, the havoc it can wreak, not just on the individuals who are addicted to these substances but on their family members. It would give me no greater joy in life than if we could get good people off this terrible stuff. Getting back to the bill, although it is not contentious, there are several issues. As I said, I brought this up for debate, such as the reduced hearing review panel, which would have a bit of an unusual impact, the way it happens. Our justices receiving rebukes or dismissal is a serious issue. Although it is not contentious, I do want to build this collaboratively and I do believe it merits discussion.

151 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/16/22 3:52:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I think we are enjoying today, in this debate on Bill C-9, a remarkable degree of unanimity. To the extent that there is hesitation, it is not unreasonable, obviously. This is a piece of legislation that many of us have not studied before, but it is not contentious. It is updating a system that has been overdue for an update, to streamline it and make it more effective. I think my hon. colleague will agree that there are many areas that we want to see streamlined in this country. Let us get at one of them. My question is more of a comment. If we do get the opportunity for unanimous consent to get Bill C-9 out of here and done, we know how much that will help us get on to other issues, like the urgent opioid crisis, the urgent climate crisis and many other issues. Let us get Bill C-9 passed, if we possibly can. If it comes forward for unanimous consent, I urge the hon. member to consider just saying “okay”.

181 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/16/22 3:53:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has a long track record of speaking in this House about the importance of debate. I would call upon those comments. I know her comments are made with the best of intentions, but I still believe this bill deserves additional study and conversations. Whether it be the appointment of an individual screening officer versus the executive director, or whether it be the exact prescription of the sanctions that are potentially put on justices, including a public rebuke, I think having some parliamentary conversation about that could be important and I think it could improve it. Although not contentious, it is still very important. How we resolve judicial misconduct is an important issue. We saw that in Rona Ambrose's bill and everything she brought to light.

133 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/16/22 3:54:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member who spoke previously was slightly tongue-in-cheek. We all know what is going on here. The same question that I asked was asked by the NDP and then it was asked by the Greens. The question was, why will the Conservatives not just let this go? Why will they not just let it collapse? For those who are at home and wondering what this madness is, I will explain it to them. What is going on right now is that we have a bill that everybody in this House agrees on, more or less, I should say. It will definitely pass when it comes to a vote, but the reality is that the Conservatives will just not let that happen. They do not want to see a vote on it. Why? It is not because they are against it or they do not want to see the work happen. They want something in return. Their whip's desk is saying that they do not want to let this pass, because if they let this pass, they are giving something to the government without getting something in return. Unfortunately, that is how petty this place has become. On an issue that we are all passionate about and want to see move forward and go to committee so that it can be studied and come back to this House, an issue we know is long-standing and outstanding, we are now literally seeing it deadlocked here because the Conservatives will not let this debate collapse. In that vein, I have a speech here, but I am not going to bother reading it, because I do not think it is important at this point. I think what is important is that we move on and get this to committee. I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. That is all I have to say.

324 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/16/22 3:56:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I am sad my colleague did not take up some time to actually explain his position on this bill because that is what the floor of the House of Commons is for. I will ask him about the pettiness he referred to. We are attentive, and we want to hear what he has to say about this bill. That is not petty at all. It is about understanding what the legislation is for. If he is going to rise above his pettiness, can he please address his concerns about the bill? A lot of people think there is some good stuff in this bill, and we would like to hear about it.

114 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/16/22 3:56:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I do think this is a good bill. I want to see this bill move forward. My reference with respect to pettiness had nothing to do with the bill or the content of this bill, but indeed with the actions of the Conservative Party right now. I am trying to be as respectful as I can about this, but the reality is the Conservatives will just not let this go forward because they want something in return. They are holding this hostage right now, even though everybody wants it, just so they can use it as a bargaining chip to get something in return. This bill is a very important bill, and it is important it moves forward. It needs to go to committee. Am I an expert on the content of this bill as the previous speaker is? Of course not. However, I do know this is in the best interest of Canadians. I take great comfort in knowing it is unanimously supported in the House. Therefore, it is, at the very least, worthy of going to the next stage, which is for the committee to study it.

191 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Jun/16/22 3:58:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I can understand my colleague's eagerness to finally get this bill to committee. It makes sense because that is where amendments can be made, and amendments are improvements. In fact, speaking of improvements, a lot of people say there are no separatist judges because a separatist judge would not promote Canada. I understand that too. The problem is that any separatist who goes to court could say that they do not want a particular judge to hear their case because the judge would be biased. How can we make sure judges are unbiased?

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/16/22 3:58:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously has a greater perspective on it than I do. Just the fact she is asking the questions means that it means something to her. I interpret this to mean she wants to work on finding a solution to ensuring that independence still occurs, even if it is a judge who fits the description she had. That is exactly what the committee can do, and that is the place where those kind of questions are going to be properly addressed. If indeed an amendment is required, the Bloc Québécois can put forward that amendment at committee. That is the perfect place for that to occur.

113 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jun/16/22 3:59:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member who just spoke. It is very rare there is a bill that comes to the House for which everybody largely has consensus. We want to see the work get done, so hopefully we can do that. It is unfortunate he feels there is a power struggle between his party and the Conservatives. I am just wondering if the member could talk about what might be more important to talk about. In my riding, I can think of people who are desperately looking for housing. The cost of housing is exploding in ways we could have never predicted just a few years. There are so many people who are experiencing life without a home because of the realities we are facing. Is that not something we should be talking about in the House, rather than what we are talking about right now?

148 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 90