SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 118 - Oct/26/22

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

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 4:52:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fundy Royal, and my critic, for his question. It is an important one. Obviously, our hearts go out to the Bosmas, to the victims of the Quebec City mosque massacre and others who have been impacted by this ruling by the Supreme Court. I remind the hon. member that, as the Attorney General, we defended the previous legislation in front of the Supreme Court, allowing judges the discretion to have consecutive sentences and building our argument on that. That argument was rejected. It is not that the sentencing was changed; these people are still serving consecutive sentences, but what the court has added is that there is a possibility of parole at various points in time. I would remind the House that eligibility for parole is not the same as parole. A life sentence is a long time, and a parole hearing, yes, is still there. I know that has a negative impact on the families if they choose to come and testify again. It was a nine to nothing decision, which was a serious statement by the Supreme Court of Canada. We will work with victims to support them. We have recently appointed a new ombudsperson to help, although the office remained open during the period of time we were searching to fill that role, and I think we can move forward in supporting victims, but recognizing the very clear ruling of the Supreme Court.

244 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 4:54:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, very recently, the Canadian Judicial Council implored this House to pass the Bill C-9 amendments to the Judges Act. I wonder if the minister could outline the need for this act, the urgency, and why there is a delay in its passage, given that we have had a number of days of debate on this bill.

59 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 4:54:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for all the work that he does in helping to support not only me in my role as Minister of Justice, but also all colleagues through the justice committee and his interactions with colleagues, which I think colleagues on the other side of the House will unanimously say is positive. This bill is about judges' maintaining their independence but also maintaining the ability to discipline themselves in cases where the behaviour of a judge will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The legislation itself was 50 years old. It was taken on by the Canadian Judicial Council, the council of all the chief justices of federally appointed courts across Canada, and reformed. A process was created that was not only fair in terms of hearing all sides, but also streamlined in terms of its appeal routes. We have seen very recently a case in which a judge fought tooth and nail and sought judicial review at every step of the way, costing a lot of money and a lot of time. Then, before the House had the opportunity to censure that judge, he resigned with his pension. Therefore, we have a more streamlined process, a fair process and one with clear routes of appeal. It is designed by justices who, quite frankly, were fed up that their reputation was being brought into disrepute, so we have a better system, a less costly system and a fairer system. For that reason, it is important. It was in front of the Senate in the previous Parliament. Senators made some minor changes to the bill, technical changes that are very acceptable and have now taken their place in the new iteration of the bill. It is long overdue. The justices want it. The Canadian Judicial Council asked us again this fall to get it going, so here we are.

320 words

All Topics

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

Oct/26/22 4:56:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I am restricting my comments right now to the issue of time allocation. I will oppose time allocation in every instance, unless the circumstances are truly exigent. I first served in this place when Stephen Harper's government had a majority and, for the first time in parliamentary history, closure motions such as this became routine. We lamented it at the time. At the time, we, including the Liberal third party members and the New Democrats, all lamented and opposed the fact that, when I counted it up, there had been more closure motions in the previous 40 days than in the previous 40 years. We kept counting them up and seeing how egregious this was. I will oppose closure motions except in a case in which we see that Canadians are desperate for financial help and we are slowing something down. This bill is very much needed. With respect to the case that was just referred to by the hon. justice minister, the judge was someone who, two weeks before being appointed to the bench, was caught on video buying cocaine. This is not someone we want on the bench, but the current state of the rights of a judge to keep going through appeals lasts a long time. I agree that it is egregious. The bill should be passed, but not at the cost of our democracy.

231 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 4:58:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her passion and her principle. It is a principle I agree with. There comes a time when there is not the level of co-operation needed in the House on a variety of different bills, and in order to better serve Canadians we need to set limits on debate. When debate becomes just repeating the same thing over and over again on a variety of different bills, when the opposition is opposing simply to oppose rather than to be constructive, then we are here, using time allocation as a mechanism. I do not like it either. On the other hand, I see the need to get this bill done. The chief justice has come out publicly, as have other chief justices. We saw the time and costs that were involved in the case the hon. member referred to. The bill is something that all or most of us will agree on and that we ought to pass quickly. I implore our colleagues to do just that.

174 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Oct/26/22 4:59:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to pick up on what my colleague from Fundy Royal asked the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. He was talking about the decision with respect to parole ineligibility and whether that should be consecutive or concurrent at 25 years. The Minister of Justice, from what I could surmise, was essentially saying that the government is not going to be introducing legislation to respond to that court decision. That is disappointing. Would the Minister of Justice then support legislation to perhaps extend the time between parole hearings? This is something people like Ms. Bosma have talked about as victimizing or revictimizing them in the process. Will the Minister of Justice support extending the period between parole hearings from two years for those serving life in prison to, perhaps, five years?

153 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 5:00:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee and on justice issues generally. I recognize the sincere place from which this question comes. I have always said publicly that I am never closed to a good idea. That being said, the margin for manoeuvre in a nine to nothing Supreme Court of Canada decision, which is very clear, is pretty minimal. There are a lot of needles that would have to be threaded in order for that kind of proposition to be possible.

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 5:01:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the issue of the need for time allocation. Earlier today, for example, I tried to get unanimous consent to have an additional 30 minutes. We have seen the government approach the opposition to be able to have literally hours and hours and hours of debate, and it has been rejected. Where we have found ourselves is that unless we are prepared to bring in time allocation, if the opposition does not want to pass legislation, it just has to put up speakers indefinitely and, in other words, give no indication that it will actually pass the legislation. Unfortunately, at times, without using the tool of time allocation, legislation would not pass. That is what we have been seeing over the last number of years. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in that respect.

144 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 5:02:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I am not always privy to the same information the House leaders or parliamentary secretaries to the House leaders are privy to. What I can say is that in my previous life I was a university professor, and we had debates around the table in a variety of different contexts, whether it be the classroom or a seminar or a faculty council. We often would say to each other, do not repeat what someone has said. We should add what we have to say, add what is new, add what is different and give a gloss, but if we are just agreeing with someone, we should just say we agree with X or Y. We do not do that often enough in the House. The phenomenon that the hon. member points to is real, with people getting up and repeating the same, often pre-written speeches over and over again. That leads us to a point at which we are not serving Canadians anymore. We are not adding. That is not a debate, in any sense of the word. That is just talking, and it is talking meaninglessly, in a sense. I am not saying the words are not meaningful, but someone else has already said it and it has already been recorded into the Hansard. We are here today because that has happened far too often. All sides are guilty of it but, in particular, in this case, the opposition often uses this as a tactic simply to slow things down for the purpose of slowing things down. It is frustrating. It is frustrating for Canadians. It is frustrating for judges, who would like to be able to get their house in order in terms of their own discipline, but are having to wait longer than they should for a bill that ought to be fairly straightforward.

310 words

All Topics

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Oct/26/22 5:03:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, we have seen the government mismanage the legislative agenda and then impose time allocation, citing urgency. It waited almost a year before it reintroduced this piece of legislation into Parliament. I just wonder why the government is so intent on limiting scrutiny of its legislation and giving parliamentarians the chance to honestly debate something so important.

62 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 5:04:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, for the record, on this bill, we actually introduced it in the Senate, as we had done in the previous Parliament, because we thought that was an appropriate place in order to manage our time efficiently. However, we had a ruling from the Speaker that it had to be introduced here because of the financial impact it might have. That explains the delay: We tried to introduce it in the other place before we introduced it here. That being said, we use both houses as best we can, and as a minister I certainly try to use both houses and get legislation through as fast as I can. I do my best to make sure I have dialogue with my colleagues across the way, so we get legislation through more quickly, and I think my colleagues across the way have responded positively on a number of different occasions. We have come together in the House precisely to pass legislation in the criminal law sphere that is important to Canadians. As a minister, I am doing my best to work with the opposition. Some days we run out of time.

191 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Oct/26/22 5:05:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about amendments to the Judges Act, I want to comment on and put on the record the number of people who have given me feedback on the appointment of exceptional judges over the past couple of years. I want to congratulate the minister on his hard work to make sure our bench represents the breadth of Canada. It is something that has been noticed across Canada. On that point, as we have new judges who are appointed, it will be important to have the Judges Act modernized to reflect the general consensus that has been built among the judiciary, including the Canadian Judicial Council. I am wondering if the minister could comment on that.

120 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 5:06:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the quality and diversity of appointments is an important part of the picture, and this piece of legislation is an important part of the picture, because it reinforces the principle of judicial independence. It reinforces the principle of judicial responsibility in the management and maintenance of high standards, which helps the administration of justice and the confidence Canadians have in the justice system. I would also add that we have added, as a government, based on a private member's bill from Rona Ambrose, former member of Parliament and former interim leader of the Conservative Party, measures to better train judges at the outset, so they will be better judges when cases come before them. When we put all that together, we are putting together a justice system that not only reflects the diversity of Canada but also reflects the quality and the competence of Canadians and gives us better justice.

153 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Oct/26/22 5:07:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to challenge the fact that we are doing this today. The minister mentioned that people stand up and repeat and repeat and repeat. It is really important to me to have the opportunity to represent my constituents in this place and speak on issues that are important to me and to them, regardless of who else has spoken on them already. Quite often in this House, different people are in the room at different times, and it is an opportunity to continue that conversation. As well, this rush the government seems to find itself in so often is because of mismanagement of its programs. An example would be its decision on COVID wage support. It came up with a percentage. We worked hard to convince the government this was not going to be effective enough, and we had to turn around and come back to this place and go through the motions again because of a change there. On providing loans through the banks, it did not include the credit unions as a means of doing that, and it took time for our constituents and the credit unions to bring that to the forefront. That is why we needed to continue: to ensure things were being handled in certain ways. That is our responsibility in this place. I am just wondering what the minister's views would be on the fact that these are things the opposition needs to have the opportunity to do.

250 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 5:09:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the very sincere place whence the question comes. When those kinds of suggestions are being made, whether it is here in this House or in committee, when that kind of constructive dialogue that makes legislation better is the subject matter of debate, I am all for it. However, when debate is done and procedural shenanigans are added simply for the purpose of slowing down the passage of legislation, when it is no longer the case that bettering the bill or furthering debate is the point of the exercise, then it is time to have a vote and move on. We are not serving Canadians by just putting sand in the machinery, by putting sand in the cogs. We are serving Canadians when we are trying to better pieces of legislation and when we are playing our various roles as parliamentarians. I agree with the hon. member if that is the sentiment, but far too often that is not the sentiment from the other side. It is merely shutdown tactics to try to slow or stop the government from moving forward.

185 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May

Oct/26/22 5:10:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, it is a rare opportunity for me to speak to this kind of motion and follow up on something the minister said. I think we all agree that we would like to see the smoother operation of this place. I have had the honour of working in and around Parliament Hill for a number of decades. We used to have more co-operation among the House leaders. We used to have better scheduling of debates so that bills that had virtually unanimous support, like Bill C-9, did not need to have repetitive speeches. I put to the hon. member, as I have before in this place, the solution is not closure motions, but to fully use the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracy and not allow the reading of speeches, which will then have a very salutary effect on the number of members who are prepared to stand up and speak to an issue. They would have to know it well enough to speak without reading a written speech and especially not a written speech prepared by somebody else. I urge the hon. minister and all members of the front bench of the government to strongly consider working with the Speaker and other House leaders to find ways for this place to work better through co-operation and respect for our rules.

224 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 5:11:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's sentiment. In fact, she has inspired me to try to use speaking notes less over the course of my career here. I am not perfect, but I do my best to speak without the aid of notes when I can and to give my own thoughts when I can. It is something more difficult when the matter is a technical one, and I have to rely on some of the legal expertise that exists either in my department or in my ministry. However, I think she is correct. I want to reflect on something. When I was a graduate student in the U.K., I often went to see parliamentary debates, particular in the House of Lords, of all places, in the U.K. The quality of debate was simply so much better. It was, in large measure, because of what the hon. member spoke about. There was very little speaking from notes.

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/26/22 5:13:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, we often get caught up in what is taking place inside the chamber. Outside the chamber, we could talk about the Canadian Judicial Council. There is an expectation outside the House of Commons. This legislation is something that the council is quite anxious to see pass. We talked about stakeholders. All we are really looking at is trying to get it out of the second reading stage. There is still going to be a lot more dialogue on this. There is no doubt a lot of the stakeholders are wondering why, when it looks like there is a fairly wide spectrum of support for the legislation, we do not get it to committee stage, at the very least, as quickly as possible.

124 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti

Oct/26/22 5:13:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I agree with that point. I want to list some of the groups that were consulted by the Canadian Judicial Council, like the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies and the Council of Canadian Law Deans. The member is absolutely right. This will go to committee. All sides will be able to bring witnesses to see if anything was missed. I hope it will be done fairly expeditiously because I think there is a high level of general agreement on this bill. It is something that judges, in particular, feel needs to pass quickly. They have implored us to do it. They came out in September in a press release and said they wanted us to pass this quickly. When one member of the judiciary gets criticized for behaviour that is not becoming of a judge and it brings the system of justice into disrepute, they all feel it. It is important that they exercise this responsibility and create a better system to better manage themselves and hold themselves to the highest standard. It is important for us to react to that and to change something that was originally enacted 50 years ago. Reform to it is long overdue.

203 words

All Topics