SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/15/23 10:25:57 p.m.
Watch

Order. Members who have not been recognized should not be speaking. The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

18 words

Jun/15/23 10:26:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not going to speculate on that. This has come back from the Senate with amendments, and we think they are good. One of them is an amendment that the Conservatives put forward initially, and the Senate picked up on that. I do not know why the member would impute bad motives to the senators. They are just trying to do their job to the best of their ability. After a reflection of sober second thought, this is what they think would improve the bill. We agree with them.

92 words

Motives

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/15/23 10:26:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, once Bill C‑9 is adopted, should the Minister of Justice finally become involved in the judicial appointment process in order to make it less partisan and more effective?

32 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/15/23 10:26:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I completely agree that the appointment of judges and people to the Canadian Judicial Council should be non-partisan. One of the problems we have seen is that it has become too partisan, so I completely support that.

40 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/15/23 10:27:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Conservatives said that they wanted to pass the bill. Now they have put in an amendment that provokes hours of additional debate on the bill. How do they reconcile that contradiction of always blocking legislation, even when they say they support it?

44 words

Blocking

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/15/23 10:27:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been asked this question a few times. We think these amendments make a lot of sense. They improve the legislation. That is exactly the way the process is supposed to work after the other place looks at it, and we think the House should accept those amendments.

51 words

Improve

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/15/23 10:28:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, even though it is late, we are wrapping up our work and we may be a little jagged, it is a pleasure to speak to the return of Bill C‑9 as amended by the Senate. This all feels a bit like groundhog day. I was rereading the notes from my last speech on Bill C‑9 and they begin with a reminder to wish everyone a merry Christmas. In my notes, I was talking about the fact that I had spoken to Bill C‑9 or its equivalent, Bill S‑5, before the 2021 election. All that to say that I have spoken to Bill C‑9 many times now. I feel like I am repeating myself, unfortunately. It may be a feeling shared by my colleagues, either in their own speech or in having to listen to mine for the umpteenth time this evening. This has been mentioned many times: There is a real urgency to look into the misconduct of federally appointed judges, as current events are reminding us. There is the case of Justice Brown, for instance, where there were unending delays in the probe of what seemed to be alleged misconduct. In a context where, unfortunately, there is a shortage of judges, we are reminded that we need to streamline the process for studying misconduct and that we need to do so in two ways. First, Bill C‑9 provides for fewer judges to study a case of misconduct. Second, it provides fewer possibilities for using delaying tactics throughout the process to ensure that the work is done diligently and that the judges are assigned for a shorter period of time. With respect to the amendments proposed by the Senate, only two were retained by the government and the rest were rejected. I will spend a little more time on one of the amendments, which prompted some questions that I have already asked my colleagues. It concerns an amendment to clause 84, which follows up on the clauses that provide for the creation of a list of judges and laypersons who can be involved in the different stages of the process for studying the misconduct. There is a diversity provision for this list. The initial clause read as follows: 84 As far as possible, the Council shall name persons who reflect the diversity of the Canadian population to the roster of judges and to the roster of lay persons. The amendment suggested by the Senate and accepted by the government would delete “as far as possible”. As I mentioned, this points to a shift away from what seemed like an obligation of diligence to an obligation of result. To the extent possible, the aim was to incorporate diversity into the list of judges and laypersons for selection. However, by deleting “as far as possible”, I get a sense that we are creating more of an obligation of result, which raises a number of issues. We are told that there is currently a shortage of judges. We cannot change the current number of judges simply by snapping our fingers. It would be nice if we could because we need them, but we have to work with what we have. If we absolutely had to start reflecting diversity now, with our very small pool of existing judges, we could run into certain problems by selecting judges concentrated in certain geographic areas, where there is better representation. We could end up relying more heavily on specific locations to find judges more representative of diversity. We could also run the risk of sidelining certain other necessary or useful criteria in selecting the judges we want to include on our lists. One example could be knowledge of both official languages. By making diversity an obligation rather than something we are striving for or want, we could be limiting our options at a time when resources are already scarce. When I asked the minister whether it might not create obstacles that are more difficult to overcome if we make it an obligation of result rather than an obligation of diligence, I got the impression that he somewhat agreed that it was perhaps not the best amendment that the Senate could have suggested. He seemed to be saying that we can live with it, it is not so bad, but that, clearly, we could have done without it. When it comes to this aspect of creating an obligation of result when drawing up a list, I think we could have done without this amendment. It creates an obligation that may be difficult to fulfill. I do not necessarily share the Minister of Justice's optimism when he says that the Canadian Judicial Council is of the impression that it will be able to fulfill this obligation. The other amendment that was proposed and welcomed by the government is to add the term “sexual misconduct” to the list of complaints that cannot be systematically dismissed by a screening officer who receives complaints. It therefore says that “A screening officer shall not dismiss a complaint that alleges sexual misconduct [that is the term being added] or sexual harassment or that alleges discrimination on a prohibited ground of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act.” In the complaints analysis process, a complaint can be dismissed from the outset if it is frivolous, vexatious or obviously unfounded because the grounds for complaint are not sufficiently substantiated. A complaint cannot be rejected if there is an element of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment or discrimination. This amendment is timely in the context of the #MeToo movement, as we increasingly seek to eliminate everything to do with sexual misconduct. We do not want this to be such a specific criterion that we never reach it. We want to widen the scope. I think it is a good thing to add “sexual misconduct” to the list of criteria for not automatically dismissing a complaint. In that regard, I believe that good work was done. In my opinion and in the Bloc Québécois's opinion, the minister clearly explained the reasons for which he supports these two amendments, although we do not entirely agree with one of them. However, this will not prevent us from voting in favour of the motion, because it will finally make it possible to implement Bill C-9. This is becoming increasingly urgent. We need to get this done as quickly as possible, so we can truly streamline the complaints analysis process. The government rejected the rest of the Senate amendments in order to prevent the complaints analysis process from becoming more cumbersome, given that the original intent of the bill was to streamline it. In our opinion, it was warranted to reject the proposed amendments. I want to come back to the fact that this bill was debated at length on multiple occasions and in various incarnations. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has done a lot of work on this, and it seemed as though we finally had a version that parliamentarians agreed on. Bill C‑9 was unanimously passed at third reading. I think we could have done without the Senate deciding to get involved and adding its two cents. I will not get into the details of Bloc Québécois's position on the very existence of a second chamber. However, I would like to come back to the general purpose of the bill. It is important to remind members of that. The community, all jurists, have been asking for this bill for a long time. What is more, as I mentioned recently, after the news broke about Justice Brown, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner once again emphasized the urgent need to take action and pass Bill C‑9. He also mentioned that it was too bad that the bill was still being examined by the House. This allows me to add this little grain of salt: If not for the snap 2021 election, we would already have a bill in place. I mention the following purely as a hypothesis, since I do not have a crystal ball, but Justice Russell Brown's case might have gone differently had it been handled under the future version of Bill C‑9, which we will likely adopt, instead of under the old complaints process, which is several decades old. This bill, which seeks to shorten the process and therefore lower the cost, is well balanced. It helps speed up the process and make it more efficient, while upholding the rights of any judge who may be the subject of complaints for misconduct of all kinds within or outside their practice. The other thing we really liked about the bill is that it gets us out of a binary repression mode, a binary method for sanctioning complaints. In the first version, either the judge was cleared of the charges and remained in their position, or they were found guilty of the charges and had to be removed. There was no grey area between the two for less serious misconduct, for example. That is something that has been corrected in Bill C‑9. I think it is still worth mentioning a few things that are now possible. I did this last time, and I think it is still relevant to repeat it again today. Clause 102 of the bill states: “If the review panel does not refer the complaint to the Council under section 101, it may dismiss the complaint or take one or more of the following actions if it considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances”. One of the things the panel can do is “issue a private or public expression of concern” about the judge's alleged conduct. It can “issue a private or public warning”. It can also “issue a private or public reprimand”. Once again, these measures may be more appropriate depending on the type of misconduct that may have occurred, rather than an all-or-nothing approach, in other words removal or no removal. The panel can also “order the judge to apologize, either privately or publicly, by whatever means the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances”. This means the judge can be supported through an apology process that would be tailored to the situation. It can “order the judge to take specific measures, including attending counselling or a continuing education course”. There is a rehabilitation aspect. This is a much more positive approach that shows a desire to retrain judges, if they make honest mistakes, for example. The panel can “take any action that the panel considers to be equivalent to any of the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e)”. This provides the panel with a fair bit of latitude in the actions it can take. Finally, the panel can, “with the consent of the judge, take any other action that the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances”. The fact that the judge's consent is absolutely required for measures beyond the scope of those mentioned is perhaps the aspect of the bill that made us hesitate a little more. Generally speaking, this is a bill that has long been awaited and desired by the judiciary and the bar associations. We are pleased to finally see it come to fruition, to completion. We hope that, despite the little game of ping-pong between the House of Commons and the Senate, no more obstacles will be thrown in the way. I would like to point out that the fact that another amendment has been proposed just this evening worries me a little. I hope that this will not prevent the bill from being passed before the summer, or before what could happen in the fall. Nobody here has a crystal ball. I hope this will not be the umpteenth bill to die on the Order Paper. We could fill a lot of shelves with all the bills that have died on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, we are making a lot of work for shelving manufacturers. In general, we feel that the government's motion assessing the Senate amendments is balanced. It prevents excessive amendments from undermining the bill's original substance and its original objective of streamlining the process and making it much more efficient. We still have some uncertainty about deleting the words “as far as possible” and imposing an obligation of result. However, we can live with that uncertainty. I think that voting in favour of the government's motion is worthwhile, because it will finally allow the bill to be implemented. With that in mind, the Bloc Québécois has no problem in supporting the motion. Most of all, we hope that the next steps will be taken in a timely manner and will finally produce an acceptable bill.

2185 words

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

Jun/15/23 10:44:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have heard some of the stakeholders, particularly from our judicial system, indicating that this legislation is sound and they are recommending that the House of Commons pass it. I recognize that the Bloc has been very supportive of the legislation since before it went to the Senate. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on respecting the independence of the courts and the suggestion that they would really like to see this legislation pass.

79 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/15/23 10:44:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, one of the analyses I did in my first speech on Bill C‑9 was under section 99 of the Constitution, which addresses judges' security of tenure. Different jurists and analysts who worked on the bill mentioned that this principle of immovability was respected. The foundation of the analysis process for misconduct is that it is to be done by peers and a judge must not be removed for minor issues. It was balanced. The fact that the number of courts in the analysis process is being reduced and that only a right of appeal to the Supreme Court is being retained was balanced in context to still allow for the right of defence for judges accused of misconduct. This is a bill that is balanced and respects the constitutional part on security of tenure.

138 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/15/23 10:46:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her well-thought-out speech on this very important topic. One of the amendments the Senate is recommending is that there be one more appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal because the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is really a faint hope, likely never to happen. One of the reasons the minister has given for there not to be an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal is to stop the proliferation of appeal after appeal. This is only one appeal, and I wonder what the member thinks about that. I get a sense that the Bloc is going to vote with the government on this, but just as an intellectual exercise, what does she think about one more appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal?

136 words

Appeal
Hope

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/15/23 10:47:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I think we have seen abuses of process in the past. The case of Justice Michel Girouard was an example. By eliminating some recourse to common law courts, we can avoid not only appeals, but also everything that is incidental to an appeal. There are various dilatory measures that can be taken in the case of an appeal in a common law court. That is what is being minimized. It is not ideal, but the judge does not completely lose his right to a full defence. There seems to be a balance between the two, because there are a number of steps. It's not a case of one person having the final say. There are several panels made up of a number of legal experts. This is a more specialized form of internal appeal, so to speak, than the appeal that could be made to a common law court. It seems to me that the right balance has been struck.

164 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/15/23 10:48:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting to hear what my colleague from Saint-Jean has to say. It has been 50 years since there has been any reform of the complaints process. We thought that we were just about to complete this process, but then we just received an amendment from the Conservative Party that will add another debate on all these issues. I wanted my colleague to tell me if she is worried, because we are starting another debate on another amendment, when there have already been very long delays.

92 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/15/23 10:48:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I mentioned at the end of my speech that adding another amendment raised some concern. What is that going to accomplish? That is ultimately the question. I am not against ideas being debated or everyone being able to express their point of view, but the way that it is done is sometimes problematic. Is this a way to delay passage of the bill? If so, it is absolutely deplorable. It has been dragging on for a very long time. A lot of work has gone into it. Committees have worked on it many times. If the goal is simply to delay adoption, that worries me. If, in the end, we add a little time for debate so that points of view can be heard, then it may not be so bad. We will have to see. As they say, the dose makes the poison. I think that is what will tell us whether this was a motion for real debate or just a waste of time.

168 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Jun/15/23 10:50:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to one specific aspect of my colleague's speech. In the Senate amendments, there is a change to clause 84, which deals with imposing greater diversity. I understand that, in post-1982 Canada, there is a desire to promote diversity. However, diversity is promoted differently in Quebec than it is in Canada, plus Canada is now a so-called postnational state. I get the impression that this is also reflected in the bill with the Senate amendments that aim to shift diversity from being encouraged and desirable to being imposed and mandatory. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this shift, which could be described as ideological in a regime where the noose keeps tightening, despite the consequences it may cause.

134 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/15/23 10:51:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we often like to say in the House that good intentions do not necessarily make good bills. I will not impute bad intentions to anyone with regard to this amendment. On the contrary, I think it comes from a good place. However, by setting a fairly strict obligation in its application, we may be losing some flexibility. The Senate means well, but ultimately, this could cause other problems that could in turn make the amendment less useful, even though it was well intentioned. I think the problem lies more in the application than in the intention.

99 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/15/23 10:52:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague from Saint-Jean on her great speech. I want to come back again to the amendment that removes the expression “as far as possible”. In her question to the minister and in her speech, my colleague reminded the House that, by now adopting an obligation of result, we risk ignoring the other criteria that should be considered. Could she remind the House of those other criteria and the harmful consequences that such an amendment could have?

88 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/15/23 10:52:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand that clause 84 seeks to create a roster of people who could sit on various panels. Since we do not know in advance which judge may have to make representations before these panels for various types of misconduct, we would want to have a roster of people who have many different qualities, including being bilingual, because there may be French-speaking and English-speaking judges on the lists. If we focus only on characteristics related to diversity, then other qualities and characteristics, such as bilingualism, may end up taking a back seat. That would mean that official languages will once again suffer, and, unfortunately, it will not be the first time that that has happened in the big federal system.

125 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/15/23 10:54:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this late hour in Ottawa, where it is almost 11 p.m., to speak to the Senate amendments to Bill C-9. I would like to start by saying hello to my constituents in New Westminster and Burnaby. In British Columbia it is almost 8 p.m. and so the sun is still up. I know that is also the case in the ridings of the member for Langley—Aldergrove, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country and my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. For the people of British Columbia and for everyone listening to the debates in the House of Commons, we are in the thick of things. I know that there are some constituents listening and I applaud the fact that they are listening after supper to what is happening in the House of Commons. The NDP will support Bill C-9 and the recommendation on the amendments. I will come back to that in more detail later. First of all, I am concerned that the Conservative Party is once again trying to block a bill. This has been going on in the House systematically for years. As I have said before, there are two blocks in the House: the Bloc Québécois and the block-all Conservative Party, which never misses a chance to block a bill, even the ones it says it supports. We just heard an excellent speech by my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove who spoke about—

260 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/15/23 10:56:02 p.m.
Watch

I would like to remind members that, if they have something to say, they should be respecting the rules of the House and waiting until it is time for questions and comments. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has the floor.

43 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/15/23 10:56:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I was just complimenting my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove by saying that he gave an excellent speech. He talked about the fact that the Conservatives support the bill and that they want it to be passed. After 50 years, it is time for us to make that change. However, at the end of his speech, after spending 20 minutes talking about how important it is to pass the bill, he presented an amendment that is going to further delay the passage of the bill. I do not understand that contradiction at all. What is more, earlier, the Conservatives voted against a motion to maintain the hybrid Parliament. However, today, they used the hybrid application 291 times to vote on the matter of a hybrid Parliament. I have to say that that includes the Bloc members as well. Together, they used the hybrid app 291 times to vote against the hybrid Parliament. That is another contradiction. I think that everyone can see that there is a problem here. Members are saying that they do not want a hybrid Parliament, but then they are using the hybrid application to vote against the hybrid Parliament. I will move on to another subject because Parliament already ruled on that. Let us get back to Bill C‑9. An amendment has been tabled that will further delay the passage of the bill, and that is unfortunate. The process has been lacking for 50 years. The public does not support it and it is not particularly clear that justice will be served through this process. Furthermore, it does not allow people to have more confidence in our justice system. It has been 50 years. First, there were the promises from the former Harper regime, which wanted to amend this process. It did nothing, and that is not surprising. There were a lot of broken promises. I spent 10 years in the House during the Harper regime, and we saw that regime's lack of respect for Parliament. We saw broken promises, including the promise to set up a process for judges and for complaints about the judicial system. We saw that time and time again. Then the Liberals came to power and promised to do the same thing. It was put off. I think that the member for Saint-Jean said it well earlier. We ended up with a bill passed by the Senate, but it took years to get to that point. This evening, we believed that the bill would finally pass. There was a consensus. However, the consensus has just been broken again by the Conservative Party amendment. We certainly support this process to modify the entire complaints process for the judicial system. We believe it is important to put this in place as quickly as possible. This means that we must vote. It seems to me that, once again, because of this party that blocks everything, the government will have to resort to a time allocation motion to pass the bill and bring the legislative process to a successful conclusion. Instead of going round in circles, we must pass this bill. As all parties have said, including my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, this bill is necessary. However, the Conservatives moved an amendment to further delay passage of this bill. There is no doubt that New Democrats support the modernization of the complaints process, no doubt at all. We also support aspects of the bill that allow for varied sanctions, such as counselling, continued education and other reprimands. With the current system, which is hopefully not going to continue for much longer, though with the delays that we are seeing provoked tonight, we will have to see about that, the current option is really only removal from the bench. That is why we believe that increasing public confidence in federal judges is absolutely essential, and we need a modernized complaints system. We believe that this system could have been put into place already. We will recall that this was moving along and then, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister called what was, I think it is fair to say, an unnecessary election in the midst of COVID. At a time when Canadians were preoccupied with getting through COVID, the Liberals provoked an election. Canadians right across this country basically told parliamentarians to get back work, that they were going to give us the same Parliament we had before the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election. That has caused further delays that have brought us to tonight, when we were hoping to see passage of the bill. That is obviously not to be because of the blocking amendment brought forward by the Conservatives. New Democrats believe there are many other aspects of the judicial system that we need to be tackling. My colleague, the NDP justice critic from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, has been extraordinarily eloquent about this. Yes, he worked on Bill C-9, and yes, he worked to improve it. He brought forward a number of amendments, which I will come back to in just a moment. The reality is the member from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke had a tremendous influence over this bill moving forward and the quality of the bill. He sought to improve it at a number of different stages, but he has said, and he is right, that we need to move on to other things. There are other pressing issues, such as the opioid crisis and systemic racism in the judicial system. These are all things that need to be tackled, yet we are still dealing with Bill C-9, hopefully with not too many more delays. Because it has taken so long, because COVID delayed it and because finally, after 50 years of moving it forward, a completely unnecessary election derailed it, we have finally gotten to the point where Bill C-9 was sent to committee. This is where the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke had substantial impacts. I am going to talk about the amendments that he brought forward at the committee stage that are very relevant to the recommendation we have tonight, which is to accept two Senate amendments and reject the rest. That was prior to the Conservative amendment that would delay all of this discussion, but I think there was substantial consensus around the idea that two of the Senate amendments should be brought forward. What NDP members brought forward at committee is the following. First, there was an amendment that would have expanded the definition of “discrimination” in clause 12 of Bill C-9 by adding “or improper conduct that is substantially similar to discrimination” to the grounds which would have prevented dismissal at the screening stage in paragraph 90(3) of the act. This concern, as we know, was brought to committee by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which appeared as a witness because, in both the current process and under new provisions in Bill C-9, complaints could be dismissed without proper investigation at the initial stage because the behaviour does not meet a narrow legal definition of discrimination. This was an important amendment brought forward by the member. As members would have heard when I asked the Minister of Justice just a few minutes ago, ultimately Liberals and Conservatives voted against that amendment, so it failed. It would have made a difference. We are talking about looking beyond the issue of judicial conduct to the issue of discrimination, which is fundamentally important, as the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has said on so many occasions, and as has our leader, the member for Burnaby South, yet that amendment was rejected. The second amendment that was brought forward added a requirement that when there is a decision to dismiss a complaint at the initial stage, both the decision and the reasons for dismissing that complaint would be conveyed to the complainant, instead of just a summary of the reasons. The complainant would receive both the decision and the reasons for the dismissal of the complaint. This amendment was brought forward by my old colleague Craig Scott, who was a member of Parliament. He was a fantastic member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth who took over after Jack Layton passed away. He is a law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and he appeared as a witness on this study. He detailed for the committee that no such information was provided to him when he was a complainant proceeding through the judicial review process. He had gone through the process and understood that information was not providing transparency. In other words, it was not leading to that growth in public confidence that is so critical in a democracy. The amendment was aimed to provide openness and transparency and, as one of the high points of Parliament at the committee stage, all members of Parliament from all parties at the committee agreed to that amendment. It helped to improve the bill. The third amendment that the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke tabled added a requirement that when a review panel made a decision on a complaint, both the decision and the full reasons would be given to the complainant. This added to what Craig Scott, the former NDP MP for Toronto—Danforth, brought forward. Those two amendments, in series, helped to ensure that the bill would increase transparency, and this was important. There was discussion around the right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. The member for Langley—Aldergrove raised that idea in his speech. The reality is that we now have a twofold system of appeals, as the Minister of Justice described in discussing the Senate amendments. In a very real sense, that has helped to provide for the appeal process without making it an unduly long process. Let us come now to the heart of the matter, which is the issue of the Senate amendments. There are two amendments that the government has proposed accepting from the Senate. The first is removing the words “as far as possible”. The member for Saint-Jean talked about this a number of times during her speech. It is from the section requiring panels that convene to investigate complaints to reflect the diversity of Canada. We support this amendment, as well as the Senate amendment that adds sexual misconduct to the list of complaints that may not be dismissed without a formal investigation. Those are two amendments that the Senate has put in place that the government is proposing be retained and that the NDP supports as well. There were a number of other amendments, including the amendments regarding the Federal Court of Appeal. As I mentioned, we now have a two-stage process for appeals, so the rejection of those Senate amendments, to our mind, seems to be a fair-minded approach. The most important thing is that we have been going back and forth for several years. There has been no change in the complaints process for 50 years. Improvements are obviously needed. However, we have been going around in circles for three years now. At committee, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke managed to get the NDP amendments I just mentioned adopted to improve the original bill, which is extremely important. This contributed to the quality of the bill. The bill was then referred to the Senate, which proposed a number of amendments that we can support. As members know, supporting these two Senate amendments is a bitter pill for the NDP to swallow. Our official policy is actually to abolish the Senate, which is a second chamber made up of non-elected members, as New Zealand and a number of other countries have done. Senators have been appointed, and not elected, for years. I would say they do not have the same credibility as the members of the House of Commons. Other countries have abolished their second chambers, but that is not just an international phenomenon. Some of these upper, unelected chambers have been abolished right here in Canada, including in Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario. It makes no sense for unelected people to make decisions that have consequences for a population without being accountable. As members of Parliament, we must be accountable. When I make a decision, I have to be accountable to my electors in New Westminster—Burnaby. I hope that some of them are watching me this evening. Who are the senators accountable to? That is the big question. I know that this is concerning and I know that these questions are being reviewed. It is true that it is important. Nonetheless, the NDP is voting in favour of these two amendments because they make sense, even though they originate from the Senate. The most important thing to the NDP is that the bill be adopted with the recommendations that the government proposed and that it be sent back to the Senate so that it can get the Senate's seal of approval. The process will then be complete and we will finally have an improved judicial complaints process.

2209 words