SoVote

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

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

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

Jun/15/23 11:14:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could expand on the issue of the importance of public confidence in the system. For me personally, that is one of the driving forces in terms of why Bill C-9 is of the utmost importance, among other things, and I hope to be able to expand on that shortly.

58 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/15/23 11:14:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, public confidence comes from transparency. The member is absolutely right that public confidence comes from a process that people feel makes them heard and understood. That is why we would put all of these measures in place and, I would suggest, have varied sanctions. Part of the problem with the existing system is that it only has one penalty, with the current option being removal from the bench. However, there is a tendency to take other issues that may not warrant removal from the bench less seriously, because there are fewer options available to ensure that those complaints are upheld. Part of the exercise of getting the bill through is to ensure improving public confidence by giving options so that a judge could have continuing education, other reprimands and counselling, all of which are appropriate where there has been judicial malfeasance.

143 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/15/23 11:15:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, but I could not help but notice that, throughout the night, the member being upset with us tabling an amendment. Let me clear here. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke moved an amendment to the bill earlier in the process, which was removed by the government senators. We decided that we were going to retable it to bring it back, because we thought it was a good amendment, yet this member was actively speaking against us doing so. By doing so, he was actually speaking against his own colleague's amendment that he was so passionate about including into the bill, which is a little bit ridiculous. The member kept on saying throughout his speech, in effect, that “We are doing all of this” and “We are doing that”, but I could not help but wonder that he was speaking against his own colleague's amendment. When he says “we” is he referring to “we” as him and the government or him and his party? He has been speaking against his own colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, all night, because he does not want to accept the amendment we put forward, which is the same amendment that his own colleague put forward.

228 words

Speech

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/15/23 11:16:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague. He does engage in disinformation, and this is one of those examples. What happened, of course, was that this was brought forward at committee by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. It was not upheld at committee, and the reality is that there is now in place a twofold appeals process that the member is aware of and that the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has endorsed. In terms of what needs to move forward from the Senate and what needs to be tucked away, it is very clear. However, the problem we have in terms of moving legislation through is that the Conservatives are always putting forward amendments or motions that block legislation. They do not move it forward. In this particular case, given the length of time that this has taken and given the importance of the issue and of actually modernizing our judicial complaint process, when we were almost at the finish line, the Conservatives have drawn us back again. That is what I object to.

179 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/15/23 11:18:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He said it: This bill has been in the works for a very long time and has been the subject of a lot of work, particularly by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. The bill has been amended, improved and enhanced. The member is somewhat disappointed tonight to see yet another amendment from the Conservative side that risks delaying its adoption. I just want to make sure that my colleague agrees with me that if the Senate had not interfered, the bill would have been passed already. We would not have had a Conservative amendment that further slowed the process. Basically, if it were not for the Senate, we would not be here having this discussion tonight. Does my colleague agree with me that this step, unfortunately, may also have been too much?

145 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/15/23 11:19:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Saint‑Jean is right. It is true. That is why the NDP has been calling for the abolition of the Senate for decades. We are talking about a Senate appointed by the Liberals and the Conservatives. We have seen the Senate block very worthwhile bills on several occasions. It is obvious that this process of sending bills to an institution that is not democratically elected is detrimental. My colleague is quite right. In this case, the bill would have been adopted already had there not been this step. That is something to think about for Canadians who want to abolish the Senate.

108 words

Abolish

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/15/23 11:20:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I was troubled to hear the leader of the official opposition tell the national media that his party intends to use every opportunity to obstruct the work of the chamber and gum up the works of Canadian democracy. It makes it somewhat difficult to understand whether interventions in this place, at this late day in the session, are made in good faith or whether they are indeed part of this effort to slow down the work of our Parliament. Could my dear colleague reflect on Bill C-9 and offer his thoughts on what is going on here when it comes to the Conservatives' interventions?

107 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/15/23 11:21:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is an extraordinarily strong parliamentarian. Every time when he rises in the House to ask a question or to give a speech, I know that everyone listens to him very attentively because he represents his constituents, who inhabit a region as big as France, extremely well. It is just an enormous part of northern British Columbia. They are incredible communities with extraordinary representation. The member does incredible work, and I know that every weekend, he is down in another part of his riding, making sure that he is hearing his constituents. The reality is that this does delay the bill, but we have seen Conservatives blocking dental care, blocking a grocery rebate that thousands of people in each of their ridings would benefit from and blocking affordable housing. All these things that the NDP is pushing the government to do, Conservatives try to block. Blocking dental care is incomprehensible to me. Eleven thousand people on average in a Conservative riding would benefit, including seniors, people with disabilities and families with youth under 18. Conservatives, including the member for Carleton, fought so that Canadians in those Conservative ridings would not have access to dental care. How does it make any sense at all to block something that is in the interests of their constituents?

222 words

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

Jun/15/23 11:22:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to set the record straight. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby was suggesting that my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands was spreading misinformation. I want to read into the record a quote from his colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, from December 9. This was after he came back from committee for third reading, when we voted unanimously. He said: As for the appeal and the fact that the Bloc did not support my amendment to make it to the Federal Court of Appeal, I would just say again that the Supreme Court is likely never going to hear an appeal regarding a judge's disciplinary complaint, because of the very high standard.... At that time, the member was still supporting the motion of the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, and we had a similar motion, to have one appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. That is what his colleague stood for. We were expecting to have support from the NDP on this, because that is the way his colleague was speaking in December.

187 words