SoVote

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

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

Mr. Peter Julian

Jun/15/23 11:23:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was the process that I felt was disinformation. What we have is my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, whom I respect a lot, quoting directly from Hansard. I will certainly look at that quote. I have no reason to doubt his quote. I know he is an honest person. I will look at the blues and come back to him in due time.

66 words

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

Jun/15/23 11:24:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, before I start my comments on the bill, I want to recognize a terrible and tragic traffic accident that members might have already heard about. It was in Manitoba on the Trans-Canada Highway by Highway 5. A semi collided with a bus. I do not know all the details, but as a result of that accident, 15 seniors have died and another 10 are in hospital. Which hospitals I could not say; what we do know is that there will be a very high fatality rate. Hopefully, those who are in hospital are able to recover. I would like to express my best wishes and prayers to the family and friends of the deceased and to the family and friends of those who are being taking care of. As well, I compliment the first responders for the truly amazing work they do. They were very quick to get to the scene, whether SARS, ambulances, police or firefighters, and no doubt have contributed to saving lives. I just want to recognize that. I am sure my colleagues here this evening, and in fact all members of Parliament, share in the families' grief and wish them all the very best. Having said that, allow me to share some thoughts on a very important piece of legislation and issue that all of us are very much aware of. This is legislation that would amend the Judges Act and create a new process, and one would think that there would be eagerness to see this legislation pass. I thought it started off so well. I might be a bit biased, but I think that what the Minister of Justice had to say was very clear. A number of amendments have been brought forward by the Senate, and he provided detailed comments on the suggestions the Senate has put forward. I can honestly say that generally speaking, at times the Senate contributes to making legislation that comes through the House that much stronger, and to that extent makes it better for Canadians. I think it is quite encouraging when we get these amendments coming forward. The Minister of Justice made comments, as I said. He explained why we can accept a couple of amendments and why we cannot accept some others. Then he went on to talk about the importance of the legislation and why it was important that we attempt to see quick passage of the legislation. Right after that, when the member for Langley—Aldergrove, the critic, began his speech, I started to feel pretty encouraged by his opening remarks. He talked about how the legislation was good, saying that the Conservatives support it and that they saw the value in it when it was in here earlier. The legislation has already gone through a number of steps. It was introduced quite a while ago. Members were already familiar with the legislation. It went to committee, and yes, there were some healthy discussions that took place at committee stage. Then it went through report stage and third reading and was passed, and off to the Senate it went. If one followed some of that debate and discussion, one might have been of the opinion that the legislation had virtually unanimous support of the House. It is always a good thing when we get that kind of support. Then the member got to the tail end of his speech, and at the tail end of his speech, what does he say? In fairness to the member, he might have been slipped the amendment; I do not know. Maybe he created the amendment. Maybe the House leadership told him to remember what the leader says: speak, speak, speak and hold things up wherever he can. That is the essence of what the modern Conservative far-right party says today. The member then indicated very clearly that he does not like the legislation to such a degree that he wants to see some amendments, so he moved an amendment. In all honesty, I was not really surprised, because the member was putting in place a sequence that we have seen the Conservatives do on many different pieces of legislation. There is, however, a bit of a difference on this legislation, because ultimately the member made it somewhat clear that they support its passage. I thought maybe there was a chance the bill would pass here this evening after listening to the beginning of the comments. When he moved the amendment, I think he surprised a lot of people. It surprised me to a certain degree. I was a bit disappointed, because after all, as I said, the bill amends the Judges Act. In essence, it streamlines the review and investigation process. Think about that. Not only does that ensure there is a higher sense of equality, justice and so forth, but it also makes the system a bit more efficient. There is even money to be saved. Moving this particular amendment sends a message that it is similar to other pieces of legislation, and I get the sense that the only way we are going to have a chance at passing this legislation is if it is time allocated. Once again, as a government, we have to go to the Bloc or the New Democrats to try to explain the behaviour of the Conservatives, which is not that tough nowadays it seems, to ensure that we can pass this legislation. It is the type of thing that we really cannot make up. Think of the types of things we have witnessed, like how they move amendments, and the type of voting we have witnessed. I am kind of losing context of time, but a few hours ago or two hours ago, we had a vote on the hybrid motion. I know the NDP House leader made quick reference to it. It is a hard thing to resist. It really and truly is. Think about it. We had a vote on something the Conservatives oppose. They do not like the voting app and the hybrid system, so they voted against it. An hon. member: Until they have to use it. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is just as my colleague said: until they have to use it. They used it on the motion that I just finished talking about, the motion that says we want to enable members to vote by hybrid or vote using the voting application. Members would not believe that out of the 106 Conservatives who voted, 77 actually used the voting application to vote. I do not quite understand it. It is that Conservative logic. If we then fast-forward a couple of hours, what do we see? We see yet another amendment brought forward as a tactic to postpone the vote on this bill. I asked the member for Langley—Aldergrove why he moved the amendment and I asked him how many Conservative members he would like to see speak now, and whether he could give us an indication. Members were here for the response from the member. He said his party had lots of members who want to be able to speak on the legislation. How many more days do we have until the normal session would come to an end? It is somewhat limited, but I have told the House leader that, personally, I do not mind. I enjoy being inside the chamber. I enjoy the debates. Honest to God, with hand on heart, I will come back in July, I do not mind, if the members opposite want to have debate. Having said that, I think there might be a number of members who would like to see the Conservatives stop with the games and the filibustering and recognize that part of being a responsible official opposition means allowing legislation to pass without having to incorporate time allocation. An hon. member: It helps Canadians. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: It does. It helps Canadians in a very real and tangible way. An hon. member: This is the biggest audience you've had in a while. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, ever since the member from across the way walked back over. This legislation would help Canadians. In one of the questions I put across was the issue of public confidence. The Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary on justice talk about the importance of public confidence in the system. It is important to recognize that, so when members say this legislation is in the best interest of Canadians, it is. It would make a real and tangible difference. Canadians want to see the independence of our whole judicial system, whether it is with policing, our courts or the process of our Crowns laying charges. Around the world, Canada is recognized for our judicial system, and it is complemented by the fact that there are many checks in place to ensure that it is not politicized. We recognize that it is a joint responsibility, where we work with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities, to ensure we have a judicial system that has the confidence of the public. I do not say that lightly, because there have been incidents where we have seen the need for reforms or changes. A good example of that is with the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. God, I wish she came back. Rona Ambrose had an idea to make changes that would impact our judicial system. It came about because of a number of judges who had made comments regarding gender discrimination, if I can put it that way. They offended a great number of people, and there was a genuine concern among the public and questions of confidence in the system. Rona Ambrose, the former leader of the Conservative Party, came up with the idea of instituting some sort of educational program. I cannot remember all the details, because this was a number of years ago, but government members, members of the Liberal caucus, saw the value in the principles of the legislation, and we actually embraced the idea. When we did the consultations and canvassed our judicial system for its reflections on what was being proposed by the then leader of the Conservative Party, we found it had garnered wide support, much like Bill C-9. With that support, what did we eventually see? Yes, there was some frustration, but it was not coming from the government or the Liberal Party. In fact, caucus colleagues of mine often talked about how we could ensure that legislation saw the light of day. They wanted that legislation to pass. We had the support of all members of the House, and it passed unanimously. There was no trickery or anything of that nature. No one said, “We'll pass this if you do this.” There was no trading or bargaining processes. We recognized the value of the legislation and agreed to get it passed through the system. Interestingly enough, I believe a couple of provincial legislatures looked at this. My daughter raised the issue, and she is in the Manitoba legislature. They were looking at what we did here in Ottawa and how it could be potentially duplicated in provincial legislatures. That is how Ottawa can demonstrate leadership on an important issue. If one understands and appreciates the sense of independence of our justice system, then factors in all of the work and effort that has gone into this piece of legislation getting to the point it is at today, one sees it has been a long journey, a journey that ultimately went through all forms of different stakeholders. The ones I emphasize are the courts, or those directly involved in courts, the judges. There was consensus, a very broad consensus, that this is the type of legislation communities, including the judicial community, would accept and want to see passed. When the Minister of Justice talked about the legislation earlier, he made it very clear to everyone that this is legislation where there has been pressure coming from the outside, from the judicial community, suggesting that the legislation be passed as quickly as possible. Interestingly enough, and it might have been at third reading, but I can recall talking about that previously. That is why I was encouraged, even back then, because the Conservatives did not seem to hesitate. There are amendments and a number of things I am no doubt missing, but having said that, let me suggest to members opposite it is not written in stone. We could pass this legislation tonight, or at least get it to a stage at which it could be voted on. Let me put it that way because we cannot seek unanimous consent now, but we can at least get it to a stage where it could be voted on as early as tomorrow. I would ask Conservatives to do what the Liberals did when Rona Ambrose brought forward a good idea, which was to recognize the idea for what it is and support our judicial system. Let us show the public we have confidence in the system, get behind the legislation and allow it to get to a point where we can pass it tomorrow. That can be done.

2212 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Jun/15/23 11:44:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sure members would remember when we were in Centre Block, when something similar with Standing Orders came about. It was basically because the Liberals did not get up on a Monday morning, and the NDP had put a motion together. They did not get enough people to pass it, so the Speaker then had to actually get the vote so we could expand that. What happened then was that the Liberal Party decided to put together a motion to completely take away the role of the opposition. That was when we ended up with the “elbowgate” issue. The only reason that this motion stopped was because, for three days, people were going after the Prime Minister for his active role. As the members—

130 words

Standing

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/15/23 11:45:27 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is rising on a point of order.

21 words

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/15/23 11:45:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, the member's comments actually have no relevance with respect to Bill C-9.

16 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/15/23 11:45:40 p.m.
Watch

The member's time for asking a question is up. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary could respond, if he so wishes. I want to remind members that, when they are asking questions and giving speeches in the House, what they say should be relevant to what is before the House.

52 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Jun/15/23 11:46:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I apologize for that, but my reaction was to the time he took when he was speaking about the importance of Standing Orders. That was the relevance.

37 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:46:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, to put this on the record, I believe the member was referring to Bill C-10. Virtually from the beginning, the Conservatives were all about trickery and the types of things they could do to play that destructive role. Nothing has changed. I am hoping that we will get a glimmer of hope this evening from some individuals saying that this is legislation they could support, that they do not have to continue to delay it and that they could respect what has taken place and look at it. At the very least, the Conservatives could take into consideration what we did as a Liberal Party when the Conservatives proposed something with Rona Ambrose. There, we had unanimous consent; it was passed through. I am suggesting that, out of respect for the process and so forth, this does not have to be one of the bills that the Conservatives are playing games on.

155 words

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

Jun/15/23 11:47:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, does my colleague believe that a party should do what it says it is going to do? For example, with Bill C-9, if a party says we have to adopt this bill immediately, and then offers a delaying amendment, is that consistent? In the same way, if we have a hybrid Parliament and a party votes against the hybrid Parliament, but votes overwhelmingly using the hybrid tools that they were just saying needed to end, is that consistent? Are these contradictions by the Conservative Party that Canadians need to know about?

94 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:47:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, really and truly, we just cannot make this stuff up. We have to see it to believe it. The member is right on. Canadians need to know just what the Conservatives are actually up to. The idea that out of 106 people in the Conservative Party, when it came time to vote to get rid of the voting app, 77 of them actually used the voting app that they want to get rid of. It may be that or saying that they support Bill C-9 and want it to pass, but then they move an amendment. Traditionally, when the Conservatives have done that, what they are really saying is they want to talk and talk, as the leader of the Conservative Party said last week about the budget. He said he was going to speak until the Prime Minister changed the budget implementation bill. We did not change it, and four hours later, it passed. It is a game.

162 words

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

Jun/15/23 11:49:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of discussion about the last-minute amendment brought forward by the good member for Langley—Aldergrove, who is a very constructive member of the justice committee. I must say that I am quite disappointed that this is now being used as a tool to delay the passage of a very important bill. As we know, Justice Wagner, the chief justice of Canada, has asked for the expeditious passage of Bill C-9. Could my friend and colleague comment on why it is so important that we get this passed before we rise?

102 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/15/23 11:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize the efforts and the judicial community as a whole. However, it is not just the judicial community. Ultimately, I believe it is about public confidence in the system. This streamlines the review and investigation process replacing the judicial review that goes into Federal Courts into something that is far more effective. It has been recognized as that. It will save time, it will save money; it will assist in making sure that the public have confidence by adding, for example, a layperson to the process. It will ensure additional public confidence in our judicial system. When we get a Supreme Court judge appealing to us to get it passed, I do not know why the Conservatives would want to continue to filibuster.

131 words