Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Well, since you asked me about the technical briefing, minister, let me ask you a question. Yesterday, Senator Gold’s parliamentary secretary, Mark Gerretsen, tweeted, “I’m calling on Senator @DonPlett to stop stalling & get tough on crime by passing C-21.” The bill has not been introduced in this chamber, minister. The Senate received Bill C-21 two sittings days ago. The sponsor has not spoken. I find it strange that he has been the parliamentary secretary in the Senate for a year and a half and he doesn’t have a clue how this chamber conducts its business. Why did Mark Gerretsen accuse me personally of stalling a bill that the government sponsor has not moved yet at second reading? Do you think this unfounded personal attack is warranted?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Minister, I was in Truro on March 31 to meet with all the families in Portapique who lost loved ones in the massacre.

Apparently, you were there too. Why haven’t you or the Prime Minister met with the families? Why do these families, still to this day, have to bear all the expenses related to their loved ones being murdered? Your government hasn’t offered any financial assistance. Why haven’t you met with the families, and why aren’t you helping them financially?

Hon. Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety: I thank the honourable senator for her leadership on this bill and her collaboration.

The short answer is yes. We will make the necessary investments to ensure the implementation of this bill. We are currently holding discussions and we will move forward as soon as possible.

Hon. Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety: If the Government Representative in the Senate has a parliamentary secretary, that is news to me. I assure you, senator, that we will work very closely with you, and with everyone in this chamber, to ensure a thoughtful debate about Bill C-21.

I want to take a moment to underline that there is good policy in that bill in the form of the strengthened ban of an AR-15-style firearm; in the form of a national freeze on handguns; in the form of raising maximum sentences against hardened gun traffickers; and in the form of introducing red and yellow flag protocols so that we can reverse the trend in the connection between domestic abuse and gun violence. There is a lot of good in that bill, senator. My only request is that we work together to see it come into force so that we can save lives as quickly as possible.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Saturday will mark four years since the release of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Indigenous families want to know what happened to their loved ones, minister, just as any other family in Canada would. These families deserve answers and it is high time that the Trudeau government treated all victims of crime with respect. In both 2021 and 2022, I asked the Trudeau government what progress was being made by the RCMP in resolving these cold cases. I did not receive a satisfactory response but, frankly, that’s not surprising. Minister, what specific progress has been made in resolving the cold cases since the final report was released in 2019, and have any RCMP reviews resulted in arrests, charges laid or convictions?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Welcome to the Senate, minister. Minister, as you have just mentioned, today you announced the appointment of Justice Oland as chair of the committee that will monitor and report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission. We welcome this move. My question for you is this: Will the government support the calls of the final report of the Mass Casualty Commission and the inquest into the Renfrew County killings to declare gender-based violence an epidemic-level crisis in Canada and, most importantly, create a comprehensive strategy at the federal level to address this problem?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Minister, as you know, Bill S-211, which I sponsored, seeks to fight against forced labour. It recently received Royal Assent. I would like to thank you for having supported it.

Since the passage of this bill, businesses and individuals have contacted me with very specific questions, such as the following: How are total revenues calculated? Will the legislation apply to family farms?

My office tried to answer them as best as possible, but, in fact, the answers to these questions fall to your department, which is responsible for the regulations and for implementing the legislation by January 1, 2024.

Minister, your department knew well in advance that Bill S-211 would be passed. Do you plan to create a website, a phone line or explanatory documentation that businesses could consult to get answers to their questions on the legislation?

Hon. Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety: I want to thank you, senator, for recognizing the significance of the announcement and the appointment of Justice Oland as the chair of the committee that will oversee and coordinate the implementation of the recommendations of the final report, in particular, for the families.

I do agree that we have to deal squarely with the incredible and alarming challenges around gender-based violence which the committee thoughtfully touched on. This is work I am doing in partnership with a number of other colleagues including, I would point out, Minister Marci Ien, who is rolling out an over $600‑million national gender-based violence strategy to work closely with women’s groups on the ground so we can take a trauma-informed, victim-centred approach to reduce barriers.

I think you will agree one of the most challenging aspects of this work is to encourage women to come forward and report, and the concern I have heard is that they are worried that the voice on the other end of the line will not believe them, or will not treat them with respect. That is what has led to tragedy and loss. I assure you that as we implement the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission we will work with Justice Oland, with the Nova Scotia government, victims and survivors from that tragedy and all women who have suffered that trauma in the past.

Hon. Marco E. L. Mendicino, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety: First, Senator Plett, I want to begin by saying that I share your concern and the concern of everyone around any cold case because those women and those young girls deserve justice. And that was the reason why we created the MMIWG commission, which was a commission that had not been previously struck but one we did strike because we want justice for those victims and survivors.

As to the most recent status of any outstanding investigation and cold cases, obviously, those are questions best put to the RCMP or any other police jurisdiction who has the responsibility for carrying them out, and I’m happy to work with you, senator, to get the latest update on that. I know that our time is coming to a close here, but I do hope, Senator Plett, you will take the technical briefing on Bill C-21, which we have offered. It is important that we do this work together so we can save lives through responsible gun control legislation.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Well, since you asked me about the technical briefing, minister, let me ask you a question. Yesterday, Senator Gold’s parliamentary secretary, Mark Gerretsen, tweeted, “I’m calling on Senator @DonPlett to stop stalling & get tough on crime by passing C-21.” The bill has not been introduced in this chamber, minister. The Senate received Bill C-21 two sitting days ago. The sponsor has not spoken. I find it strange that he has been the parliamentary secretary in the Senate for a year and a half and he doesn’t have a clue how this chamber conducts its business. Why did Mark Gerretsen accuse me personally of stalling a bill that the government sponsor has not moved yet at second reading? Do you think this unfounded personal attack is warranted?

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules or previous order, the Honourable Senator Gagné be replaced as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages by the Honourable Senator Audette.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the time for Question Period has expired. I’m certain all senators would like to join me in thanking Minister Mendicino for joining us today.

[Translation]

We will now resume the proceedings that were interrupted at the start of Question Period.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the time for Question Period has expired. I’m certain all senators would like to join me in thanking Minister Mendicino for joining us today.

[Translation]

We will now resume the proceedings that were interrupted at the start of Question Period.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 6, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Brent Cotter moved the adoption of the report.

He said: The Judges Act applies to federally appointed judges, as many of you will know, who are often called superior court judges. This applies to judges, for example, of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia or to the Court of King’s Bench of Saskatchewan, the Tax Court of Canada, federal courts, the Federal Court of Appeal, courts of appeal across the country and the Supreme Court of Canada. It doesn’t apply to provincial court judges. Those are governed in provincial jurisdictions.

This bill, Bill C-9, is intended to amend the Judges Act by modernizing the regime by which federally appointed judges are investigated for misconduct pursuant to the responsibilities of the Canadian Judicial Council. This would be a new system for judicial misconduct proceedings.

The objectives of this bill — as I hope we will hear eventually from its sponsor, Senator Dalphond — are to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system and, in turn, reduce delays and costs. Some of these, as you may conclude from earlier discussions when this bill was spoken to in this chamber, indicated that in some cases millions of dollars of public money have been expended in lengthy and sometimes questionable processes leading to consideration of judicial misconduct.

Key changes to the bill include the ability to impose sanctions other than merely the recommendation for removal from office; the limiting of a judge’s ability to seek judicial review; judicial review by the federal courts is replaced with an internal Canadian Judicial Council mechanism; and a right to seek leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The new Canadian Judicial Council misconduct process has five possible steps for the review of a complaint against a superior court judge. The proposed new process — and I will try to be brief here — begins with an initial screening by a council official. Any complaint that cannot or should not be dismissed as completely without merit is then reviewed by a review member followed by the review member being able to dismiss the complaint or refer it to a review panel. The review panel can dismiss the complaint or uphold it and impose remedies up to but not including removal from office, such as requiring an apology or mandatory professional training.

If a judge wishes to appeal the decision, they can appeal the decision to a reduced hearing panel for a matter that, ultimately, can go to a full hearing panel if it is serious enough to warrant potential removal from office. A full hearing panel functions like the public court with the process structured as an adjudicative and adversarial hearing. The full hearing panel determines whether a judge should be recommended for removal from office.

If the judge who is the subject of the complaint or the presenting counsel — that is, essentially the person, usually a lawyer styled as the prosecutor — wishes to appeal the full hearing panel decision, then that matter is referred to an appeal panel and that appeal panel functions like a Court of Appeal and has the same powers. If, ultimately, the appeal panel recommends removal from office, according to the version of the bill received in the Senate, the judge’s remaining recourse would be to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the decision in favour of recommended removal from office is sustained and all of these options for appeal are exhausted, a recommendation for removal from office is reported to the Minister of Justice, who may place the question before both houses of Parliament to decide. It is a process intended to be rigorous but to respect judicial independence.

At committee, in consideration of Bill C-9, six amendments were made to Bill C-9. I will try to highlight them briefly so you will know the changes that were made for our consideration in the chamber.

All of the substantive amendments that were made to the bill apply to clause 12. Now that sounds like a simple matter. However, clause 12 has 81 sections. It is the heart of the change.

I will not read all 81 sections, but they make up the bulk of Bill C-9. That is where the changes are set out with one technical exception. The first amendment adopted by the committee, which appears in your report, is that various sections of clause 12 were amended at committee to add a layperson at every stage of the decision-making process in judicial misconduct consideration.

The bill provides for a layperson to be one of three members on a review panel, one of five on a full hearing panel and laypersons are now included in the decision making with respect to anonymous complaints and on what is called a “reduced hearing panel.”

The composition of the appeal panel was initially designed to be five judges. The amendment changes the composition of that appeal panel to three judges, one lawyer and one layperson.

The second amendment is in relation to diversity. The original bill stated in section 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.

There will be a pool of judges and a pool of lay people who will then be drawn upon to participate in the consideration of complaints against the judges, and the language “as far as possible” was thought to be a challenging, unfortunate and unnecessary phrasing. It was suggested that it weakened the commitment to diversity, and this amendment removed the “as far as possible” phrase.

A third amendment was the publication of decisions. An amendment was adopted at committee to require the Canadian Judicial Council to publish all decisions as soon as possible. Under the bill, the Canadian Judicial Council is already required to publish decisions and reasons of full hearing panels and appeal panels. This amendment goes further and will require the Canadian Judicial Council to publish all dismissals of complaints, and essentially provide the reasons for those dismissals of screening officers, reviewing members and review panels throughout the process.

A fourth amendment was related to sexual misconduct. In the original version of Bill C-9, complaints alleging sexual harassment or discrimination on a prohibited ground could not be screened out at an initial screening stage and had to go to the next level. Committee members were concerned that the phrase “sexual harassment” was too narrow and would not capture other forms of sexual misconduct. Various sections of clause 12 are amended to add “sexual misconduct” to the types of allegations that cannot be screened out at the initial stage.

The fifth amendment is related to disaggregated data collection. The committee also adopted a series of amendments to expand the collection of data and reporting requirements of the Canadian Judicial Council that address ethnic and national background, Indigeneity, race, religion, sex, gender and disabilities, as well as that the annual report capture a range of those reporting-by-category pieces of information.

Finally, an amendment was adopted by committee to restore the ability of a judge or the presenting counsel — that is, the prosecutor — to appeal directly to the Federal Court of Appeal prior to any consideration by the Supreme Court. The bill had limited a judge’s ability to appeal outside of the Canadian Judicial Council process other than with leave to the Supreme Court of Canada, and an additional level has been returned to the bill in this amendment. The amendment is intended to permit Canadian Judicial Council decisions to go to the Federal Court of Appeal, and then, ultimately, either the judge or presenting counsel would have the entitlement to seek leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As well, there is a small coordinating amendment to align clause 16 with this last amendment, which brought back the Federal Court of Appeal into the picture.

In conclusion, let me say that this bill has an extensive series of amendments by the committee. The bill is the modernization of a 40-year-old or so process that has come under significant criticism, and I think it deserves this chamber’s consideration in modernizing the judicial misconduct process.

Thank you.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: consideration of the thirteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the thirteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, with amendments), presented in the Senate on May 18, 2023.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I have a couple of questions for the senator if he would accept them.

Senator Cotter: I welcome them.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?