THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 29, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:17 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act.
Senator Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would ask the senators to introduce themselves, beginning on my left.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis, senatorial division of Laurentides, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. Welcome. I am from here, the shores of the Kitchissippi on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, from British Columbia. Welcome.
The Chair: I’m Brent Cotter, a senator for Saskatchewan and chair of the committee.
It’s possible that we will be interrupted before the end of our full conversation with our first panel of witnesses. Let me apologize in advance. Hopefully, we’ll make sufficient progress in our dialogue with you.
To start off the afternoon, we have with us today, on the first panel, from the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, Marc Giroux, Commissioner; and from the Canadian Judicial Council, Jacqueline Corado, Director and General Counsel. I invite you to start your presentations.
[Translation]
Marc A. Giroux, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
I’m honoured to be here today. I’ve appeared before this committee more than once, and I’m pleased to see what I now consider some familiar faces.
I’m joined by Jacqueline Corado, Director and General Counsel in the secretariat of the Canadian Judicial Council. You will know, I’m sure, that Ms. Corado and I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in November of last year on Bill C-9, and we have followed the Senate and your committee’s study of this bill.
As we advised then, the Canadian Judicial Council, the Office of the Commissioner, and, if I may say, the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, are all pleased that the judicial conduct reform bill is making its way through the Senate and is being studied by your committee. We all look forward to it receiving Royal Assent.
As the Minister of Justice mentioned in his appearance before you recently, the council and the association have worked together with the Department of Justice in order to bring this bill to fruition. Bill C-9 will provide for much-needed efficiency in the judicial conduct process and will reinforce public confidence in the regime, something which the Canadian Judicial Council and its chair, the Chief Justice of Canada, have been calling for. Ms. Corado will speak to this in greater detail shortly.
[Translation]
On the commissioner’s side, Bill C-9 confirms, among other things, what has now existed for a number of years in the Judges Act, namely that the calculation of a judge’s seniority for the purposes of their pension will stop when a full hearing panel concludes that the judge should be removed. In addition, the bill will save resources and end the need to request the often unpredictable funding associated with the judicial conduct process each year.
That said, my office will establish, or should I say, formalize guidelines regarding the expenses associated with this process. In addition, there will now be an independent review of everything that includes funding related to the judicial conduct process, and that review will be made public. As you know, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs operates at arm’s-length from the Department of Justice and its mission is to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. We administer the Judges Act, provide a multitude of services to approximately 1,200 federally appointed judges, administer the appointments process to the Supreme Court of Canada and superior courts across the country, and publish information relevant to the judiciary, such as statistics on judicial expenditures and diversity on the bench. The Judges Act also provides for our office to provide corporate services to the Canadian Judicial Council.
[English]
In accordance with the Judges Act, the commissioner provides the council with the necessary personnel for its operations and its secretariat. This secretariat includes a small team of about 10 employees led by an executive director. At the current time, in the absence of an executive director, I, as commissioner, am performing those duties. Ms. Corado’s role as director and general counsel in the secretariat of the Canadian Judicial Council is focused on the judicial conduct process.
Before I conclude, allow me to make a few observations about the council.
[Translation]
The council is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada and is composed of all chief justices and associate chief justices in the country, that is, judges of courts of appeal and superior trial courts. There are currently 44 positions for chief justices and associate chief justices.
While the council has a number of committees that work on a variety of topics, its primary functions are directed toward judicial conduct — and I note that the chair of the council is not involved in the judicial conduct process — and judicial education. In this regard, the council imposes certain standards that should be followed by judges, approves training for the judiciary, and writes and publishes an index of such training.
[English]
Over the past few years, the council has been notably active on a variety of fronts, including, for example, ensuring court services during the COVID pandemic through, among other things, the Action Committee on Court Operations in response to COVID-19, co-chaired by the Chief Justice and the Minister of Justice. It has created and published guides for self-represented litigants and has adopted and published new and revised ethical principles for judges. I know some of you are familiar with those. These revised principles contain five main parts that focus on judicial independence, integrity and respect, diligence and competence, impartiality and equality, which speaks to judges avoiding and disassociating themselves from discrimination, stereotype, myth or prejudice and educating themselves on these. These principles recognize that ethical considerations evolve and need to keep pace with society’s expectations.
[Translation]
That concludes my comments for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Corado, please proceed.
Jacqueline Corado, Director and General Counsel, Canadian Judicial Council: Thank you, commissioner, and thank you, honourable senators, for your invitation to speak on Bill C-9.
Bill C-9 is something that the Canadian Judicial Council has indeed been looking forward to. You will know that the Chief Justice of Canada, as chair of the council, has spoken publicly on a few occasions about the need to have this reform in order to bring more efficiency to the judicial conduct process for the benefit of all Canadians. As already indicated, the council has also worked on the proposed reform with the Department of Justice and the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, and we look forward to the adoption of Bill C-9.
As you know, section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides for the security of tenure of judges, which is a key element of judicial independence. A judge of a superior court can only be removed from office by the Governor General on address of the Senate and the House of Commons.
Judicial independence means that judges must be free to decide independently from any form of direct or indirect coercion. However, judicial independence does not require that the conduct of judges be immune from inquiry. On the contrary, as stated in section 99 of the Constitution Act, a Superior Court judge shall remain in office during good behaviour. Therefore, an appropriate system for the review of judicial conduct is crucial to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
It is from this standpoint that the Canadian Judicial Council was created. The council is the only organization mandated to determine when the obligation of good behaviour under section 99 of the Constitution Act has been violated, as well as which type of misconduct is serious enough to merit the removal of a judge.
[Translation]
Certainly not all complaints warrant a recommendation for removal. Indeed, the vast majority of complaints received by the council are not within the council’s jurisdiction or have no merit, often because they are not related to judicial conduct, but rather to the decision rendered by the judge. This brings me to the current process and what Bill C-9 will reform.
[English]
Currently, a full judicial conduct review process is composed of five stages within the council. The first two stages have been qualified by the courts as screening stages. The third stage of the process is a review panel that will decide whether an inquiry panel needs to be created to decide if the matter is serious enough to merit removal of a judge. Under Bill C-9, the review panel will be able to impose other types of remedies for misconduct, such as private or public apologies, counselling or continuing education. The fourth level of the process is an inquiry panel that makes findings of fact and may recommend removal of the judge. If the inquiry panel recommends removal, then we move to the last stage of the process, where a minimum of 17 members of the council must consider the inquiry report and recommendations.
Under Bill C-9, if a review panel refers the complaint to a hearing panel, and if the hearing panel recommends removal, the judge will be able to appeal that decision within the council. Bill C-9 provides for this appeal mechanism so that the council will deal with any appeal application in a more rapid manner and as the appropriate authority and guardian of judicial conduct. One obvious improvement that Bill C-9 brings is efficiency of the whole process. Over the past years, we have witnessed how the current process may allow for lengthy delays due to multiple judicial reviews.
Overall, we agree that Bill C-9 aims to strike the right balance of fairness to both judges and complainants in order to maintain public confidence in the conduct review process, and we also agree that it aims to strike the right balance between accountability and judicial independence.
[Translation]
The council looks forward to the early passage of Bill C-9. We are confident that these changes will have a significant and positive impact on the judicial conduct process for the benefit of all Canadians.
[English]
We thank you for the opportunity to express the council’s views and for your excellent work.
The Chair: Thanks to both of you for your presentations.
As you know, we are in a small bind here. My suggestion is that we not begin the questions and answers until after we have voted. It will give Senator Dalphond time to think deeply about your presentations and formulate an intelligent question. Yours are always intelligent, Senator Patterson. Is it acceptable to the committee that we suspend our consideration until we’re able to return from voting? The voting is at 5:08. It would just be a somewhat interrupted process. Subject to the fact that we are asking our witnesses to stay a little longer, it would be a little more respectful to have a continuing dialogue.
In that respect, we will suspend until we are able to return. Apologies, once again, for the inconvenience.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we are reconvening after a brief suspension to continue our discussion with Mr. Giroux and Ms. Corado on Bill C-9.
Senator Dalphond: Mr. Chair, you gave me time to think about the question I was going to ask. I had so much trouble thinking about how I should vote respecting the bill, so I am proposing to leave my time to colleagues. If there’s any time left at the end, I’ll come back. I had the pleasure of having a briefing with these officials.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dalphond. Could I ask that we do our best — and I might be more forceful — to hold ourselves to five minutes so we don’t burden our witnesses excessively today, if that’s acceptable.
Senator Batters: To the Canadian Judicial Council, I just want to make sure I have some of my numbers correct here. Is it correct that the Canadian Judicial Council receives approximately 600 complaints per year and that this usually results in only a few cases moving forward for investigation, and then only about one or two reaching the inquiry committee stage? Is that correct?
Ms. Corado: That would be correct. The number varies per year. It has been increasing, but I would say yes.
Senator Batters: It has been increasing?
Ms. Corado: Yes.
Senator Batters: All of those numbers, or just the number of complaints?
Ms. Corado: No, the number of complaints, because there are more appointed judges and more people are aware of the process and more people contest the decisions. The big number of complaints we receive is rejected because complainants might think the Canadian Judicial Council can do something about the decision, as if we were an appeal court, instead of a matter of conduct.
Senator Batters: Right. I’ve heard that one of the different areas you may receive a number of complaints about is from people who complain to you about provincially appointed judges. I’m wondering what percentage you would estimate of the number of complaints you receive in a year are for that reason, and then you have to let the people know that you, of course, and this particular procedure only deals with federally appointed judges.
Ms. Corado: I wouldn’t have a number for you, senator, but we do receive a number of complaints where they are complaining about a provincial judge. At that point, we don’t have jurisdiction. Every complaint will receive a decision to that effect, explaining why we cannot treat the complaint.
Senator Batters: Right. What would be your approximate —
Ms. Corado: My guesstimate?
Senator Batters: Is it a quite a common problem, or is that something that really doesn’t happen very often?
Ms. Corado: No, we do receive a number. I wouldn’t want to mislead you to give you a number, but we do see a number of complaints. The ones that we reject, like I said, are mostly about the decision and then I would say about jurisdiction.
Senator Batters: Right. And that would be included in that 600 complaints per year?
Ms. Corado: Correct.
Senator Batters: All right.
This new system in Bill C-9 replaces the council of the whole with a smaller appeal panel. I certainly understand that that step is meant to improve streamlining and efficiency, and I appreciate those goals, but we have to proceed cautiously here. Removing a judge is a very serious step — this is something I talked about in my second reading speech as critic — and it needs to be carefully considered. I wanted to hear from witnesses at our Legal Committee whether you find this particular change a sufficient protection of the rights of the judges undergoing this process.
Ms. Corado: I do believe so. Within Bill C-9, there would be an appeal mechanism within the council. That appeal panel would be composed of five judges, three senior judges and two judges that would be taken from the roster given by the association, as opposed to if it was in the court, you would have an appeal panel composed of three judges. Their rights will be protected. Clause 131 of Bill C-9 also states that this appeal panel would follow the same appeal rules from the province where the complaint originated. In my opinion, it is going to protect the rights of the judge.
It is also going to present something that had to be integrated from case law from the Supreme Court, saying that there must be a finality and authority for the Judicial Council, which is the organization mandated to do that and has that expertise. There is that advantage as well.
Senator Batters: Okay. That’s an interesting point you just made about how they would refer back to what applies in the province where the complaint originated. If it was a judge of the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, it still would go back to the rules of the province where that complaint originated?
Ms. Corado: Yes, for the complaints that originate in the province. For that, I would refer you to clause 131 of Bill C-9.
Senator Batters: What about — this is totally hypothetical because this is a case that doesn’t fall within this new system but would be under the existing system — the Supreme Court of Canada Justice Russell Brown situation? That occurred potentially in the United States. How would they determine what jurisdiction that would be?
Ms. Corado: I’m afraid, because it’s an ongoing case, I’m not at liberty to discuss even a hypothetical question. I apologize for that.
Senator Batters: I wonder who we can ask that question of. That’s an interesting answer. I’m not sure who we can ask that of. I understand the need not to impact on an ongoing case, but it’s important for people to know, especially since this issue was just brought up, how they would determine jurisdiction on something like that.
The Chair: As an example unrelated to ongoing matters, a few years ago, there was a complaint made about some judges who attended international conferences. I can’t remember whether they drank too much or they shouldn’t have gone to receptions. That was the allegation. All of that occurred outside of Canada. Can you speak about how that got handled or should get handled under your processes?
Ms. Corado: I don’t think that case — if I’m thinking of the correct case — got that far in the process. I think that was dismissed at the second stage. The current process doesn’t provide that appeal mechanism. It’s not a situation that exists. That question wouldn’t really come about because the Judicial Council right now doesn’t have an appeal panel.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for your work and for being here.
When Minister Lametti was here, I asked about some of the information about complaints and the numbers and disaggregated data. I’m curious as to how you collect the data, understanding completely that you can’t release information that involves privacy concerns. An obvious question in terms of transparency and for the public to have faith in the system is to be able to know the number of complaints. You’ve given some of that information, that some of it would be about judgments as opposed to the conduct of the judge. How will that be reported out in the future? How will you disaggregate in terms of whether it’s a complaint about racism or misogyny or some other form of discrimination, or that it’s unfounded because it has to do with the judge’s legitimate decision-making power, if I can put it that way?
Ms. Corado: Our current system allows us to enter information about the complaint and then, of course, a number, and see what number of complaints is dismissed at the first stage, second stage and so on.
We voluntarily report. As of now, we are happy to see this mandatory reporting in Bill C-9. I believe that would be clause 161 of the bill that specifies the mandatory requirements for reporting. Council could add, at that point, more of what I was just saying: which ones are dismissed because of jurisdiction, which ones are dismissed because they were complaints about the decision. All of that is allowed by the database that we have at council, so it wouldn’t be much of a problem.
Senator Pate: How does the process of the types of complaints you have feed into the recommendations around the education process, for instance? You may think that’s probably a question for somebody else, but I’m asking you because one of the recommendations or one of the avenues now can be to send for some kind of remediation, education and that sort of thing. How would you decide when to trigger an educational response?
Ms. Corado: That is a really good question. I think that would be up to the decision makers. It would be the review panel that would have the power to order counselling or any other type of education.
Right now, the Canadian Judicial Council has only one remedy, which is removal, but there are cases that would call, perhaps, for some type of coaching or any other type of education. With Bill C-9, we will have that opportunity. It’s just striking the right balance on deciding when the decision makers — in that case the review panel — decide that a communication course or any other courses offered by the NGA or other organizations could be beneficial.
Senator Pate: Will you be keeping track? For instance, I can think of a number of situations where it would have been hard to have a complaint against the judge, but there was very clear racism or sexism in the decision making, and a pattern of those may occur. Will you be keeping track of those sorts of patterns? That’s part of why I’m interested in disaggregated data. Maybe it doesn’t rise to a disciplinary offence, but there are clearly patterns of ignorance, perhaps, or, worse yet, discriminatory attitudes towards folks. When you see an accumulation of 5, 10 or 15 complaints along those lines, it may not rise to the point of judicial misconduct in your view, but it may very well signal a need for some other kind of measure.
Ms. Corado: Yes, I agree. A pattern would certainly be a signal that coaching or education is needed on that front.
With Bill C-9 too, any complaint that alleges discrimination would actually skip the first step and would go straight to a review member. We would for sure keep track of the types of complaints and act on that as necessary.
Senator Pate: So you will be able to follow up. Right now, the public doesn’t know how you would determine whether that had been followed up on because we don’t get that kind of data.
Mr. Giroux: If I may add, senator, as you know, the council has established policies for judges in terms of the number of education days they should be devoting themselves to during the course of a year. In terms of issues that may give rise with one judge of the court, the Chief Justices pay close attention to any issues that may arise and may make strong recommendations to that judge as to the future training he or she should receive.
The Chair: Thank you, both.
Senator Klyne: Welcome again.
I would like to touch upon transparency and accountability. Ms. Corado, could you please brief this committee on how the Canadian Judicial Council keeps complainants and the broader public informed on the progress and outcome of judicial conduct processes? How would this change, if at all, moving forward with Bill C-9?
Ms. Corado: Review procedures provide now that, for example, when there’s a disposition of a complaint, we inform the complainant, so they get the decision. Right now, they get a summary from the executive director of the reasons for the decision. Under Bill C-9, they will get the decision. If there’s personal information, for example, that would be redacted.
Senator Klyne: Bill C-9 provides for an appeal mechanism — I think it might have been touched on earlier — within the council with the possibility of further appeal to the Supreme Court with leave. Beyond the welcome efficiency and expedited process derived from this change, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the other advantages within such an appeal mechanism as opposed to judicial review proceedings before the Federal Court and/or the Federal Court of Appeal.
Ms. Corado: That would definitely be the more rapid way of treating complaints. Right now, judicial reviews can add lengthy delays to the process. Within council, then, once an appeal panel is formed and a decision is going to be reviewed by the appeal panel, those delays will be reduced. If I can put it this way, the process will be moving up instead of sideways. Instead of contesting every decision of the council before the courts with a judicial review application, certain decisions can be contested before an appeal panel. Once that decision is disposed of, there are other mechanisms for the judge to continue.
Mr. Giroux: If I may add, senator, I think you put your finger on the reason this bill is required — more efficiency, less time in resolving matters and less money devoted to the judicial conduct process. These judicial reviews that Ms. Corado spoke of have made it so that, in some cases, the matters have gone beyond the time — in terms of years — it should take to resolve them. This has really been the impetus for the council in calling for more reform so there’s a more efficient process that is less time consuming and less costly.
Senator Klyne: In this regard, do you have any concerns that Bill C-9’s appeal mechanism might impinge upon the procedural fairness for the judge subject to discipline?
Ms. Corado: Could you repeat the question, please?
Senator Klyne: Do you have any concerns that Bill C-9’s appeal mechanism might impinge on procedural fairness for the judge subject to discipline?
Ms. Corado: No, I don’t believe so. All the rights of the judge will be respected. It provides more expertise, in my opinion, having five judges — three of them senior judges who are familiar with the process and two of them designated in the roster from the association. I don’t believe that rights will be compromised. They will not only be kept, but there will be more expertise added to the process.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much to both of you for being here.
My questions are further to what Senator Pate was asking. First, under clause 9, things other than a removal from office could be imposed on a judge found guilty of misconduct, such as continuing education or providing an apology. What if a judge does not then follow education that has been set out? Apparently, judges don’t have mandatory education training. They can decide not to have that training. How can you push that?
Mr. Giroux: Under the new bill, in the event of a decision that a judge should follow some training in some specific area, there may be an arrangement reached with the judge so that they will agree to follow some training. Right now, that is not allowed for in the act. It’s by consent of the judge.
They do come back to us. The council is informed that the training has taken place and the judge has followed it. If a judge were not to do so under the new regime, I would venture to say this would certainly be cause for complaint.
Senator Jaffer: Earlier — Senator Pate covered this — we talked about discrimination. What kinds of discrimination complaints come before you?
Ms. Corado: Often we see complaints saying that the judge might have been biased against fathers or mothers. That happens a lot in the context of family law. Of course, the test for bias is high. A simple allegation without any substantive evidence to that happens a lot. It might just be my impression, but I would say that is the most common allegation of discrimination that we’ve received.
Senator Jaffer: So you don’t see allegations of racism and sexism?
Ms. Corado: We have seen those, but if you asked me what kind of discrimination under the Human Rights Act, which is what Bill C-9 goes to, it would be more within the family context — like if a judge rules in favour of the mom in a custody battle, for example, or in favour of the father. That’s what we see the most.
Senator Jaffer: What about systemic racism? What about sexism? If those complaints came in front of you, what would you do?
Ms. Corado: We treat them like every other allegation of discrimination and bias.
Senator Jaffer: If I understood you well in your presentation, you said that there are some you would not proceed with. Some allegations you would not proceed with because they are frivolous or not something that should be entertained any further. This doesn’t happen with racism or sexism?
Ms. Corado: No. Every allegation is taken seriously, but as the case law provides, there has to be something to it. We receive the allegations, and the Canadian Judicial Council would investigate and would apply the test of bias. With that in hand, we will dispose of the allegation if there is no merit to it, or it will continue if there is merit.
Senator Jaffer: I am going to ask you a difficult question. Say it’s a racism question. I’m not trying to be rude, but it’s people who are of a different race who are making the decision. How can the public have confidence in it?
Ms. Corado: I will just try to rephrase it to make sure I understood. If the complainant is raising an allegation of racism and the judge is of a different race —
Senator Jaffer: In making the decision, whether it is or not.
Ms. Corado: Yes, in making the decision. There are different tools at our disposal. For example, we will look at the claim. We can look at the transcript and listen to the recordings and see if there is any merit to the complaint.
I would say that, normally, if someone is raising an allegation of racism, it’s probably because the judge was of a different race. But for that matter, we have to look more into it. Sometimes it could be a matter of impression. As I said, reviewing the transcript, reviewing the decision itself, reviewing the recording, hearing the tone of the voice and the language used will be helpful to make a determination.
Mr. Giroux: I would just add, senator, that under Bill C-9, clause 90 provides, as you know, that any complaint related to discrimination or harassment shall not be dismissed by the screening officer and shall be sent to the reviewing member immediately.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I welcome both of you. I am trying to understand. Ms. Corado, you referred to two important elements, accountability and judicial independence. I would like you to help us understand to what extent Bill C-9 will reduce a feeling of impunity on the part of some sitting judges. We’ve heard that a lot from witnesses who have appeared before us.
Section 102 says that the review committee may dismiss the complaint or take one or more actions if it is not a case that should be dismissed. A series of actions are then listed in paragraphs (a) to (g). These include ordering the judge in question to undergo therapy or continuing education. If the person refuses that therapy or continuing education, am I correct in understanding that the process can end there? My concern is that there is nothing that tells us that the process has to go any further.
Commissioner, when you said that this could be the basis for another complaint, that’s what I call “it can end there.” Can you reassure us? We’re talking about a person for whom a committee has deemed it necessary that action be taken. In the event that the person does not want to accept those measures, is it possible that the process could end there?
Mr. Giroux: If I implied that it would end there —
Senator Dupuis: No, you didn’t imply that, I’m the one putting that hypothesis forward. I don’t want to make you assert things. I did understand when you said that this could be the subject of a new complaint. I’m very concerned about that, because my perception is that, basically — and this is my interpretation — it can end there. If the process doesn’t lead to a new complaint, you would agree that it won’t go any further. Will that reassure people who are already having difficulty filing complaints? Let’s take the example of women who were abused in the first place. Will the prospect of the process not going further reassure them? I doubt it. I don’t know if you can answer that question.
Mr. Giroux: In my experience, given the importance that council attaches to judicial conduct and to conducting judicial conduct processes well, I can assure you that the process would not end if a judge refused to take a training course, for example, that they had committed to attend.
First, there would be a record of whether or not the training was taken. Then, on the council staff side, the Chief Justice or Chief Justices responsible for reviewing the case would be notified. Then there would be feedback. The file would not be closed until the training was fully completed.
Senator Dupuis: I don’t mean to interrupt, but I would like to continue. I’m not questioning the good faith of anyone in the system. I’m trying to see what is being put in place in the institution to make sure —
My other question is about communicating the decision. Section 103 says that the review committee communicates its decision to all sorts of people, but not to the complainant, unless it dismisses the complaint. Did I understand that correctly?
In other words, this is about transparency. There are complaints about a transparency problem at the moment. We are told that this will be fixed and that the process will be much more efficient. We are willing to believe that. However, I am talking about transparency, not on the part of individuals, but on the part of the system.
Mr. Giroux: I will answer quickly, at the risk of repeating myself, and let Ms. Corado add to the question about complainants.
The follow-up that is done now ensures that we know whether the person has taken the steps to which they consented under the current system. Under the new system, we will do the same follow-up. It also ensures that the file is not closed until all steps related to the complaint and the complaint process are completed. Of course, this means that the person must have completed the necessary training and made the necessary apology. The file will not be closed in this regard.
In terms of how to communicate the decision to the complainant, if Ms. Corado will allow me to do so, I will yield to her.
Ms. Corado: If I may reassure you, things would certainly not end there. That would add to the seriousness of the case. If someone refused a penalty imposed under section 102, the complainant would be informed of the contents of the file. I can assure you that it would indeed add to the seriousness of the case if someone refused to comply with a penalty.
[English]
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you for being here.
Ms. Corado, the current procedures for misconduct complaints for federally appointed judges is set out in Canadian Judicial Council policy documents and bylaws, but as I understand it, under Bill C-9, these procedures are now codified in the Judges Act. Is that okay with you? Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Corado: Now that it’s all being codified, it will be easier to implement. That doesn’t stop the Canadian Judicial Council from creating more bylaws, if necessary, to clarify and expedite the process. I think it’s a great thing that it has been codified. It still gives the Canadian Judicial Council the room to create and adapt the procedure. This is a process that has been used for 50 years. I do believe that with any change, any amendment to any law, there might be growing pains. Having the opportunity to amplify the already codified rules is a great option to have.
Senator D. Patterson: I did ask the Minister of Justice about the power under the current Judges Act and under Bill C-9 for a Minister of Justice or provincial or territorial Attorney General to make a complaint whereby the Canadian Judicial Council must establish a full hearing and whether that might compromise the need to protect the judiciary from political influence. The minister said, “No, anyone can make a complaint, including those cabinet ministers.” I just want to know, could you give us a rough idea how often that happens? Is it rare or commonplace?
Ms. Corado: It is very rare. It’s probably happened a handful of times since the creation of the Canadian Judicial Council for the last 50 years. It’s something that exists currently within the Judges Act, and it is being transferred, if I can put it that way.
Senator D. Patterson: I have a very quick question for Mr. Giroux, please. You said you look forward to us giving the bill third reading. Are you telling us the bill is fine and there is no need for any improvements or changes?
Mr. Giroux: Senator, I think the consensus amongst the various organizations is — I don’t know that there’s a consensus for a perfect bill, but I think this is something that everyone accepts is a good way forward and at this point would like it passed, indeed. I don’t think anyone wants to reopen the debate on their various positions on some of the more minor points. Basically, this is something that certainly the council wants adopted as quickly as possible.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Welcome again, and thank you for your patience. I have two questions. I will ask them and get out of the way.
I am looking at clause 84, on diversity, which starts by saying:
As far as possible, the Council shall name persons who reflect the diversity of the Canadian population to the roster of judges …
I don’t know what “as far as possible” means. I wonder if you do and if you have sufficient information around how to interpret that. That would be my first question.
My second question is a follow-up to Senator Pate’s question about education. In this bill, education is mentioned, of course, in relation to a penalty. You’ve talked about educating judges. What more would you need to ensure that there is proper education and training for judges? This bill doesn’t really speak to it, other than as a penalty, from what I can see. What more is needed there?
Mr. Giroux: I can start with clause 84 and then allow Ms. Corado to add to my answer. Then I can take on the other question, if that’s okay.
I’m not sure what the “as far as possible” means. I can tell you that, within the council, we’ve obviously taken a look at this provision already. Ms. Corado has been working on establishing new procedures and ensuring that the rosters, for example, not only respect what is already provided for under the bill, but that we also ensure that we have rosters and pools of judges who may participate in the process that reflect Canada’s diversity.
Ms. Corado: If I might say, in this roster, we are looking at some of the elements — geographical representation, race, gender and pretty much everything that comes under the umbrella of diversity — so it is something that is going to be implemented. I would agree that the language thus far might be misleading, but we are including everything that comes under the umbrella of diversity for those rosters.
Mr. Giroux: And as to the question with regard to education, you are correct that this bill provides for it in the context — I think the word you used is “penalty,” but the council has been working very hard on judicial education in the recent past. Obviously, Parliament has enacted some changes to the Judges Act in terms of education. This is one of the core functions of the council. It takes it very seriously. It has, in the recent past, established policies to ensure that newly appointed judges follow an intensive training course when they are newly appointed and that judges who have been judges, who are not newly appointed, if I can put it that way, follow at least ten days of judicial education every year, including training on law related to sexual assault, for example.
I can tell you that, for the most part, I would venture to say that judges not only participate in the programs that are approved by the Canadian Judicial Council, but they participate in the annual meetings of their courts, which usually include an educational component. It’s something that is very important to the council, and I think the council takes pride in the fact that we’ve evolved since a few years ago in terms of judicial education for judges. We are well regarded across the world in that area as well as with organizations such as the National Judicial Institute.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: I have one brief question myself before we go to a short second round.
This is really a follow-up to the question of Senator Dupuis where she asked about the question of whether a judge is expected to conduct continuing education as a form of sanction. Only the Canadian Judicial Council and the Chief Justice will know whether that got fulfilled or not. I’m not familiar with the large number of new complaints filed by Chief Justices against their own puisne judges, so it worries me a little bit about whether we need a second complaint.
The reason I oppose this dilemma is that up until now, the Canadian Judicial Council has been in the business of kind of an all-or-nothing decision. Either we send it forward for the potential for removal, or we have some informal sanctions but no real power, and this legislation creates a gradation of sanctions. I’m wondering whether this might lead to a required approach that judges are often suspended until they complete the additional requirement, like continuing education or therapy for some addiction, for example, and the mechanism for keeping it in front of you is a suspension until that condition is fulfilled. That’s a common approach that’s taken, quite frankly, by the Senate. It’s also a common approach taken by the legal profession. I wonder if you could comment on that briefly.
Mr. Giroux: I can start off on a few things. There’s a lot in that question, so I’ll do my best, senator.
Firstly, again, I want to reiterate the fact that if a judge does not follow something that has been provided for by council following a complaint, there’s not necessarily a second complaint but that complaint will be continued — rather, the process with regard to the complaint and the study of the complaint will be pursued and not closed until that training or any other measure required for by the council is taken up.
With regard to Chief Justices making complaints about their judges, I would tell you that Chief Justices take that very seriously, and these are oftentimes some of the most serious complaints that the council will receive, a Chief Justice making a complaint against one of their own, if I can put it that way.
In terms of transparency, you are correct that there’s no mechanism in the bill right now that speaks to the closure of the complaint and that speaks publicly to it. Essentially, within the council, when a complaint process is public, then the council will speak to it and will speak to the different steps in that process. However, it’s not every case, and not every case is necessarily as serious as needed to make it public.
In terms of suspension, in the current course of business, I would tell you that this will be left with the Chief Justice of their court, whether they will assign new cases to a judge while a complaint is being processed or whether they will not, depending, again, on the seriousness of the matter.
The Chair: Thank you. I guess I’m inviting a bit of a different way of thinking about the process in light of the decision tree and the sanction tree that exists now. I don’t want to prolong this dialogue, because I want to give Senator Batters a chance to ask two minutes’ worth of questions and answers.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Tomorrow this committee will be hearing from the Advocate Society. As you might know, they agree with this legislation and what it seeks to achieve in efficiency and streamlining processes, but they believe that Bill C-9 overcorrects and effectively eliminates external judicial oversight of the CJC’s actions and decisions. In their brief, the Advocacy Society states:
Bill C-9 creates a scheme in which the CJC is the investigator, the decision maker and the appellate authority with respect to allegations of judicial misconduct. Bill C-9 does not provide for any right of judicial review or appeal to any external body or court at any stage in the CJC process. An appeal is only available if the Supreme Court of Canada grants leave. As a result, the CJC’s administrative process and decisions are rendered practically immune from external review.
Given that the Supreme Court actually denies the vast majority of applications for leave to appeal — in 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave in only 8% of applications — does it concern you, the Canadian Judicial Council, that very few CJC decisions would ever be subject to review?
Ms. Corado: That is actually following the case law from the Supreme Court. Moreau-Bérubé, one of the cases, said:
The Council must serve its purpose with some degree of authority and finality, and its conclusions on questions of mixed law and fact should be afforded a high degree of deference …
The fact that the council will be the organization that will oversee the appeal mechanism doesn’t really pose a threat or any lost rights to the judge. It’s following the same case law that has been issued by the Supreme Court and lower courts, and that was affirmed in the case of Moreau-Bérubé, for example, and Therrien (Re) and all the other cases that relate to judicial conduct and the authority and expertise of the council to overview those matters. So I wouldn’t be concerned that the council is going to have its own appeal mechanism. It’s actually going in accordance with what the case law has been establishing over the past few years.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, and thank you, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Corado, for joining us and informing us in a very interesting dialogue. Again, my apologies for the interrupted nature of the dialogue with you. We very much appreciate you having joined us today to help inform us about the bill.
To our second panel, I’m going to begin by first apologizing for the delay in engaging with you. Some activities required us to be in the chamber earlier, and we have been an inconvenience to both the first panel and you. Thank you for hanging in there to join us.
We are joined on this panel by Catherine Claveau, President of the Barreau du Québec; Nicolas Le Grand Alary, Lawyer, Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs, joining via video conference. Welcome to both. From the Canadian Bar Association, we welcome Steeves Bujold, President; and Benjamin Piper, Member, Judicial Issues. From the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, with us are Husein Panju, Chair; and Sania Chaudhry, Board Member, by video conference.
As you generally know, we will ask each group to limit yourselves to five minutes, following which we will have a series of questions and conversations with senators. I’m going to invite Ms. Claveau to begin.
[Translation]
Catherine Claveau, President of the Quebec Bar, Barreau du Québec: Mr. Chair, senators, I am Catherine Claveau, President of the Quebec Bar. I am accompanied by Nicolas Le Grand Alary, lawyer at the Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs.
The Barreau du Québec thanks you for inviting us to participate in the consultations on Bill C-9, which constitutes a major reform of the rules surrounding judicial ethics in Canada.
The Barreau du Québec welcomes the bill and supports its objective of replacing the process by which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. With our experience in the field of disciplinary justice, as well as in the administration of justice, we would, however, like to make certain comments on the bill in order to improve it.
First, we are proposing changes to the rules surrounding the understanding of official languages by judges and non-lawyers of the council. In our view, the criterion used in the bill to “take into account” whether hearings and documentary evidence can be presented in both official languages is not sufficient to ensure that committee members can truly understand all submissions, both written and oral, as well as documentary evidence, if any.
In addition, the Barreau du Québec welcomes the initiatives related to the bill to promote diversity in the composition of the lists of judges and lists of non-legal staff on the council. Diversity in the judiciary contributes to emphasizing the legitimacy of the judicial process.
In addition, we welcome the addition of the authority for the council and its various committees to take action when the complaint involves facts that do not meet the objective seriousness to remove a judge from office. We recommend, however, that the structure of the bill be revised to make it clear that any complaint about a judge can be received regardless of whether it results in removal or a mere reprimand.
We deplore, however, the many steps leading to the removal of a judge. The new process of inquiry that may lead to the removal of a judge is complex and consists of a number of steps, which vary depending on the initial form of the complaint. We encourage you to review the proposed process with particular attention to steps that overlap or are based on the same criteria for dismissal.
Also, the bill allows for anonymous complaints to be received and processed, as long as they have been reviewed by two council members who consider them to be in order. We believe that, if an anonymous complaint contains all the required information, it should follow the normal process.
In several places, the bill requires the council to make certain information public. In the interest of transparency, we propose to amend the bill so as to enhance the requirement to make this information public by explicitly stating that it must be available on the board’s and the Department of Justice Canada’s website.
In closing, we noted that there are substantive differences between the French and English versions of the bill. For example, the French version refers to the notion of “observateur équitable,” whereas the English version uses the notion of “fair‑minded observer.”
These two terms are not equivalent and the language should be revised to avoid differences between the two language versions of the legislation. Further comments are included in our submission. Again, we thank you for the invitation and are available to answer any questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Claveau.
Mr. Bujold.
[Translation]
Steeves Bujold, President, Canadian Bar Association: Mr. Chair, senators, good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
My name is Steeves Bujold and I am the president of the Canadian Bar Association. My colleague Benjamin Piper is a member of the Subcommittee on Judicial Issues. He will assist me in answering your questions.
We are pleased to be here to support Bill C-9.
First and foremost, we pay tribute to the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation, the traditional custodians of this land on which we gather today. The CBA is a national association of more than 37,000 lawyers from across the country. Its purpose is to improve the law and the administration of justice.
As president, I have identified two priorities: judicial independence and diversity, including for the legal profession.
Our association has long been concerned about judicial independence in the judicial conduct review process. As far back as 2014, nearly 10 years ago, in our recommendations to the Canadian Judicial Council, we emphasized that the process must create a balance between judicial independence on the one hand and public confidence in the administration of justice on the other hand.
In our view, the amendments proposed by Bill C-9 respect that balance.
With respect to diversity, the CBA has long encouraged the federal government to ensure that our judiciary reflects the diversity of the population it serves. This is something that must be visible in the judicial conduct review process.
It is important to us that diverse legal experts welcome this new process. In our view, the fact that the bill promotes transparency and participation by non-lawyers is an important step in the right direction.
The CBA supports the changes proposed in the bill because they strengthen judicial accountability, promote transparency, and create efficiencies in judicial resources.
In particular, we support three changes made through the bill. First, the new process filters out allegations that are not serious enough to warrant removal of a judge. The public hearing board reports directly to the Minister of Justice, which is a significant improvement, and finally, years of pensionable service as a judge after the beginning of the inquiry process are not taken into account in the case of removal.
[English]
We now suggest introducing an amendment to the bill that would create an intermediate level of appeal from a final decision of the Canadian Judicial Council to the Federal Court of Appeal. Although, at first blush, this would seem to add delay, the process, overall, remains much more efficient.
We see two important reasons for an appeal as of right to a court below the Supreme Court of Canada. First, as a matter of natural justice, it ensures that there is external oversight to the process. Second, the judiciary is so important to Canada’s democracy that the public must see that judicial discipline is carried out in an open and accountable manner with clear avenues of appeal and redress. Another benefit of a right of appeal is that the Federal Court of Appeal is likely to give detailed reasons so the judge accused of misconduct and the public will then know why an independent court concluded the way it did. This enhances the Canadian Judicial Council’s credibility by the transparent review of its process and decision making.
To conclude, the judicial branch is a pillar of our democracy and must be accountable to and accepted by the public. By creating a clear, open process for judicial discipline where the Canadian Judicial Council’s actions can be meaningfully appealed to an appeal court and by having review proceedings conducted in open court, the public retains confidence in the judicial discipline system’s integrity. Justice will be seen to have been rendered.
We encourage you to adopt Bill C-9, recommending an amendment to the appeal process. We will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bujold.
We will now hear from the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. Ms. Chaudhry, take it away.
Sania Chaudhry, Board Member, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association: Honourable senators and members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, thank you for inviting us to speak to you today on behalf of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, also known as the CMLA. I am Sania Chaudhry, Board Member, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, and with me is my colleague Husein Panju, National Chair, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. I will give opening remarks, and Mr. Panju will answer questions during the question period.
By way of introduction, the CMLA is a not-for-profit association dedicated to advocating on behalf of self-identifying Muslim members of the legal profession. We have regularly appeared to testify at Senate Standing Committees on various issues. Our organization consists of five provincial chapters, which include 200 members across the country, and our members are from all areas of the legal community across Canada, including several current judges. We are regularly granted leave to intervene in appellate court matters as well as to provide legal input in government consultations. Within the last year, we have also testified on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
We commend the government for taking steps to amend the Judges Act, and we are generally supportive of the passage of Bill C-9. The recommendations we are noting today are rooted in the principles of transparency, equity and fairness. We respect the challenging work the government has undertaken and the challenging work of the Canadian Judicial Council, and we really appreciate the opportunity to share our insights today.
By way of context, the CMLA has a special interest in Bill C-9 after recently discovering, through document disclosure in another file, a then-secret policy that was supposed to be remedial but instead ended up targeting individuals of the Muslim faith. This was an especially egregious policy from the Tax Court of Canada, which bolsters the need for greater transparency in the judicial complaints process. We are happy to provide further context on the specific issue during the questions.
In preparing our submissions for today’s committee hearing, we actively consulted with our members across the country and engaged in research and review of the amendments. Here are the themes that came from that.
The first theme is of transparency. Amendments to the Judges Act should include full, public reasons of all decisions at all stages in the process, not just at the reduced hearing panel and full hearing panel stages. This is essential to instill public confidence in the judicial system, and it is in line with the open court principle.
The second theme that arose was discrimination. The sections in the act about remedial measures that can be taken must include an express subsection that such measures cannot be discriminatory. Also, the section in the act regarding screening criteria, which currently states that discrimination cannot be screened out, must be expanded to state that improper conduct on discriminatory grounds cannot be screened out. These measures are required in the interest of equity.
The third theme is about judicial continuing education. There should be mandatory judicial continuing education on equity, diversity and inclusion, including seminars on matters related to sexual assault law, social context, systemic racism and discrimination. This is currently optional in the bill. This benefits the judicial system by being proactive. The idea is that education will lessen the incidents of misconduct on equity, diversity and inclusion grounds and also by equipping the judiciary to be more culturally competent in dealing with the diverse public who appear before them.
The last theme is collection of statistics and information. The annual report on complaint statistics should identity the nature of complaints, for instance, whether they were on discriminatory grounds and what those grounds were. Data is key in measuring trends and detecting gap areas so that a proactive approach can be taken. For instance, if there are more complaints based on racial grounds, then the council would know to implement continuing education on that topic.
As an aside, Bill C-9 does not specifically refer to the judicial appointment process, but a more fair approach will increase public confidence and, in turn, lead to a more accessible and diverse bench.
In conclusion, we are so grateful to be here today. Equity‑seeking groups such as ours have a special interest in the regulation of the judiciary and should be consulted. We would like to note that, in the future, equity-seeking groups should be consulted earlier on in the amendment drafting process.
Thank you for your time, and we are happy to provide greater detail on the themes that we mentioned and any other areas of value to this committee in the question period. My colleague Husein Panju will be answering any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Chaudhry.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much. We appreciate all of you being here and the important perspective you have brought and the types of issues you are challenging us to think about as we look at this bill.
First, to the Canadian Bar Association, we don’t often get to have the president here, so thank you for coming today. I would like to give you an opportunity to explain the very important amendment you are suggesting that we bring. I think it talks about the exact sort of issues that I’ve been concerned about and have been wanting to have people with your type of expertise come here to have a discussion with us.
[Translation]
Mr. Bujold: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Batters.
We share the goals of this bill to improve efficiency, minimize costs, and reduce delays. It is a delicate balance we are trying to strike between these goals: maintaining public trust and keeping the system robust and fair.
For us, there is a necessary amendment, which is the authorization to appeal to a court of law, the Federal Court of Appeal, to correct any errors that may occur in the process. No system is perfect, and any system in which peers pass judgment on a colleague can lead to miscarriages of justice.
Unfortunately, appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is an extremely limited remedy because of the criteria that exist — rightly so — in the Supreme Court Act for bringing a dispute to the court. Moreover, the court has repeatedly said that its role is not to correct the errors of lower courts. So even on a case on which there may be a consensus that an error has occurred, or even if several independent observers share that view, the Supreme Court may not be able to take the case because it would not, for example, meet the national interest test that is absolutely necessary to bring a case before the court.
That is why we support this amendment, as do other legal organizations, to allow this appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, which will not only benefit the judge against whom the allegations are made, but may also benefit the attorney responsible for presenting the case before the review panel and the appeal panel.
[English]
Senator Batters: Thank you so much.
I’m not sure if you heard it earlier, but Senator Clement, I thought, had a very good catch in that she pointed out the wording of clause 84, which talks about diversity on the council and says:
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.
I am curious to get your comment on that. From my point of view, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the wording “as far as possible” in a statute. It doesn’t seem like great statutory wording.
[Translation]
Mr. Bujold: That is an excellent question, Senator Batters.
You have to ask yourself: If these words didn’t exist, would it be possible to fully reflect the diversity of the Canadian population, especially if we are talking about intersectionality? There is the cultural, linguistic and geographic issue. There is the issue of Indigenous and First Nations people. Within a defined group, which is the list of judges, and a potentially very large group, which is the non-lawyers, there may be elements of diversity that cannot be respected in some contexts. The legislature may have wanted to anticipate those situations where great efforts are made to respect diversity, but where it is impossible, for example, to have a person representing such and such a community on one of these committees.
In our view, the words “as far as possible” and “dans la mesure du possible” mean that great efforts are being made to ensure that diversity is central to appointments. It is a cardinal principle and it is very important. It is an important step in the right direction to have included a specific provision on diversity, which will allow for questions and answers if diversity is absent. It may not be perfect, but it is an important step.
[English]
Senator Batters: I would say it’s far from perfect, especially where it says as applied “to the roster of lay persons,” which, of course, would be the vast majority of Canada. It may be okay for judges.
I have a quick question for the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. Did the government consult your association on this bill? If so, did the government respond adequately to the concerns that you have identified?
Husein Panju, Chair, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association: Thank you for the question, Senator Batters.
To be candid, as my colleague noted, no, we were not directly consulted on this bill, but we did have comments that were proposed at the House and for here as well.
As I think you and some of your colleagues mentioned last week, this bill is not simply a technical amendment about a technical process upon technical issues. As equity-seeking groups, we have a strong interest and expectation about the degree to which groups like ours will be consulted on matters such as this, especially when the complaints process only provides groups like ours a complaint as a mechanism to participate in the process. It is in everyone’s interest that these complaints be dealt with in a fair and transparent manner.
To be clear, we have additional amendments that we can speak about if I am afforded further questions. We are broadly supportive of the bill, but the process is often as important as the end result. The regulation of judges is an essential element of our system, and we can have great respect for our federal judges but also expect that they be held to high standards through a process like this.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to all the panel experts here.
I have a lot of questions going on in my mind here, but let me start with the Quebec bar, if I may. In a memo that I will refer to, in the past years Canadians have had to, unfortunately, witness the lengthy delays occasioned by provision for multiple judicial reviews within the current process. Bill C-9 changes this, bringing much-needed efficiency in the judicial conduct process. In the context of discussing this change, the Barreau du Québec’s memorandum reminds us that litigants are the real beneficiaries of judicial confidence. Would you please elaborate on that point?
[Translation]
Nicolas Le Grand Alary, Lawyer, Secretariat of the Order and Legal Affairs, Barreau du Québec: Indeed, public confidence in institutions depends on an effective and efficient justice system. Care must be taken to ensure that there is a process in place to ensure that complaints that involve the judiciary are handled efficiently, produce results, and that there is no unnecessary complexity in the process.
We point out in our brief that the new process, while it has many improvements, has several steps that are redundant in some respects, and we recommend making some improvements. However, indeed, the quality of the justice system depends on trust in the various actors, including the judges.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Just on that note, maybe I will go to the Canadian Bar Association with regard to your amendment for intermediate appeal. You were basing that on the basis that there could be some mistakes made in the process, so this gives another avenue with this intermediate appeal, which adds another step to this. Is there yet another process that could be taken to add another step to this in case they make some mistakes at that level? Following the law and the precedents of all of this, how many mistakes can you make?
Mr. Bujold: At this stage, there are a number of processes through a much more streamlined internal process for dealing with it, which is vertical and roughly comparable to most professional regulatory processes. We are proposing an external review. We heard from the CJC about the decision in Moreau‑Bérubé from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court and the federal courts have consistently confirmed there is a constitutional obligation to have all administrative bodies, including the CJC, subject to judicial review. It’s that fundamental external review by a body of judges sitting as a court of appeal in that constitutional capacity that we’re advocating for.
Senator Klyne: I want to take another run at what I would probably see as a representative roster. The council should name persons who reflect the diversity of the Canadian population to the roster of judges and to the roster of laypersons. As I understand it, that’s at the discretion of the council, and there is no limit or specified number. I think you were referencing a roster that is representative of Canada. That would be a roster of judges and the roster of laypersons. Representative — I think that can only mean “ethnic” and probably some other inclusive areas that you’ve also mentioned. That becomes very unwieldy. Can you think of some better language to improve this — something that is representative of Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Bujold: This is a difficult question. Diversity can be defined in different ways; some are known, some are less known, and there are groups that are very large, others that are smaller. There are communities that have very few representatives, and there is also gender diversity.
[English]
Senator Klyne: I will stop you because I am running out of time. If you have some better language to use for this, for the emphasis of diversity, maybe you could submit it to the clerk, and we will take it into consideration.
Mr. Bujold: We will certainly look at it and come back to you. Diversity is a really important subject for our association. Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to all three of you for being here.
Thirty years ago, when I was also actively involved in diversity issues at the bar, we prepared a report called Touchstones. That was in 1992. The report explored discrimination against women and ethnic groups. They defined it — it’s not my definition — as those who didn’t look like the traditional White male role model. The Touchstone task force found barriers for women and racialized individuals at all levels — barriers to entry to law schools, poisoned atmospheres, articling positions, and the list goes on. Do you think that Bill C-9 addresses the diversity deficits in the judiciary that were identified in the report?
[Translation]
Mr. Bujold: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Jaffer. The answer is yes, as I said in my opening remarks, it’s a big step in the right direction. This year, we’re celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the Touchstones report. The report was commissioned by the Canadian Bar Association and overseen by former justice Bertha Wilson, the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. It intended to take stock of the legal profession in 1992-93. The findings were very disquieting, so many recommendations were made to improve diversity in the Canadian justice system and the judiciary.
Senator Jaffer: Give me an example.
Mr. Bujold: The role of women in the legal profession.
Senator Jaffer: The women’s issue seems quite normal to me, but other communities —
Mr. Bujold: Ethnic communities, First Nations —
Senator Jaffer: Ethnic groups and Indigenous people?
Mr. Bujold: Exactly. LGBTQ individuals, new arrivals, linguistic diversity… We’ve seen a great deal of progress in recent years, but we must recognize that we still have a long way to go. If you look at it, our judiciary still suffers from a lack of representation in terms of the diversity of Canada’s population.
This can’t be solved overnight, because we need candidates, but our association, for one, is doing a great deal of work to train candidates and help them prepare for judicial office, so that our governments, both current and future, have the opportunity to appoint diverse candidates to federal judicial office.
Senator Jaffer: I heard that reason a lot when I was a young lawyer, and many rulings were made in that context. You gave the same reason. That really disappoints me.
[English]
I have a question for you, Mr. Panju. You have said that there was indirect consultation. That bothers me. What is “indirect consultation”?
Mr. Panju: I may have used the word “indirect,” but what I meant to say is that while we were not specifically asked our opinion on this bill, we did provide unsolicited input on the bill, both with the House of Commons and again here today.
Senator Jaffer: Have you ever been consulted on legislation?
Mr. Panju: Yes, on occasion we have. We appreciate that the Justice Department has a large portfolio, and sometimes there are different perceptions as to which matters go to which groups. We have been consulted on a variety of matters that impact our membership, whether it be national security, diversity generally or how to best reach EDI goals. Unfortunately, this was not a bill on which we were consulted.
Senator Jaffer: Can you also provide specific solutions that would enable greater fairness and transparency either in the review of judicial conduct and/or the judicial appointment process?
Mr. Panju: Absolutely.
In terms of the appointment process, a lot of the discussion in the last few minutes has been about how we can get to language that would get us to the “as much as possible” diversity equation. If the roster of judges is meant to be diverse, then the overall pool of federal judges needs to be diverse as well. We are not at that point right now. There is no silver bullet we would suggest, but here are a few things: collection of stats is a big aspect. Some people, including today, have posed that the issue that there are not enough minorities who are applying for positions. Anecdotally, we don’t think that’s correct, but collecting stats is a good way to identify who is applying and who is being screened out at different stages. A greater amount of resources and will power to be transparent about judicial performance system is an important way to get there. Those are a few ideas in terms of getting greater diversity in judicial appointments.
In terms of transparency about the bill proper, we have a number of proposals. I will just touch on one for now that my colleague, Ms. Chaudhry, referenced. In terms of dismissals of different complaints, as you know, there are a number of stages — perhaps too many stages — complaints can go through. One of the concerns is that the CJC can already dismiss a complaint at any stage, but the requirement for reasons only applies later on down the process. The impact of that is that if complaints are being dismissed earlier on — perhaps they are meritorious, but they are being dismissed — there is a lack of public awareness and public transparency. One of our primary recommendations is to ensure that reasons are provided publicly for all sorts of dismissals so there is some accountability, both for the judges as well as for the CJC.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all our witnesses, both online and here, for appearing. It is great to have your input.
Mr. Bujold, I want to pick up where Senator Jaffer left off. You said it would be good to have reasons at all levels. What about the disaggregated data for the types of complaints being brought in? I think you were here when I asked the question of the previous panel. There are often situations — I will speak for myself — there are times when I have seen the accumulation of a pattern that might not be seen as sufficiently problematic for disciplinary purposes but that clearly shows patterns of discriminatory attitudes that could be accumulated. Do you see any way, as the bill is worded now, to incorporate that?
Ms. Chaudhry, you invited us to ask about the secret policy. Sorry, whenever I hear about secrets, I want to know. We are talking about transparency here. I would like to hear about that, also, and on the issue of data collection and how we create a fair but transparent process — if any of the rest of you want to comment on that as well.
Mr. Panju: Just to be clear, this is five minutes for both questions?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Panju: I want to make sure I don’t overstep. Thank you, Senator Pate. That is an excellent question. I know that last week, Senator Cotter had mentioned a similar aspect about the collection of statistics that really resonates with our organization.
What gets measured gets managed, but if there’s a lack of information about the types of complaints, not just the reasons for the dismissal but the characteristics of the complaints, this is information that is necessary to identify these trends with a large base. We don’t have proposed wording per se, but it may be useful to consider the CHRA grounds of discrimination that already exist in legislation and perhaps using those as characteristics that should be referred to.
I think the CJC might say they have the discretion to identify their own policies and procedures. We think that since this review process is already going on, it’s much more helpful to have these processes fixed by legislation. If, hypothetically, later on there’s a different CJC with a different perspective about which stats ought to be collected, then there will be some consistency to at least identify these trends over the long term.
In terms of the secret policy, I want to clarify that. We’re not trying to re-litigate this matter. I don’t think this is the forum or place for that. The issue that arose was our organization was part of a coalition with a few other groups that had initiated a judicial review regarding a different CJC decision regarding a federal judge. During the litigation document exchange process, we learned about a then-secret policy by the Tax Court which was of concern. What had happened was the Chief Justice of the Tax Court of Canada identified that one of its judges was under investigation based on perceived bias against Muslim individuals. Rather than remove or suspend this judge until that process wound itself out, the Chief Justice implemented a policy to prevent this judge from adjudicating on any files that would have any Muslim parties, agents or counsel. The judge was also meant to recuse himself from any file in which the counsel or litigants appeared to be of the Muslim faith. This policy was kept secret until we identified it through this process.
As you can expect, we view this as being very discriminatory and undermines our confidence of transparency in the judicial process. Beyond the practical nature of identifying whether someone is Muslim or not, which is rarely easily seen on the face of it, the discriminatory aspect really identifies and brings to core part of why we’re here, about why we need a more transparent process and why the complaint process is that important. We filed a complaint about this policy. Again, there are limited remedies, as you know. In response, the CJC simply said the Chief Justice recognized that there could have been better ways of carrying out their intentions and that they will apply this knowledge going forward. You can imagine that this didn’t give us much comfort. We didn’t even receive so much as an apology from the court.
Again, we are not trying to re-litigate the matter, but this is why transparency is important and why reasons are important. This is why we need a system that will be accountable to complainants, so they feel confident filing complaints and also having a system of justice that is accountable to all people.
Senator Clement: Welcome to all of you.
My questions are for Mr. Panju. I’ve been a Black lawyer for 32 years now. A few years ago, the Law Society of Upper Canada did some focus group consultation with Black lawyers. Although I am very grateful for my career and my legal education, I sat with lawyers who felt quite excluded from the profession. I don’t know if there’s anything in Bill C-9 that actually addresses the problem within the profession itself. I have heard all my life that there is difficulty filling spots because the candidates are not quite ready to be judges. The language in clause 84, while, of course, improper drafting, is triggering to me as a Black lawyer. “As far as possible” could mean “you’re not ready.” Sorry. I am expressing some emotion because this is personally troubling to me. Could you make some comments about the profession itself and about how you see that and whether Bill C-9 goes far enough in addressing some of those issues and whether I should be thinking about observations on that? I think there’s a deeper systemic problem here.
Mr. Panju: Thank you for your question and for sharing your experience, Senator Clement.
Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon perspective of racialized lawyers and legal professionals today. I know there has been a lot of progress made in the last few decades, but the numbers speak for themselves. We still haven’t reached a point where equity is meaningfully realized and that lawyers feel safe, especially lawyers from racialized backgrounds, even making comments like Senator Clement just mentioned.
In terms of clause 84 first, in fairness, I don’t know if the intention of this bill was to create more equity in the judicial appointments process, but in terms of the phrasing of “as much as possible,” as I mentioned earlier, it’s obvious the roster is only made up of federal judges who currently exist. I feel we should eventually get to a point where getting a diverse roster of judges isn’t such a monumental task and we’ll have enough judges already from diverse backgrounds, not just based on race but religion, geography, gender and other enumerative grounds that diversity is almost a given. Certainly, there’s a lot more that’s required to get to that point. I think that transparency in terms of the judicial appointments process is a big aspect, because as some of you know, there’s a lot of stuff you need to clear to even get to the point of becoming a judge. Often, people perceive it as an ivory tower. Sometimes you need to have mentors or role models who can walk you through how to get to that point.
There also needs to be greater expectation by our law societies to embrace that we are a nation of different groups and backgrounds. I won’t call out any in particular, but there are some law societies in which simply identification of race as an important factor is a controversial aspect, which is quite disappointing for the year we are in right now.
In terms of clearing up clause 84, I don’t have any proposed language right now. We’re happy to consult our members. It may be helpful to refer to the CHRA grounds which list out different types of groups and identities of groups. But again, in order to address the issue, it’s not going to take place through one amendment and one bill and one legislation. This needs to be a whole-of-government approach. Perhaps there could be a bill that can be advanced through this house, or perhaps it’s a policy that just needs to be worked on more definitively.
I think the collection of stats is a big aspect, and a willingness to identify what kind of country we want to be. Do we want to have a country in which our judges reflect the backgrounds of the people who come before it? Do we want a society in which people feel comfortable, even if they don’t agree with the decision, that it was done in a fair matter? If that’s the kind of society we want, we have to look seriously at the judges at the federal and provincial levels, and all adjudicators, to identify the barriers that people currently face.
All these aspects, although they may seem unrelated, all work together in terms of having a transparent and fair society. It’s not an easy question, which is why we’re not going to fix it in one bill. It needs a whole-of-government approach to look at the issues both from a racial lens and the intersectional approach as well.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Mr. Panju. Clearly, judge material.
The Chair: When Senator Clement gets the opportunity to do the appointments, stay by your phone.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My question is for Mr. Bujold of the Canadian Bar Association. You suggest replacing what’s provided for in Bill C-9 by adding a level of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. Would that be a final judgment?
Mr. Bujold: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Dupuis. No, because the bill would not exclude the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. So that would still be possible.
Senator Dupuis: Can you tell me how that addresses my concern about making the process more transparent? I find the complainant’s role in the process gets skimmed over. When it comes to imposing sanctions, recommendations and actions to a lesser degree than removal, I also find that the bill provides no guarantee that anything will happen if the individual refuses to do as they are told.
How would adding another level possibly reassure me?
Mr. Bujold: Briefly, if the individual refuses, it’s like the example I gave: The file is not closed until the sanction is completed. If a fine is issued and the individual doesn’t pay it, the file remains active. What was understood from the commissioner was that the file remains active and it’s possible to make another complaint. The process can be reactivated and the sanction can be revisited.
With respect to appeals, the bill greatly improves on the current process, and that’s why we support it. We are in an administrative system, after all. There’s no “court” or “council” in the process; they are all panels. We’re talking about a group of peers who make judgments based on the facts presented to them.
There’s a recent example of a case that was overturned by the Federal Court in Smith. The judge had accepted a dean’s position; a complaint was filed against him and the Federal Court denounced both the way the case had been managed and how the case ended.
No system is perfect. In our view, having a system of checks and balances in the Federal Court of Appeal is a safeguard to build Canadians’ confidence so that we can… Not every case is going to get to that stage.
There is something we haven’t talked about. Even in a very simple system, if the decision maker doesn’t manage the case by imposing short deadlines and requiring the parties to make progress, any case can be drawn out in some way. On the other hand, a complex multi-level proceeding can be expedited if the decision maker performs rapid case management. Finally, it’s said that horizontal judicial reviews seem much more difficult to do. We have a vertical system that will move much more quickly until completion.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you.
My question is for the Barreau du Québec, for Ms. Claveau and Mr. Le Grand Alary. In your brief, you referred to section 80, which talks about a “fair-minded observer” and an “observateur équitable.”
I put the question to the minister and Department of Justice officials. I was told that they have in fact reworded a concept originally formulated by the Supreme Court in a specific decision. Does that address your concern with respect to the comment you had made?
Mr. Le Grand Alary: Thank you for the question. We did see that Supreme Court decision when we did our analysis. Nevertheless, the fact remains that when we see criteria used in other legislation, particularly federal legislation, that refer to the notion of “fair-minded observer” or “observateur équitable,” normally, we see the equivalent terms of “reasonable person” or terms related to impartiality. Although this is the language used in the French version of the court’s decision, there is some variability in some legislation and in other jurisprudence. That’s why we made this comment.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, that answers my question. That’s why I asked the Department of Justice officials. Mr. Panju, I have a question for you. We saw what you said about the judicial recruitment pool. There’s a problem in the judicial recruitment pool right now, because it doesn’t reflect the Canadian population. We need to be aware of that.
I’ll use the Senate as an example. You may say that being a senator is easier than being a judge and requires fewer skills. I will say it for you. The fact remains that a political decision was made at one point to broaden the recruitment pool. When it comes to discrimination, if you don’t broaden the pool, you’re always going to have a hard time finding an individual to fit the minority you want to represent. Does Justice Canada consult you periodically on establishing policies to ensure that they take a systemic institutional look at the judge selection process, for example, or other issues like that?
[English]
The Chair: Ever so briefly, if you could, Mr. Panju.
Mr. Panju: Thank you, Senator Dupuis.
Rather than saying we have been consulted, I would say we have expressed our concerns and solutions to justice policy to have a more equitable pool. Again, in terms of transparency in the judicial appointments process, there’s a lack of transparency as well in terms of whether people advance or not and what the reasons are for that. That undermines people’s confidence and willingness to go through this long, arduous process. Again, I don’t think it’s a lack of willingness from potential candidates. I think it’s a lack of awareness and systemic barriers.
The Chair: Thank you.
My questions are primarily for you, Mr. Bujold, and let me ask them both. One option that would maintain the point that you made about appeals but also would keep the process fairly streamlined — and here I am borrowing from an observation of Senator Batters — would be appeals to the Supreme Court as of right. I’d invite you to comment on that briefly.
This has been a fabulous conversation, and in a moment I’ll ask the second question. I want to thank you all for your presentations.
This is a question related to diversity, to you, Mr. Bujold. You’ve worked in this area for a long time. The Canadian Bar Association has been a progressive leader going all the way back to the reports you’ve already referred to, Touchstones. You yourself are kind of living proof of the leadership of the Canadian Bar Association in terms of diversity. From your perspective, does this new system move the needle or move the bar adequately on those questions of diversity that are brought to bear on the decision-making process regarding judicial conduct?
[Translation]
Mr. Bujold: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Yes, in fact, great progress is being made on this issue by addressing diversity head on in a section, so that individuals can be added to the roster of judges as people from a diverse background.
It’s not just the idea of being a diverse individual; it’s also getting the opportunity to bring your values, your experiences, your message, your perspective. It’s much more than having… It’s very important to have diverse people. It’s everything you bring when you come from a diverse background. It’s a good step in the right direction. Unfortunately, we’re only talking about disciplining judges here, not their appointment for appointment’s sake, which is the real issue we should be addressing.
With respect to the second point, a right of appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada might be a useful remedy. However, this very rarely happens in court. As far as I know, only decisions where there is a dissent in the court of appeal can go to the Supreme Court as of right. The fact remains that if the complaint, if the judge under investigation is a Supreme Court justice, it’s a complex question of law. Can the rest of the court sit in judgment of an appeal by a colleague, and can enough justices who do not already have knowledge of the facts be assembled to have a quorum? It’s a pretty complex question, one that would perhaps be less of an issue in the Federal Court of Appeal, since there are enough judges to assemble a three-judge panel.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Before I invite Senator Dalphond to ask his question, I would observe that Ms. Claveau had to leave. I’m hoping, if I’m right in this, Mr. Le Grand Alary, that you are still available to answer questions on behalf of the Barreau.
[Translation]
Mr. Le Grand Alary: Absolutely.
Senator Dalphond: I’d like to thank the representatives of the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association, who happen to be from Quebec, as well as the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. You are key contributors and your input is greatly appreciated.
Mr. Bujold, I imagine that, considering the comments you’ve heard today, you who have very actively defended the rights of minorities and various groups such as the LGBTQ community, for which you have chaired several committees and been a member of the judicial appointments advisory committee in Quebec… I assume that, given everything you’ve heard today, you will come away even more open and aware of the key role you play in selecting candidates on the advisory committee for western Quebec — which includes Montreal and Gatineau.
However, my question is not about that, because that’s not really the focus of the bill. It’s more about judicial discipline.
You’re suggesting a right of appeal as of right to the Federal Court of Appeal. By suggesting that, are you also eliminating the hearing panel provided for in the new act? The hearing panel is made up of five judges; three chief justices, and two puisne judges who are not members of the council. The three chief justices cannot have been involved in the previous stages of the process. Therefore, you have a five-judge hearing panel and you’re suggesting going to the Federal Court of Appeal, which is made up of three judges.
Wouldn’t it be better to have a five-judge hearing panel as opposed to three judges on the Federal Court of Appeal? Are you suggesting that the decisions of a five-judge hearing panel be reviewed by three judges on the Federal Court of Appeal? Or do you want to eliminate the hearing panel stage altogether? I’d like to understand. Should there be a stage with fewer judges reviewing the decisions of five judges or should the five-judge stage be eliminated? I’d rather have five judges than three. The law of numbers sometimes yields better results.
Mr. Bujold: That’s an excellent question, Senator Dalphond. I don’t think it’s necessarily a question of numbers. I feel it’s a question of role, because we’re talking about the same people here. They are all judges, whether they sit as panel members or members of a court, and they are all performing judicial functions.
Don’t get me wrong: Bill C-9 is a significant improvement. Having a hearing panel is a good thing, but it’s still a panel of peers. It’s an administrative process, not a court of law.
There are provisions requiring that the proceedings should be public by default; that doesn’t quite meet the test for public proceedings, so it remains to be seen how it will be enforced. In our opinion, it’s not the same thing as a judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal. It may be similar to the review process in many of the disciplinary and administrative processes in various federal and provincial statutes. A certain review is done, then comes an investigation and a decision, and then you have a review panel. It may look something like that.
All these systems are subject to appeal to a court of law or at least to a judicial review process. For obvious reasons, this provision has existed since our country was founded.
Senator Dalphond: Professional panels or administrative committees are not made up of Superior Court judges. I don’t know of any, except in this system. You see the hearing panel as persona designata rather than a quasi-tribunal. I understand your position. Thank you.
My next question is for the Barreau du Québec. In your comments, you talk about the independence of the investigation process and you’re concerned that the House of Commons and the Senate could be involved in removing a judge from office. I’d like to quote from your brief on that subject:
The Barreau du Québec is concerned about the scope of this provision and believes that it raises potential issues regarding judicial independence and one of its fundamentals: security of tenure.
I agree with you that the lifetime appointment principle plays a key role in ensuring judicial independence. That was the purpose of section 99 and it even goes back to the Magna Carta. Section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that removing a judge must be a complex process, as it must go through the House of Commons, the Senate and the Governor General. That’s supreme protection.
You say that raises doubts. Is it possible to do otherwise without amending the Constitution? Are you recommending that we amend section 99 of the Constitution?
Mr. Le Grand Alary: Thank you for the question, senator. We’re not seeking to amend the Constitution.
Pursuant to section 99 and the criteria you have articulated, judicial independence goes back much further than Canada’s constitutional texts, all the way to the Magna Carta. We don’t want that section to simply be used to establish a parallel process for removing a judge through a parliamentary mechanism only, without recommendation and without having gone through the steps of the statutory process. We’re comfortable with the process provided, other than our comments on some of the steps that could be simplified to some extent.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We are pushing the limits of our witnesses’ endurance and courtesy, but Senator Patterson has joined the list for a one-minute question.
Senator D. Patterson: Yes. I would like to endorse Senator Dalphond’s comments on the value and the thoughtfulness of the presentations of all the witnesses.
Mr. Bujold, the bill is aimed at transparency and other goals, but also at speeding up the process and avoiding unnecessary procedural delays. I think you skated over it a bit, but is there not a danger of prolonging the process if we accepted your recommendation of a Federal Court appeal?
[Translation]
Mr. Bujold: Thank you for the question. There’s no such thing as a risk-free judicial process. Unfortunately, no system is perfect. We must never underestimate the power of decision makers to manage the process well and to impose short deadlines with the risk of foreclosure for failure to comply, in order to move the case forward. It must be left in the hands of the decision makers. With respect to the amendments, our goal is to increase public confidence in the process and ensure that mistakes like the ones I cited in the Smith case can be corrected. Mistakes can go both ways. A recommendation could be made not to discipline a judge and the Federal Court of Appeal could overturn that decision.
Proportionality must be applied by all decision makers at all levels as to the deadlines imposed and the tools used by those involved. We can’t have history repeat itself like past cases that took far too long, but we have to trust in future decision makers and believe that they will manage these cases well so that the public will see them in a more positive light.
[English]
Senator Klyne: This is for the Barreau du Québec. Although Ms. Claveau left the meeting, perhaps you can offer some explanation. I was trying to understand this within the context of overlapping steps or inefficiencies in reference to an anonymous complaint that be dealt with to members who have reasonable grounds versus the normal process. I get the sense that the normal process might be more efficient, but I don’t quite understand that.
[Translation]
Mr. Le Grand Alary: Thank you for the question. With respect to anonymous complaints, we support that because there are serious grounds for complaints to be anonymous. Nevertheless, we describe a preliminary screening stage on page 8 of our brief, which deals with various processes. We suggest that the rules be simplified and to ensure that there is a single process with the same steps, with a view to simplifying the process, which is already much clearer than what was being done before.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Le Grand Alary.
Senator Jaffer: I also want to thank you all for your informative presentations.
Mr. Bujold, I want to apologize to you for being rude to you, but when I was a young lawyer, Ms. Campbell, who was the Minister of Justice, sent me and a few others across the country to speak to chief judges. The words you used today were the words the chief justices used, which is that there aren’t enough. The reason it makes me upset is that you have somebody sitting next to you — not that I am saying it’s someone who is applying to be a judge, but there are lots of very capable people. I am also a member of the bar. He is also a member of the bar. May I respectfully suggest that you also do a study — the bar did a very extensive study on Touchstone — to find out? If there are, maybe you can help. You can support, and you can mentor. We don’t have the judges or the senior partners who will mentor us, but maybe that should be the bar’s function. I don’t need you to respond, but I want to thank all three of you. This was very informative. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bujold: Thank you very much, Senator Jaffer. I assure you that there was no need to apologize. I’d like to point out that our association brings together groups of lawyers from minority communities to solicit and help write up applications. Our association also helps build cases, because a strong case for judicial appointment can’t be developed overnight. However, if you start early, you significantly increase their chances of being appointed.
We’re putting in a significant effort and, as Canada’s largest national association of lawyers, we support associations in every way possible.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bujold.
Let me bring this to conclusion by saying that for many of us on this committee, this is our favourite work and our favourite committee. Speaking only now for myself, this is one of the reasons it is so fulfilling for me — your engagements with us, your presentations and the insights you provide. On behalf of all of us, I want to thank you, particularly today when we asked you to extend your time with us well beyond what was probably reasonable. It is very much appreciated.
Also thank you to our professional staff and the team that supports us. We asked a bit more of them today, and I think we are all appreciative of that.
With that, this brings this session to a close.
(The committee adjourned.)