THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 8, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-219, An Act to establish Judicial Independence Day; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Paulette Senior (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. My name is Paulette Senior, senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. I invite my colleagues, starting with our deputy chair, to introduce themselves.
Senator Bernard: Hello. I’m Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Arnot: My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan. I live in Saskatoon, which is in the heart of Treaty 6 territory and the homeland of the Métis.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Nancy Karetak-Lindell. I’m the senator for Nunavut.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator for Manitoba, Treaty 1, and the homeland of the Red River Métis nation.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum. Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson representing Prince Edward Island.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today our committee is beginning its study of Bill S-219, An Act to establish Judicial Independence Day. We have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Senator Judy A. White, sponsor of the bill; and the Honourable Justice Clayton Conlan from the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association. We will begin with opening remarks before we move to questions from members.
The floor is yours for five minutes each when you are ready.
Hon. Judy A. White, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, honourable senators, for allowing me to appear today on Bill S-219, An Act to establish Judicial Independence Day.
This bill was first introduced by Senator Moreau, who is a very strong advocate for judicial independence. I thank Senator Moreau and his team for all the work they have put into advancing this bill, and I am honoured to now be the bill’s sponsor.
Colleagues, this is a very brief piece of legislation with a very clear objective. What it lacks in volume it makes up for in impact. This bill represents much more than a mark on the calendar. The establishment of an annual day for judicial independence will set out an ongoing reminder for Canada to maintain the strength of our democratic institutions. It is our chance to be a world leader in committing to a legitimate, just and independent judiciary. It is also an expression of our values as a nation. Canada stands for the freedom of courts, judges and lawyers, and Canada recognizes that this freedom is a crucial pillar of a free and fair democracy.
At second reading, you heard some examples and case studies of why Bill S-219 is especially relevant and necessary in our current climate. Around the world, countries are facing democratic backsliding through attacks on the legitimacy of their courts. We know that systems of checks and balances are eroding, and we see that democracy is an active process, perpetuated only by upholding the strength of its institutions. It requires care, attention and maintenance. It is not something to become complacent about, even when the separation of powers is strong — as it is in Canada — and there is a high level of public trust in institutions.
An annual day to check on the independence of Canada’s judiciary is one way we can ensure that our democracy remains actively maintained. Each year on January 11, we will be compelled to remember the 1000 Robes March in Poland, a time to reflect on the importance of independent courts and to check on the strength of our democratic institutions. This is not only a commitment to the rule of law but an affirmation of accountability between our relations and a commitment to good governance for the next seven generations to come.
This bill has widespread, multi-partisan support in Canada and around the world. The UN, the International Association of Judges, the Swedish Association of Judges and the Global Judicial Integrity Network Advisory Board, among others, have called on UN member states to recognize a judicial independence day. With the adoption of Bill S-219, Canada will be the first.
As the rule of law begins to crumble and be questioned around the world, it is not the time for us to sit comfortably in our institutions. Now is the time to stand tall, confirm our values and affirm Canada’s ongoing commitment to justice, integrity and judicial independence.
We have every reason to adopt this bill without amendment and without delay. Let’s take this chance to be a global leader in committing to justice, law and the maintenance of democracy by establishing judicial independence day.
Wela’lioq, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator White. Now over to Justice Conlan.
[Translation]
The Honourable Clayton Conlan, Justice, The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association: Honourable senators, good afternoon. As a former president of the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association and as vice-president of the International Association of Judges, I feel privileged to be here today.
Thank you very much for the invitation. It is an honour to appear before the Senate of Canada and the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
[English]
Judicial independence is the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy in Canada. Judicial independence, the separation of powers, distinct branches of government and the rule of law are some of the most important pillars of our society.
Judicial independence is a principle that protects not only judicial officers but, most importantly, the public. It ensures that everyone is heard by an independent and impartial tribunal.
On January 11, 2020, judges from more than 20 European countries joined their Polish colleagues in marching with thousands of citizens through the streets of Warsaw to protest laws that fundamentally undermined the independence of the judiciary.
In commemoration of that historic event, since 2023, the International Association of Judges, of which the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association is a long-time, active and dedicated member, has called for the United Nations to proclaim January 11 as the international day of judicial independence.
That call has received the full support of Professor Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
The key mandate of the International Association of Judges is to protect and promote an independent judiciary worldwide. The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association has, as two of its key objectives, the promotion of respect for the rule of law and the protection of judicial independence.
Bill S-219 is an opportunity for the Canadian government to lead the world on the principle of judicial independence. Formal recognition of January 11 as judicial independence day is more than just words. As Senator White said, it is more than just marking one day on the annual calendar. Rather, it would be a clear illustration of Canada’s commitment to protecting and promoting an independent judiciary, both here and abroad. It may very well influence other governments around the world to do the same, and it could enable Canada to sponsor an effort at the United Nations to declare January 11 as an international day of judicial independence.
Canada is undoubtedly a leader in the sphere of international judicial relations. Whether it is through our work with the International Association of Judges, the International Association of Women Judges or the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association, to name just three of the international organizations that Canadian judges are actively involved with, or whether it is through our projects with judges in other countries that are made possible by Global Affairs Canada and the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, we are leaders.
This standing committee of the Senate is dedicated to the study of human rights. Judicial independence is a fundamental human right. It means that the judiciary can make decisions based only on fact and law, free of any influence from government or outside parties. Without judicial independence, the justice system is illusory.
On behalf of the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association and the International Association of Judges, I urge you to support this bill. Canada should be the world’s leader in commemorating the importance of January 11.
[Translation]
Finally, I would like to thank the Honourable Senator Pierre Moreau and the Honourable Senator White for their commitment to judicial independence. Bill S-219 is a very important statement in favour of this principle. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for your remarks. We will now proceed to questions from senators.
Senators, you have five minutes for your questions, which also includes the response. We will start with our deputy chair, Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here and for the evidence you have provided to us today. I have a question I would like to ask both of you.
Could you tell us how you imagine the ways in which the recognition of this day will strengthen Canada’s judicial independence? What are some specific ways that you think that will happen?
Senator White: Thank you very much, my learned colleague, for your question.
I think judicial independence will afford Canadians opportunities to learn about the independence of the judiciary. We will learn about courts being free from political interference. The goal, in my mind, would be a better-informed public that is more likely to support and defend judicial independence when it’s challenged. I think that a judicial independence day will, in effect, have Canada innovating a democratic practice.
It would also build civic understanding. Judicial independence is pretty abstract for many citizens, but I think an annual recognition day would create opportunities for education in schools and media forums and regarding accessibility of explanations of the separation of powers, roles of judges and constitutional safeguards.
Senator Bernard: Justice Conlan, my question is this: How do you imagine the ways in which the recognition of this day will strengthen Canada’s judicial independence?
Mr. Conlan: Thank you for the question. It will strengthen judicial independence, both domestically and internationally.
I agree with Senator White that we are very fortunate in Canada to have a robust system of judicial independence already. However, Canada is not immune from potential interference.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Senator White and Mr. Conlan, for being here.
Words are important. The bill is important. However, resources are at least as, if not more, important. How do you see marshalling the resources to reach the goals that you’ve outlined?
You said this would make Canada a leader in the world. Can you help us understand in what way that would be?
Senator White: As for resources, that will come because an international day for an independent judiciary will be created for judges, for the judiciary and for the international community. There is so much support, in looking for it, from the United Nations and the Global Judiciary Integrity Network. That in itself will move it forward.
All we have to do is look at initiatives such as International Women’s Day. So much has come from the acknowledgement of that day, including good public policy. Every G7 nation in the United Nations has experienced some impact because of that day.
On the resources, I don’t see that as being a challenge in the sense that it would move itself like other days we’ve had.
What was the second part of your question? I’m sorry.
Senator McPhedran: In your opening remarks, you said this would make Canada a leader in the world. Could you tell us more about the way in which would we be leading?
Senator White: Absolutely. What would happen is that by observing January 11, Canada is set aside because it is a request from the United Nations and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges. They have asked for this. Every G7 country has been talking about it, but Canada will be the first to implement it. No country has done it.
They have done similar things by celebrating judicial independence vicariously through human rights days or the International Day of Women Judges, March 10. That will help shepherd it. That will move it.
Senator McPhedran: Another question would regard that both of you have spoken exclusively about Poland. I gathered that is also how you came to choose the date.
How do you anticipate addressing the reality that very similar movements have arisen in Israel, Pakistan and India as governments have tried to limit the independence of judges? There have been movements, responses and marches, not unlike what happened in Poland.
Senator White: I always subscribe to a more positive type of perspective. I never come from a place of deficit. I always come from a place of positivity.
What I see is that the 1000 Robes March, when we look at it, was 20 different countries heeding the call because there were muzzle laws that were going to be impacting judges. When you look at that, that is enough momentum to move the dial in terms of having a judicial independence day. I don’t see it as that being unable to happen. Once one G7 country does it, most will fall in line.
When we look at our judiciary, we always need a recurring reminder that the basic principles of the rule of law can’t be taken for granted. I would suggest this would be a requirement to show that it needs attention, knowledge and a shared sense of responsibility, because we’re all responsible.
Senator McPhedran: My question was a little bit different. I was addressing the fact that there have been similar movements and similar issues in other countries. In some of those cases — Israel being one — people from other countries came and joined their judiciary in their protests against the government regarding the limits that would be placed on judges.
Do you see a way to keep this open? It’s defined right now as a particular country at a particular time. Do you see a way for it to grow beyond that in an inclusive way, in no way undermining Poland but bringing in the fact that this is not a singular problem in one country?
Senator White: Absolutely. I would certainly subscribe to that way of thinking. Judicial independence and even the credibility and the criteria for selecting judges have been under attack in various countries, including Ecuador. Yes, I would agree it should be evolving. It would not only be a Canadian law but one that would be impacted and felt by others.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: I fully support this bill; that is no surprise. However, I do have a few questions.
There are some important dates in Canada and in the Canadian context. One is February 10, 1998. That is the date that former Chief Justice Lamer issued the Supreme Court of Canada’s judges’ reference case, which is the first time that provincial and territorial court judges fought for judicial independence, and they were successful. That’s only 28 years ago. So there are a few things in the Canadian context we need to be worried about.
I know you’re the past president of the Canadian Bar Association in Newfoundland, and I have great respect for the association. They were very instrumental in creating a set of resources called “Judicial Independence: What does It Mean to You?”, in the year 2000 to go into the schools, from K to 12, to seek to build on civic education. I happen to know that personally.
Canadian heritage and culture should have a big role in advancing the concept of judicial independence and its importance to all Canadians.
I would also mention that, as important as judicial independence is, so is the independence of the bar. Not many people talk about that. However, you’ll see examples in the United States in the past couple of years when the bar has been cowered and has pressured and caved, so the independence of the bar is equally important.
My question really is this: I know that the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association supports it. What’s the position of the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges on this bill? Maybe Judge Conlan knows the answer to that. I would like to know the answer to that. If it’s not available, it would be interesting for me to know that. Maybe we can get it in writing later.
The Chair: There are technical difficulties in reaching Judge Conlan. Before we wrap up this panel, Senator White will continue to answer some questions, but Justice Conlan can respond in writing to questions you’re asking. Please pose them, and we will ask him to respond in writing.
Senator Arnot: What does the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association do in terms of promoting civics in Canada in schools from K to 12? What do they do about promoting the independence of the bar but also, of course, the independence of the judiciary?
I would like to know that because I think the Superior Court judges, the provincial court judges and the territorial court judges have a big role to play in being available to the schools in the K to 12 system to ensure that students really understand the fundamental nature of judicial independence and its three indicia: security of tenure, financial security and administrative independence.
I really support that. I know Senator White is a strong supporter of this bill, and I support the good work she’s done on it.
Senator White: Thank you. I can’t answer the specific question on the role of the provincial judges, but I would submit this to you, and as a judge I’m sure you would understand this: The proposal for a judicial independence day fits squarely with ongoing engagement and discussions that are happening around judicial counsels, chief justices, courts and even in the legal profession and academia. These groups have been actively raising concerns about threats to judicial independence, promoting public education and encouraging governments to reinforce the rule of law. We only have to look at the Alberta situation when Premier Smith asked to be involved in that.
I’m trying to say that the bill can be understood as a natural extension of a well-established national conversation rather than as a stand-alone, and I think it has broad support.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I wanted to go to when they met on January 11. The judges remain determined — and I’m only going to read part of it — “. . . that protection against unfair disciplinary measures must be guaranteed.” How would you see that unfolding, or has it been done already?
Senator White: In Canada, we’re very fortunate in the sense that our judiciary is very sound and very independent. For the most part, it hasn’t been affected or impacted by politics and/or overreach. However, we’re in an era of backsliding. Again, I use the example of Premier Smith writing a letter to the Prime Minister saying that she wants to be involved in the discussions on selecting judges. We’re in an era when there is more of that kind of backsliding. That is why it would be important to continue the dialogue and move it forward.
Every time we remind ourselves that our judiciary is independent and that lawyers and judges are from select criteria with no political inference or intervention, which sets us aside as a renowned leader for the rule of law in Canada.
Senator McCallum: They were also determined to confirm “. . . that the independence of the judiciary, as it is established in various international documents, has no alternative.” Would you speak to the importance of that?
Senator White: Absolutely. Having a national day provides an opportunity for all Canadians to reflect on what the judiciary means. That will provide an opportunity to recognize an important judiciary. It will be a constant reminder of our commitment to a predictable, independent and transparent legal system.
Canada stands on the shoulders of many in that the judges are selected independently. When the government changes, the judges do not change. We are very privileged in that sense.
I think we should shout that from the rooftops and be the leaders in creating a judicial independence day to set an example.
Senator Bernard: Senator White, in your opening remarks, you said that public trust in institutions is waning. How can we ensure that this bill does not simply celebrate the justice system as it exists but encourages honest public education about both the importance of judicial independence and the work still required to build trust with communities that have experienced systemic discrimination?
Senator White: Thank you for the question.
What we need to do is look at the examples that have already been created and the impacts of what has happened. I referenced earlier, when speaking to our colleague Senator McPhedran, International Women’s Day. Over the decades, International Women’s Day has helped sustain global advocacy for gender equality. What it actually contributed to are legal reforms removing discriminatory laws. It helped government policies address violence against women, education gaps and economic participation. Almost every UN state has taken action on advancing women’s rights.
The other day, I gave as an example World AIDS Day, which has been imperative not only in raising awareness but reducing stigma. Significant outcomes have led to access to treatment, legal protections and global health funding. That’s another example of how these days actually operate.
Another one that is probably less known is International Anti-Corruption Day, which supports global anti-corruption efforts linked to the UN Convention against Corruption. Again, it promotes transparency initiatives and accountability frameworks.
I guess the one that I would have at the top of my list of examples is Human Rights Day. That day has served as a focal point for major political and legal developments all over the world. I envision a judicial independence day doing the same thing. Human Rights Day was used to anchor the major milestones of South Africa signing a post-apartheid constitution on December 10, which is Human Rights Day.
I’m using these examples to demonstrate to you how this day could actually move forward. Again, it would stress the independence of the judiciary and how our judges have to be secular from any political interference.
Senator Arnot: I believe that the 2,000 judges in Canada go into their courtrooms every day with a view to being independent and seeing themselves as independent. From the Human Rights Committee’s point of view, it’s all about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those issues are dealt with every day and in every courtroom in Canada, for the most part.
I see judicial independence being the bulwark for the implementation of human rights. One of the problems is we need to have accountability and enforcement because if you have the rights but there is no accountability or enforcement, they’re of limited value. That’s the way that I see judicial independence in connection to human rights. Do you agree?
Senator White: I absolutely agree with you. I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: Senator White, it’s a pleasure to see you here at the Human Rights Committee. It’s a very auspicious day for you to be before the committee bringing forward this important day when we had the Governor General sworn in this morning, who is a former jurist on the Supreme Court of Canada and someone who has been championing the international rule of law in places where it’s being questioned. I appreciate that you haven’t been shy to talk about the challenges here in Canada, wherein we thought perhaps we’d never hear this conversation around the importance of an independent judiciary and how essential it is to Canadian society.
The examples of other days that you brought forward, such as World AIDS Day or a day we haven’t mentioned, March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, these are days that become rallying points for Canadian society, particularly for educational opportunities, which we see being recognized in schools a lot these days.
Looking through that lens of education, every judge has certainly had a very formal education to get to where they are. Have you given any thought to the ways we might get young people to embrace a day like today? Sometimes, the rule of law can seem very abstract when you’re a young person, perhaps until you’re having to face a judge for some reason. It is also the reason we have a Young Offenders Act, recognizing some of the differences in law as they apply to young people. Do you have some thoughts about how we might engage young people to understand this day and to appreciate the role that courts and the rule of law play in Canadian society?
Senator White: Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
I think it is imperative that we have a public education system that can actually speak to the rule of law and engage students on what it means through speeches or essays. We could have open houses in courts that schools could actually go to or webinars. I remember the first professor who ever visited our school. That meant something. I still remember him to this day. I think you’ll see that judges, the judiciary and the legal community would actually be quite open to that. I would see those kinds of ways. Also, there are curriculum models developed for classrooms. Mock trials were some of my favourite things to do in classrooms with kids when I used to go visit them in my former capacity.
Those are things that I think we can do because, really, we have to build an early understanding of the rule of law and certainly create long-term cultural appreciation for judicial independence.
Mr. Conlan: Could I add one point?
The Chair: Go ahead, Justice Conlan.
Mr. Conlan: I wanted to add one point about civics education. It was asked earlier, and I think the honourable senator here asked a similar question in terms of what the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association has done for civics education.
One of the interesting projects that we started a few years ago is we have a series of videos that speak about what it’s like in a courtroom. What is the role of a judge in the courtroom? What is the role of the lawyers in the courtroom? What is the importance of civility in the legal profession and in the justice system? One of the things that the association has done is create these videos, and they have been quite popular in high schools and in other schools across the country. The association is also a big supporter of Law Day.
I do think that there is a connection between this bill, civics education, judicial independence and the rule of law. All of these principles are highly interrelated.
Would it be acceptable if I went back at some point and answered one of the questions from another honourable senator about not treating this exclusively as an issue regarding polling? I’ll wait to do that if there is a convenient time.
The Chair: Please go ahead, Justice Conlan.
Mr. Conlan: It was asked earlier about the fact that my remarks and part of the impetus for this bill is the situation that occurred in Poland a little more than six years ago. Although that is true, I want to express my complete agreement with the honourable senator who asked the question about perhaps not treating this exclusively as a situation that spawned from what happened in Poland.
There are many other examples around the world in terms of incursions against the principle of judicial independence, and we should not forget that. My hope is that, by passing this bill in Canada and perhaps persuading those at the United Nations to formally recognize this day as an international judicial independence day, it will be much more widespread than what happened in Poland and will take into account other examples that were given by the honourable senator in terms of protests that have been held, marches in favour of judicial independence and the like, including — as described by the honourable senator — what happened in Israel. That would be my hope.
In terms of resources, if I could just address that very briefly, I don’t think that this bill will expend much in terms of resources. My expectation is that Canada taking the lead and passing this bill will get us over the hump with the United Nations and persuade the United Nations to formally recognize this day as an international judicial independence day. In that sense, Canada will lead without much expenditure of resources. That’s my hope.
Senator McCallum: Could both of you comment on this statement by Judge Dory Reiling from the Netherlands? She said:
New reorientation on the values courts and judiciaries deliver, and their governance in particular, are just a few issues that need to be addressed. Unless courts and judiciaries address the still underexposed issues of impartiality, independence and governance, they may lose the legitimacy they so urgently need to deliver justice.
My question is this: Do these issues exist in Canada? If not, how would Canada support the other countries that she is speaking about?
Mr. Conlan: Thank you, senator, for the question. We are very fortunate in Canada that we have a robust system of separation of powers and enjoy a healthy degree of judicial independence. We should not be complacent, however, even in a place as fortunate as Canada. We are not immune from incursions against the principle of judicial independence. We can look to the experience south of the border as an example of how things can change very quickly, even in a country that has a rich tradition of democratic institutions, a strong separation of powers and a strong and healthy judiciary. If it can happen in a place like the United States of America, it can happen in many different countries around the world. I do not wish to fear monger. I am simply saying that we need to be vigilant, even in Canada.
How can we support other countries? We can do it through our global partnerships with judges in other countries. The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association participates in many projects, bilateral projects with judges in other countries. For example, we have one going on right now with judges in Bhutan, of all places. We have another ongoing project with judges in Mongolia. These are ways in which the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association and the Canadian judiciary help support our friends in other countries.
By passing this bill, it will be another example, another way in which the Canadian judiciary and the Canadian government can support judges and the principle of judicial independence around the world.
The Chair: Justice Conlan, you alluded to this in your previous answer in terms of what we’re seeing south of the border, but I’m looking at Canada being the first to adopt this particular kind of legislation. I’m thinking about the G7 and the G20 and wondering whether any of those members are lined up or in the process of doing the same.
Mr. Conlan: I am not sure, Madam Chair, if there are other members of the G7 or the G20 who are on the cusp, if I can use that expression, of doing this. I do know that there are friends of ours who would like to steal our thunder. I know that through my work with the International Association of Judges.
I happen to have the good fortune of not only being the past president of the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, but I sit on the presidency committee of the International Association of Judges, or IAJ. Also, I am one of the current vice-presidents of the IAJ, and I am the president of Canada’s regional group at the IAJ. Another member of our regional group is the United States, so I speak frequently with other jurists in the U.S.A. Another member of Canada’s regional group at the IAJ is Australia, and both Australia and the United States — at least the judges working in those two countries — would love to beat us to the punch here, if I can put it that way.
So, this would be a real achievement for Canada and would be in keeping with Canada’s tradition of being a leader in terms of judicial education around the world and protecting and promoting the principle of judicial independence.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: I see this very interesting fact that January 11 is currently recognized as Sir John A. Macdonald Day. Do you have any concerns about having judicial independence day on the same day?
Senator White: Thank you for the question. No, I don’t see it so much as a conflict but certainly as a thoughtful and meaningful alignment of Canada’s history and its enduring democratic values. Sir John A. Macdonald’s legacy is well debated, particularly when it comes to policies affecting Indigenous Peoples. However, at the same time, he played a central role in building the framework of Canada’s government, including the institutions that evolved into today’s constitutional system.
Judicial independence is not separate from that legacy; it grew from it. Marking both on January 11 allows Canadians not only to reflect on how the country has progressed from its founding but to a mature rule-of-law democracy.
Together, they highlight that a nation is certainly not defined by those people called “founders” but by institutions that uphold justice, rights and accountability over time.
We’re at a time when Canadians are increasingly trying to seek a more balanced and informed understanding of history. I liked what Her Excellency Louise Arbour said today, “We do not all share the same understanding of our history.” I thought that was a profound statement.
It is relevant here because when we look at January 11, which is Sir John A. Macdonald Day, Judicial Independence Day — and my birthday — it both encourages reflection on the achievements and complexities of the past and recognition of how institutions like the judiciary help ensure fairness and equality.
No, there wouldn’t be a conflict. What it does is shift the focus from our distorted history, or our history with different understandings, to shared values, fairness, accountability and constitutional government. What it does is broaden Canada’s national story.
Mr. Conlan: Honourable senators, I do not disagree with what Senator White said.
To the honourable senator who posed the question, I had not turned my mind to that issue. However, perhaps it is apropos that we would share this day with Sir John A. Macdonald Day.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, judicial independence is the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy in Canada. Perhaps it is fitting that we will share the day, if this succeeds, with Canada’s first Prime Minister.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to both our witnesses today for agreeing to participate in this meeting. We had a bit of a rough start, but we ended up strong, so that was great. Your assistance with our study of this bill is greatly appreciated.
Senators, next we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-219.
Before we begin clause-by-clause consideration, I would like to remind senators of a number of points.
If, at any point, a senator is unclear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification so we can ensure a shared understanding.
When more than one amendment is proposed to modify the same clause, they should be moved and considered in the order of the lines of a clause.
If a senator opposes an entire clause, the proper process is to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill rather than moving a motion to delete it.
Some amendments may affect other parts of the bill.
Senators moving amendments should identify any related clauses to help ensure consistency in the committee’s decisions.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, they may not have been reviewed in advance to identify related or conflicting proposals.
If members have questions or disagree about the process or the proceedings, they may raise a point of order.
As chair, I will hear the arguments, determine when there has been sufficient discussion and rule accordingly.
Any ruling of the chair may be appealed to the committee by asking whether it shall be sustained.
Finally, I remind honourable senators that if there is any uncertainty about the result of a voice vote, they may request a recorded vote to obtain a clear result, whereas a tie vote defeats the motion.
Are there any questions? Seeing none, with that we will proceed.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-219, An Act to establish Judicial Independence Day?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed, senators, that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
(The committee continued in camera.)