Alert level: green OPQ: Q-230 Session: 451 Suggested file name: Action_Committee_October_2025 Tabled on: Agencies: Estimated questions: 2 Estimated responses: 10 Original filename: Q-230 Action Committee, October 2025.pdf External links / references: (none detected) Extracted PDF text preview: ORDER/ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ORDRE/ADRESSE DE LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES Q-230 Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand-Norfolk) Jun 18, 2025 / Le 18 juin 2025 RETURN BY THE LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS DÉPÔT DE LA LEADER DU GOUVERNEMENT À LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES Mr. Lamoureux PRINT NAME OF SIGNATORY INSCRIRE LE NOM DU SIGNATAIRE SIGNATURE MINISTER OR PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY MINISTRE OU SECRÉTAIRE PARLEMENTAIRE September 15, 2025 / Le 15 septembre 2025 (TABLED FORTHWITH /DÉPOSÉ AUSSITÔT) INQUIRY OF MINISTRY DEMANDE DE RENSEIGNEMENT AU GOUVERNEMENT PREPARE IN ENGLISH AND FRENCH MARKING "ORIGINAL TEXT" OR "TRANSLATION" PRÉPARER EN ANGLAIS ET EN FRANÇAIS EN INDIQUANT "TEXTE ORIGINAL" OU "TRADUCTION" QUESTION NO./NO DE LA QUESTION Q-230 BY / DE Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand-Norfolk) DATE June 18, 2025 Reply by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Réponse du ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada et ministre responsable de l’Agence de promotion économique du Canada atlantique The Parliamentary Secretary Patricia Lattanzio PRINT NAME OF SIGNATORY INSCRIRE LE NOM DU SIGNATAIRE SIGNATURE MINISTER OR PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY MINISTRE OU SECRÉTAIRE PARLEMENTAIRE QUESTION With regard to the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID -19 (the “Action Committee”) co-chaired by Chief Justice Richard Wagner and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Lametti: (a) who were the originators of the idea for the Action Committee; (b) what were the terms of reference and mandate of this Action Committee; (c) given the Action Committee’s membership included high-level representatives from the executive branch of the federal government (Department of Justice Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada) and the judicial branch (Supreme Court of Canada, provincial courts), what measures were implemented to protect the separation of powers and judicial independence; (d) what measures were taken to prevent judges on the Action Committee and across Canada from being pressured to act as advocates for the federal government’s policies, as opposed to independent arbiters of fact and law; (e) given the Action Committee’s mandate centred on administrative procedures rather than judicial decision-making, why did its membership include judges, rather than just court administrators; (f) what influence, if any, did British Columbia’s Justice COVID -19 Response Group and Cross-Jurisdictional Technical Advisory Group have on the Action Committee’s formation, deliberations, and recommendations; (g) what metrics or criteria were the participating judges given in order to prevent bias on factual or legal issues surrounding COVID-19; (h) what were the procedures in place to identify and manage financial, personal or political conflicts of interest among the Action Committee’s members and direct participants; (i) what specific conflicts of interest were identified and with whom; (j) which law firms participated, either directly or indirectl y, in the Action Committee; (k) did the Action Committee consider, discuss or address (i) the topics of “misinformation,” “disinformation” or “malinformation ” related to court operations, judicial decision-making or any other context, (ii) the use of judicial notice in legal challenges related to COVID-19 or the pandemic response, (iii) the implementation of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies or restrictions for court users, staff or judges and any exemptions from such policies; (l) what actions were t aken or processes put in place to ensure that legal cases related to COVID-19 were decided based on a review of all the evidence put before the presiding court, notwithstanding (i) any information or advice provided to the Action Committee by the executive branch (Department of Justice Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety), (ii) any information or guidance provided to the court s by the Action Committee; (m) were concerns raised at any time, either internally or externally, over any aspect of the Action Committee’s (i) creation, membership, processes, independence, politicization, bias, conflicts of interest, (ii) discussion o r actions around issues of public health restrictions, mask and vaccine mandates and exemptions, or the taking of judicial notice in COVID-related cases, and, if so, what were the concerns; (n) what was the communication protocol of the Action Committee to provide direction or make recommendations to courts, regulatory bodies or associations; (o) what were those communications and their dates; (p) were cases delayed waiting for information from the Action Committee; (q) did the Action Committee recommend the restriction on access to judicial chambers based on COVID-19 vaccination status; (r) who or what entities received advice or recommendations from the Action Committee; and (s) did the Action Committee set forth any requirements or guidelines to Crown prosecutors for criminal prosecutions related to harms resulting from the government’s COVID-19 pandemic response, or for handling private prosecutions that may arise from harm, negligence or other allegations? REPLY / RÉPONSE ORIGINAL TEXT TRANSLATION TEXTE ORIGINAL TRADUCTION Department of Justice (a): As outlined in a news release dated May 8, 2020, the Action Committee was established by the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada and Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council, and the Honorable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. (b): The Action Committee’s original Terms of Reference, which were approved on May 22, 2020, and published online, are available in Annex A attached. The Action Committee’s Terms of Reference were updated as its mandate has shifted post-pandemic. As such, the version attached is no longer available on the Action Committee’s web portal. X - 2 - (c): The Action Committee’s original Terms of Reference, which were approved on May 22, 2020, and attached in Annex A outline the approach that the Action Committee took to protect the separation of powers and judicial independence. The Action Committee guiding document entitled Core Principles and Perspectives also includes several references to the separation of powers and judicial independence: • Under “Fundamental Principles of the Justice System”: Judicial independence A strong and independent judiciary is fundamental to Canada's democracy and essential to public confidence in the courts and justice system. Judicial independence is instrumental to judicial impartiality and to judges' ability to safeguard individual rights and the Constitution itself; it exists for the benefit of Canadians, not for judges themselves. Chief justices have authority over the functioning of their courts overall, including making decisions on when and how to restore court operations, scheduling, and the assignment of cases. Individual judges have authority over the proceedings assigned to them, including the management of their courtrooms (whether physical or virtual) and participants in the process. • Under “Perspectives – Judiciary Considerations”: o Judges exercise independent responsibility and control over the cases assigned to them and must be equipped with the knowledge and resources necessary to ensure the safe conduct of those proceedings. Action Committee members are bound by statutory authorities, respective codes of conduct or ethical principles, which govern their activities including their participation in the Committee. (d): The Action