36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 83
CONTENTS
Monday, March 30, 1998
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-211. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Division deemed demanded and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-25. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1150
1155
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1220
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1240
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1245
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1250
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1310
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1315
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1320
1325
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1340
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENTAUR THERMAL SYSTEMS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FIREARMS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1400
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUGH YIK
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CURLING
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEARNING DISABILITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
1405
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DON ATTRIDGE
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1410
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASSISTANCE TO ICE STORM VICTIMS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM BYELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE DEBT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1415
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSITIONAL JOB CREATION FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1425
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COPYRIGHT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1435
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARINE RADIO STATION
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1445
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERGERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAINTED BLOOD
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1500
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COPYRIGHT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-38. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-388. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1505
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Trans-Canada Highway
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Firearms Control
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1510
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1610
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1615
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1630
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1635
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1640
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1645
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1650
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1655
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1710
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1715
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1720
1725
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1750
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1755
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1820
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sierra Leone
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1835
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1840
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 83
![](/web/20061116195312im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 30, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest of
those in breach of condition of parole or statutory or temporary
release), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the item scheduled for
debate today, discussions have taken place between all the
parties and the member for Langley—Abbotsford concerning the
taking of the division on Bill C-211 scheduled for today
at 11.45 a.m. I believe you will find consent for the following
motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on C-211, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion for second reading shall
be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred
until Tuesday, March 31, 1998, at the expiry of the time provided
for Government Orders. And that the recorded divisions scheduled
for Tuesday, March 31, 1998, on M-198 be deferred from the end of
Private Members' Business to the end of Government Orders on
March 31, 1998.
(Motion agreed to)
1105
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-211. I would
like to compliment my colleague, the member for
Langley—Abbotsford, for putting this bill together in
conjunction with the police. This member also, in the last
Parliament, put together a victims bill of rights which
unfortunately was held up in this House even though the police,
victims and Canadian society desperately wanted the bill to go
forward in an effort to protect innocent civilians.
I hope Bill C-211, which is supported by the police and the
public, will not languish in committee and in the House. I hope
members from across party lines will see this as a bill for the
general public. It will make our streets safer for everyone.
It would be wise for us to look at the contents of Bill C-211.
The bill establishes that a police officer may arrest without
warrant, detain and bring before a justice a person the officer
reasonably believes is in breach of a condition of bail, a
probation order, a conditional sentence or a statutory release,
parole or unescorted temporary absence.
What this bill states is that if a person who has been convicted
of an offence and is out on bail, is being released with
conditions or is on parole and is a threat to society, he or she
can be arrested without a warrant. For example, if a pedophile
is released on condition and is out wandering around a park with
children, the current situation, believe it or not, is that a
police officer has to get a warrant in order to apprehend that
person who may be wandering around and threatening those
children.
Currently the system does not allow police officers to apprehend
a person who may be in violation of his or her parole or release
conditions. We have created a system that forces police officers
to go to a judge to get a warrant. By that time the individual,
for example the pedophile, would have left. This is another
example of the system hamstringing the ability of police officers
to do their job of protecting innocent civilians.
Bill C-211 gets to the heart of the matter. It enables police
officers to carry out their duty to serve and protect innocent
people. It is a common sense bill. It is a bill that should
never have come to this House because one would have thought this
government would have put it forth. But it did not. That is why
the member for Langley—Abbotsford has put forth this bill.
It is a necessary bill which I ask the government to support
without condition.
1110
It is important to understand that this bill was supported by
the police. The police worked very closely with the member to
put this bill forward. The police now have no authority to
arrest an offender for breach of parole. That is why a policeman
has to look at a situation and ask whether he has to arrest a
person or not. If he does, he then has to run to a judge to do
something about it. By that time it is too late. A pedophile in
breach of parole running around a park perhaps might commit an
act too heinous for us to comprehend.
Various conditions may be placed on a person on probation.
Section 495 of the conditional release act permits the arrest of
a person without warrant when a peace officer finds the person in
breach of any of the conditions of probation. However, an
offender who is convicted and sentenced to a term of
incarceration in a penitentiary may subsequently be released into
the community with conditions.
Those conditions can be violated but as it stands right now, if
a police officer sees the person violating those conditions he
has to get a warrant from a judge for the person's arrest.
Bill C-211 will enable police officers to carry out their
duties, use their judgment and discretion and arrest people who
have already been convicted of similar offences or of offences
related to those conditions.
Our justice critic has been speaking for a long time about
issues related to revamping the Young Offenders Act. He has
continually asked the justice minister to do something about the
Young Offenders Act. He has asked her to modify it, to add an
element of fairness that would ensure that the Young Offenders
Act gives the courts and the police the ability to protect
innocent civilians. It is important to realize that the bulk of
innocent civilians who are victims of youth crime are youth
themselves. In many ways the Young Offenders Act does not do
justice to our ideal of protecting innocent people. As such it
should be revamped. My colleague has continually asked the
Minister of Justice what her plan is, yet we have come up against
a brick wall.
I put forward a private member's motion which has had an hour of
debate. It seeks to address the prevention of crime. If we are
to prevent crime we have to look at the origins of crime. There
is much talk about this now because of the recent situation in
Arkansas where an 11-year old and a 13-year old boy slaughtered a
group of students in their school. There is a terrible situation
of youth crime in our community, in particular violent youth
crime. It has been on the rise for some time but it has
flattened out over this past year. Nonetheless it is a situation
that the public finds distasteful, in particular the Canadian
youth.
How do we deal with this? There is a two pronged approach. My
colleagues have spoken very eloquently about how to deal with
those who are committing the offences but we must also deal with
prevention. Prevention does not deal with addressing a 13-year
old or a 14-year old who has already been incarcerated.
Prevention deals with time zero when a person is pregnant. In
that way we can deal with issues like substance abuse and the
epidemic of fetal alcohol syndrome which contributes to the
criminal element in our society. We can deal with child abuse.
We can deal with improper parenting skills. The Reform Party has
given the government many ways to strengthen the family that
would ensure parents have the ability to take care of their
children.
My motion deals with that and it is in sync with that. My motion
enables us to identify families at risk, to identify situations
in which parents may not have learned to be good parents
themselves. We can thereby introduce programs that would teach
them what proper discipline is, what substance abuse does to them
and their children. They can be taught about proper parenting
skills and proper nutrition.
1115
All these things are critically important if children are to be
able to have their basic needs met from time zero so they can
build the pillars of a normal psyche.
Many children who are in jail have their psyches damages quite
significantly as a result of situations that have taken place.
While that does not exonerate them from the acts that they commit
later, it does make us understand that if we are to prevent crime
we have to address the origins which start in many cases at time
zero.
There are a number of model plans in place. For example, the
Perry preschool program in Michigan showed that there was a $6
savings for every $1 invested. It decreased the amount of youth
crime by 50% and the amount of teen pregnancies by 60%. Children
stayed in school longer. It is an example of a program that has
been in existence for 35 years which has been analysed
scientifically and shows what works to prevent crime.
The member for Moncton was a leader in developing the Moncton
head start program which has been very effective in decreasing
youth crime. What is conditional is that parents are involved in
the situation. If only the children are involved it does not
work. The parents have to be involved too.
In closing, Bill C-211 by my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford
is a bill that the House should support. It is another example
of a bill put forth by the member in the interest of public
safety. It will protect innocent civilians. It will enable the
police to do their job. It is absolutely imperative the
government listen to the bill, support the bill and push the bill
forward for the safety of all Canadians.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased for the opportunity to join in the discussion on Private
Member's Bill C-211 respecting corrections, condition of release
and police powers.
I interpret the focus of these proposals as being on the
addition of safeguards to the conditional release program for
offenders. The bill does not raise the question of when release
should occur or if release should ever be granted to some types
of offenders but simply addresses the method by which such
releases may be terminated.
Because Bill C-211 proposes additional police powers, it follows
it would apply further restrictions to offenders in the
community. Would these measures enhance public protection,
prevent crime or even save lives? Would there be measurable
improvement in the supervision and control of offenders? In
answer to these questions I would like to devote my allocated
time today to sharing with the House and with all Canadians some
thoughts about public safety, the criminal justice system and
conditional release as it now exists.
No one should think that the decision to release an offender to
the community is made lightly. The decision making process is
careful and extensive. It is quite obvious that any release
conditions are framed by court imposed sentences.
Over the last dozen years parliament has pursued a series of
measures that have increased penalties and restricted releases.
On the sentencing end of things it is sufficient to say that
there has been considerable movement toward the punitive end of
the scale. This being said, it may be helpful for members to
know something about the conditional release process and the
roles and responsibilities of the correctional agencies of the
Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Correctional Services
Board of Canada and the National Parole Board.
Through these agencies this ministry, as part of our criminal
justice system, deals with two fundamental issues which lie at
the very heart of what defines the quality and the nature of the
culture of the country. The first of these is public safety, an
issue of paramount importance. Passage by parliament of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 enshrined in law
the principle that the protection of society should be foremost
in the minds of those entrusted with the administration of court
imposed sentences in the federal corrections system.
The second issue is human freedom in all its dimensions: the
deprivation of freedom, the respect for freedom and the quality
and dignity of freedom. This is an important consideration given
that the most extreme sanction the state is able to impose on its
citizens is carried out by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
The Ministry of the Solicitor General, through the National
Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada, is responsible for
ensuring the safety of the public. Its employees, both in
federal institutions and the community, deal with more than
20,000 offenders under its charge each day of the year.
It must carry out this responsibility in a society which places
an enormous importance on the rights and freedoms of all its
citizens.
1120
How the correctional service and parole board go about their
business is a matter of concern not to only a small minority but
to all Canadians. They are equally concerned about powers
granted to police forces and, I would guess, would have questions
about how much power is necessary to provide protection without
approaching the possibility for oppression.
I believe we have to keep in mind today the fact that over 99%
of temporary absences are successful and that roughly nine out of
ten offenders in the community on full parole and on statutory
release complete their sentences without reoffending. That being
said, I also believe that the bill has good intentions and that
the ideas for enhancing the protection of the public are good.
I recognize that earlier in the debate in the House the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough talked about the effects on
rural Canada. He talked about the fact that he supported the
change with some reservation and was concerned about the
arbitrariness of it. He talked about what happens in small
communities in rural parts of the country. That is where I come
from as well today.
Unfortunately how the bill protects the public may be flawed. It
could be subject to a serious challenge in a court of law under
the charter of rights and freedoms.
This concerns me because I know and I understand the effects in
rural Canada. I recognize that often there are one or two police
officers on duty and that although the parole board does its best
to ensure that warrants are issued as quickly as possible, it is
not always possible for police officers to go back or to have
someone at the station let them know that it indeed has been
faxed.
There are issues that need to be dealt with, but I believe the
member who put forward the bill today is aware that there is a
possibility of a charter challenge. That is my concern.
We need to ensure that laws we put forward are good laws and
that laws that go forward meet all purposes. This law in my own
opinion has a purpose that is necessary. However it needs to be
narrower in scope. It needs to ensure that there is not a
charter challenge. It needs to ensure that we go forward so that
Canadians know they have that possibility. One of the ways we
can choose to narrow the scope of the bill, even in the words of
the researcher for the hon. member, is to limit its application
to certain offenders or specific behaviours.
For example, in the research that was done, limiting the offence
of breaching parole or release conditions for offenders serving
time for a scheduled offence should target the more dangerous
offenders. Alternatively, the bill could limit the definition of
offences to breaches involving particularly high risk behaviours
such as possession of weapons or illegal drugs. Either step
could go a long way to adjusting the charter challenge.
I am very concerned for public safety. I am very concerned for
the citizens in my community. I have had many discussions with
Ian Russell, who is now the chief of police in one of my
communities, the town of LaSalle, one of the gentleman of whom
members of the Reform Party speak often.
We have discussed that there are issues which need to be dealt
with as we go forward and as we propose law. I go back to the
earlier comments about this of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. There may need to be some
changes in the wording. Early in the debate he embraced the bill
even though he thought there should be some changes. I also
embrace the concept.
I am concerned about rural communities, about small communities,
but as we move forward together we have to ensure that all
Canadians are entitled to be not only protected but to the rights
under the charter. We have to ensure that our laws will not be
subject to charter challenges as soon as they become law.
That being said, again I talk about the fact that the principle
in the bill is not new. It has been introduced in the House four
times since 1993. It came out of the standing committee on
justice that it be amended to allow police arrest without
warrant. That recommendation in my opinion was to respond to the
deficiencies in the law that could slow police response times.
These are things that we still have to do and we still have to
meet on.
The will of the people, police officers and many members of the
House is there, but there must be a law that works and does not
breach any other laws in the process. That is why I cannot
support the bill at this stage. I believe it is flawed.
1125
On behalf of my constituents I say as a member of Parliament
that we have to find a way to give police powers which will allow
them to do their job without violating the charter. I believe it
is what we were elected to do. The concept is right and in my
opinion the end is right. However, in this case I do not believe
that the bill can achieve this end.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is always interesting and entertaining to listen to the
Liberal backbenchers explain to Canadians on behalf of
bureaucrats and deputy ministers of the government why a good
idea cannot go forward.
I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to
speak to Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it
applies to the arresting and detaining of individuals who breach
their condition of parole or statutory or temporary release.
I am proud to say I do this because my constituents have asked
me to do it. Indeed Canadians from coast to coast to coast have
witnessed problems with the parole system in their areas. This
is a serious problem and the Government of Canada insists on
saying that the status quo is fine and everything is okay. I am
here to say that it is not fine. It is not okay. Things have to
be changed.
I congratulate the member from Langley—Abbotsford for
introducing to the House this very important piece of
legislation. The bill does what the parole system fails to do.
It takes steps to ensure the safety and security of all
Canadians. I would like to ask government members and people
watching today who the parole system is for. We will hear the
government argue today that it is for people who commit crimes,
people who have violated our codes and our laws. I will put
forward a different argument today. I will put forward the view
of grassroots average Canadians.
As members of Parliament it is our duty to provide citizens with
a safe environment for them to raise a family, to feel secure
when their children are playing at a local playground, to have
them go to school, to walk the dog at night, to go to a grocery
store or to visit a shopping mall. This is what Canadians want
from the government. This is the reason behind such legislation
as the Criminal Code, Corrections and Conditional Release Act and
government agencies like Correctional Service Canada and the
National Parole Board.
Bill C-211 will do two things. First, it will amend the
Criminal Code by making a breach of condition of parole or
statutory or temporary release an indictable offence. This means
that the police will have the ability to arrest without warrant a
parolee who the police believe on reasonable grounds—that is
very important—to be in breach or about to breach conditions of
parole.
Second, the bill will amend the Criminal Code by giving the
parole board the power, following the arrest of an offender, to
release him or to ask a judge to keep him in custody until a
warrant is issued.
Almost weekly Canadians are subjected to news concerning
parolees who commit unspeakable acts of violence. In my home
town of Summerland, British Columbia, just this past year there
was a tragic murder of a mother and a grandmother which sent
shockwaves through a community that had not had a murder in over
a decade.
Kevin Machell, on September 5 of last year, was on day parole
and failed to report to his Calgary halfway house. Authorities
of Correctional Service Canada did not issue a warrant until some
24 hours after his failure to report. The normal policy of
Correctional Service Canada on such tardiness with respect to
halfway houses is that action be taken within 10 minutes to one
hour. No one will deny, even Correctional Service Canada, that
was not done. Why? We do not know. The system is broken and
has to be fixed.
The inaction by officials of Correctional Service Canada gave
Machell the time he needed to drive to Summerland, British
Columbia, and allegedly murder his estranged wife and her mother
in front of their two preschool children aged 2 and 4, witnesses
to this heinous crime.
1130
The event is made even worse by the fact that the victim had
obtained a restraining order against Machell and had written the
National Parole Board asking to be told of a change in status for
Kevin William Machell. The victim was not notified and remained
unaware of Machell's escape until it was too late.
The events leading up to this horrific event call into question
the entire parole system, Correctional Service Canada and its
policy toward parolee violations and the failure of the National
Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada to inform the victim
of Machell's escape. Correctional Service Canada failed the
victim in this case and it has failed Canadians time and time
again.
Machell had in the past made threats on the victim's life.
These threats of violence had been taken seriously enough by the
B.C. supreme court that it issued a restraining order against
Machell, yet Correctional Service Canada made no attempt to
inform the potential victims, who turned out to be the murder
victims, of Machell's disappearance.
Why was this potentially violent criminal given the opportunity
to even be out on parole? This heinous crime could have been
prevented in so many ways. The lines of communication were
obviously blurred or flawed between Alberta and British Columbia
and of course the third link, Correctional Service Canada. The
victim should have been notified and she was not.
Machell was on the loose for 24 hours before a warrant was
issued for his arrest. Under the current law, even if Machell
would have been stopped in Alberta, maybe on just a routine check
by police officers, the police could not have detained him. What
kind of parole system do we have when even if he was an absentee,
he was tardy from his half-way house, and stopped in the province
of Alberta on the highway, they could not have detained him?
Bill C-211 would change that. It should be changed. There is
no reason for this not to go forward.
Liberals defend the justice system time and time again. They
pretend it is working just fine the way it is. They want the
status quo. They say it is their priority to protect citizens,
yet they are ignoring Canadians who want tougher justice laws and
rules and they are ignoring the facts. They ignore the fact that
30% of federal inmates reoffend with a significant proportion of
those offences being violent. They ignore the fact that
convicted criminals seldom serve the prison time they are given.
According to the National Parole Board even the most violent
offenders serve on average only about half their time. They
ignore the fact that in the past 35 years violent crime has
increased 350%.
Canadians are sick and tired of the government's lack of action
toward criminals and toward crime. They want a justice system
that puts their rights ahead of the criminals. They want a
system that will ensure parole is limited, earned and tightly
monitored.
Last September I introduced a motion in the House that instructs
the government to adopt a zero tolerance policy concerning
parolees' unexplained tardiness in reporting to their half-way
houses. This motion will instruct Correctional Service Canada to
automatically issue a Canada-wide warrant for parolees who are
more than 10 minutes late to their half-way houses and will make
it a priority of the correctional service to immediately notify
those who are in danger due to a parolee's absence.
At the start of this intervention I asked the House, and I asked
Canadians, who is the parole system for? The government and the
bureaucrats would stand to defend it and say it is for the likes
of Kevin Machell who violated his parole. The answer that my
constituents and all Canadians are telling the government today
is that is not the case, that the parole system should put the
victims of crime first.
Cecilia and Tammy Grono were murdered. Two pre-school children
now do not have a mother or a grandmother. The system should be
for law-abiding citizens of this country, not for those people
who have violated the laws of this country and have shown that
they have disdain for the laws and good order. This bill will
accomplish that.
1135
This bill is a good piece of legislation that should go forward
today and I urge all members of the House to support my friend
and colleague from Langley—Abbotsford in passing Bill C-211.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before recognizing
the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, it is my duty to tell
the House that his will be the last intervention on this bill.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, since this is the last intervention I think it is only
fair that I summarize what I have seen and heard in this House
about Bill C-211.
It was not me as an individual member of Parliament who decided
to sit down one day to write a bill and develop a piece of
legislation for this House which would prevent individuals on
parole from preying on our communities by way of giving the
police the empowerment to arrest them, it was the police
themselves who approached me, gave me this idea and said there
was something sadly lacking in the Criminal Code of Canada. They
asked if we could fix it. I said “Yes, we will do that for you.
We will take this to the House. It all seems fairly
reasonable”. Then we hit the usual brick wall.
We hit the brick wall of mediocrity. We hit the brick wall of
liberalism. We hit the brick wall of a lack of intelligence with
members on the other side saying “We think you have a good idea
here. Maybe we should pursue it, but, gee whiz, there could be a
charter challenge. We must never challenge the charter”. That
is the Liberal mentality that we have here.
Thus, in this country the prisoners have the right to vote. Why?
Because a judge in his wisdom, I think it was Howard Wetston in
Manitoba, said that under the charter of rights and freedoms
prisoners should have the right to vote.
When we came back to this House what did the government say?
Yes, the charter of rights and freedoms should apply to them.
After all, we do not want to challenge that. So today prisoners
have the right to vote. I disagree with that.
We have criminals today distributing obscene material on young
people. A judge in this country not too long ago said “It is
their unfettered right to distribute it because the charter of
rights and freedoms gives them that right”.
Then we have government members on the other side, sitting back
like they are today, saying “That must be acceptable because
some judge made that decision under the charter of rights and
freedoms”.
What kind of society are we going to end up with in this country
when the government says, according to some judge, that if it is
in the charter of rights and freedoms then it is free for all to
do whatever they want? In fact, the legislators of this country
are the ones who make the decisions. It is not the judges and
the lawyers who are out there for personal gain, it is the
legislators. Unfortunately this government's feeling is that
legislators are merely to take the decisions of the court system
and apply them. That is wrong.
Bill C-211 was developed to protect the public, to protect young
people so that when a pedophile is out on parole sitting in a
playground and police recognize the individual, they can whip him
up like that, and scoot him back off into prison.
I hear from the other side arguments like “We don't want to
give the police extra authority. We don't want to give the
police the ability to arrest somebody without getting a warrant,
do we?”
I cannot believe where this government comes from at times. I
am ashamed at times to listen to the debate from the other side.
1140
Politicians without the courage of their convictions are not
good politicians at all. Politicians who leave the court system
to make their decisions for them are worse than poor politicians.
That is not why this party is in the House of Commons. This
party came here, largely, on several very important agendas. The
criminal justice system was one of them. It is now a legal
industry in this country.
Time and time again we repeat ourselves. What is more important
in this country, criminal rights or the rights of victims? What
is more important, the rights of criminals or the safety and
security of the people in this country? That is what these kinds
of issues are about. A member opposite is shaking his head. He
thinks this is wrong.
We are aware of a situation which happened recently in British
Columbia concerning Howie Slaunwhite. He is an individual I have
spoken with a number of times. He said a fellow came into his
life who sexually molested his daughter. Howie took a bat to
him, which I think was a darn good idea and I am not ashamed to
say so. The criminal went to prison. He hired a lawyer, for a
fee of course, and they got a conviction. Howie broke the law.
The judge charged him $42,000 which he cannot afford to pay. He
has to pay another $15,000 on top of that in legal fees. I do
not think the government sees the consequences of these things.
Every day I hear people say that if someone gets into their
house and molests their wife or daughter they will take the law
into their own hands because the law is not doing a good enough
job. Perhaps that is wrong. Perhaps they should wait for the
police or wait to see if the lawyers or judges can do a better
job. Howie, as a father, said no to this. He thought the
intruder deserved a few whacks and he gave them to him.
The issue here is that this person was guilty of breaking the
law. But why does a judge turn around and bilk a person who
cannot afford $42,000? Why is the charter of rights and freedoms
all for fairness to the individual criminal? I do not know.
It appears that Bill C-211 is going to be defeated because the
majority government has spoken against it. I know there is not
much individuality on the other side. They were told to vote
against it. They are afraid of a charter challenge. The police
and victims say they want it, but that is not good enough. There
has to be another kind of profound influence. The charter of
rights and freedoms may challenge it.
I feel sad that a country like this, which once had a great
criminal justice system, now has a legal industry. I feel sad
for the victims of crime who watch every day as prisoners get
overtime pay, the right to vote, the right to sue—
An hon. member: Free medical.
Mr. Randy White: —free medical, dental and television.
The list goes on. The prisoners are provided free bleach to
sterilize their needles so they do not get HIV when they inject
cocaine. Free condoms are supplied, even though having sex with
each other in prison is a violation of the commissioner's
directives. All of this indicates that we have a justice system
in decay.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Open your eyes.
Mr. Randy White: The member tells me to open my eyes.
I am one who has developed a national victims bill of rights,
supported by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in
this country. I would suggest to the member opposite that it is
not me who has to open my eyes.
1145
It is the government with its sick agenda and its fear of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has to open its
eyes. That is really what is wrong in this House: no guts on
the other side.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 11.45 a.m., the
time provided for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the motion is deemed
to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and
deferred until Tuesday, March 31, 1998, at the end of the time
provided for government orders.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I think that if you would seek it you would find
unanimous consent in the House to see the clock as 12 noon and to
proceed immediately to government orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed as such?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-25, an act to to amend the National Defence Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am quite pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-25, an act to
amend the National Defence Act. I can only say I am pleased to
contribute to this debate in the sense that it has been 50 years
since this act first made it through Parliament.
It is important that we get down to some of the very basic needs
in our military. It has been kicked around for so many years for
the most part by Liberal governments. I find it unsettling that
the Liberal government of today wants to look at itself as being
the saviour of the military when in fact it has been the
opposite; it has been the destroyer of the military. We in this
country are paying the price now for what was done some 20 years
ago under another Liberal regime.
Bill C-25 is supposed to be a response by this government to the
Dickson report and the Somalia inquiry report. As far as I am
concerned it does not adequately respond to all of the needs of
the military. This was the government's chance. The government
had a chance to amend the act with this bill. Unfortunately, it
made a mockery of much of the commission's final report.
Amending the National Defence Act at this time represents a rare
opportunity to address many of the concerns which have been
voiced regarding the military justice system and the manner in
which the Canadian forces interacts with and responds to its
members.
It has been a real eye opener to travel this country, to speak
with military personnel at the various base locations and to hear
what they think of the government, the treatment of the forces
and how it has impacted the communities in which they live. For
the most part it is a shame. What has happened to the military
community at the hands of the government is it is a disgusting
mess. We have not been their protector, even though they lose
many rights by joining the military forces. They have had an
extremely difficult struggle during these past few years.
The events in Somalia opened up a Pandora's box of issues which
set the stage for a great deal of investigation, criticism and
self-examination. The excessive budget cuts the government has
delivered to the defence department have dealt a serious blow to
the forces' operational capabilities, their procurement plans and
among other things, their morale. Particularly serious is the
diminishing state of the living standards of the lower ranks.
1150
Many had hoped that the government would seize this opportunity
to put in place the reforms which have been proposed by those who
have closely examined the state of the Canadian Armed Forces, not
the least of which was the Somalia commission of inquiry.
While Bill C-25 is a step in the right direction, it
unfortunately does not go nearly far enough. C-25 is full of
half measures which on the surface appear to address many of the
concerns which have been raised. However, underneath the surface
the measures are clearly not going to get to the heart of the
troubles within DND.
Before I get into a more specific examination of the bill, I
think it would be appropriate for me to remind the House of some
of my party's wish-list for reforms to the defence department,
particularly with respect to military justice matters.
The official opposition would like to see three qualities built
into the National Defence Act. In particular, we would like to
see the military justice system reflect the following qualities.
We feel very strongly that unless these qualities are included,
there can be no substantive reform. The first quality is
accountability, the second is openness and the third is
independence.
I am talking about the military justice system. The government
refuses to address any of these qualities in any serious way. I
think we can all agree that the military justice system is in
serious need of repair. That is presumably why the government
commissioned both the Dickson report and the Somalia commission.
I would suggest that is at least what most people were led to
believe.
When it became clear that the government was going to come under
fire for some of its friends' handling of the events in Somalia,
the Liberals shut down the inquiry. This unprecedented move
placed a permanent blight on the history of apparently
independent government sponsored inquiries in this country.
When one thinks about the ramifications of that closure, this
should never happen on an independent inquiry which was
commissioned to search out the truth. This government is a
leader, if one wants to call it that, in actually shutting down
an inquiry for the first time in our history.
Despite the government's best efforts, the Somalia inquiry
commissioners did produce a comprehensive report. Among other
things the report provided an extensive recommendation on how the
military justice system could best be reformed to provide
openness, accountability and independence.
The government of course made every effort to ignore the
commissioners' report. The government downplayed it, mocked it
and the defence minister denounced it. Now we see in Bill C-25
that the government has rejected it. In fact, Bill C-25 is
largely the government's attempt to pay lip service to the
commissioners' recommendations while escaping its obligation to
provide the kind of comprehensive, meaningful change that would
be required to properly bring justice to the defence department.
Much of Bill C-25 is smoke and mirrors. Of the hundreds of
recommendations the Somalia inquiry report made, three of them
were most important. Each remains unfulfilled in the amendments
proposed by the government.
The first recommendation that remains unfulfilled is that the
military police be taken out of the chain of command and be given
greater independence and that they should report to the solicitor
general in matters relating to the investigations of major
disciplinary offences and criminal misconduct.
The second recommendation is in regard to the judge advocate
general. The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of the
office of the chief military judge as well as the separation of
the judge advocate general's office into the defence and
prosecutorial roles. Again this was not done.
The third recommendation that is unfulfilled is the creation of
the office of inspector general which would among other things
create more accountability in the Canadian forces. In other
words, when a complaint would be filed it would be acted upon
independently and not subject to the whims of the commander or
someone else in DND.
The above three recommendations are entirely consistent with
what my party has been saying in this House since 1993. Surely a
primary goal of any justice system should be the creation of a
system whereby all participants are treated fairly, equally,
openly, and where all participants are held accountable for their
actions. Such a system would also be able to act independently
and impartially. As evidence has shown, that is not the case
with the military justice system.
1155
What changes have been made are superficial at best. We will
see how much accountability will be registered in those
superficial changes. In the absence of those qualities being
fulfilled, there can be no justice. Bill C-25 fails these tests.
In fairness, the bill takes several steps in the right
direction. Bill C-25 clarifies the roles and responsibilities of
the various players in the military justice system.
Instead of the base commander calling in the military police for
an investigation, the provost marshal will have direct influence
in handling that investigation. That may prove beneficial in
some cases but the provost marshal is still in the chain of
command, still subject to influence from the top. That is a
concern to us and it should be a concern for the military. If it
is looking for independence and fairness in the system, it should
take that out of the chain of command and give it to an inspector
general.
Bill C-25 separates on an institutional basis the military
justice system's investigative, prosecutorial and judicial
functions. That is certainly warranted. It tends to go in the
right direction as far as having a little independence but there
is still not enough. It still falls within the chain of command,
is still subject to influence, even political influence nowadays.
It seems to be very much directed in that fashion and we object
to that. We want to see greater independence. It can be achieved
if it is taken right out of the chain of command.
Complete summary trial reform is the third point. The fourth is
to establish two oversight bodies that are apparently external to
the defence department and the Canadian forces, namely a Canadian
forces grievance board and a military police complaints
commission. How much teeth they will have remains to be seen.
The bill requires those two new bodies and the judge advocate
general to file annual reports with the minister who in turn
would have to table them in Parliament. There is a little more
openness and a little more accountability. If the reports are
scrutinized and they are not sanitized before they reach this
House, then fine. At least we can look at what is going on in
that fashion.
The bill requires the chief of the defence staff, the new
provost marshal and the ombudsman to file annual reports. It
requires the Minister of National Defence to report to Parliament
after five years with a review of the act.
The amendments have been subject to scrutiny. A group of
individuals will oversee the implementation of the amendments. It
is unfortunate that this group will be subject to two years of
scrutiny to ensure the amendments are introduced in an adequate
fashion and then it will be disbanded. There will be no
oversight agency. Most of the implementation of the amendments
will be over a five-year period. The board will be disbanded
after two years and to what end? What is the value of the board
in the first place?
Many of these amendments are good ideas. It is about time the
roles and responsibilities of the players within the military
justice system were established. It is hard to imagine that the
system has functioned for as long as it has without such
definitions.
It is about time the judge advocate general's responsibilities
were further defined and divided. This is one of the major areas
of concern for the Somalia commissioners, although they
recommended total reform of the JAG's office. We argue that it
would be much more advisable to formally separate these functions
into separate offices and to do away with the judge advocate
general's office in its present form altogether.
It only makes sense to have the investigative, prosecutorial,
defence and judicial functions separate. The creation of the
Canadian forces grievance board and the military police
complaints commission are two of the most often noted amendments
in this act.
Both cause me some concern.
1200
Both these new organizations will exist within the chain of
command and therefore will remain vulnerable to influence from
within the department. This will be of little comfort to many
members of the Canadian forces who have had to deal with the
military justice system in the past or who will come in contact
with it in the future.
The creation of the ombudsman is frankly a joke and a poor one
at that. This is a half hearted attempt at satisfying the
Somalia commission's call for an inspector general. The
ombudsman will be a paper tiger. It will have no teeth and will
likely provide more frustration than good. Many provinces have
ombudsman offices and we can see how much influence they really
have in resolving the concerns that are delivered, little or
none. They certainly do not have any influence or power to
change anything.
The bottom line is the Canadian forces need an inspector
general. The most obvious omission in Bill C-25 is the absence
of the creation of that office. America, Germany and Britain
have inspectors general. The Reform Party has called for one.
The Somalia commissioners have called for one.
Everyone outside this government for the most part thinks Canada
should have an inspector general. Why is it that Canada has
independent investigators in the civilian justice system but does
not allow the same to apply in the military justice system? What
is it that this government is so afraid of happening if an
individual outside the chain of command and independent of rank
structure were able to investigate allegations of wrongdoing?
I can relate to one that should have been thoroughly
investigated. This situation impacted on the security of this
country. I am talking about the problem of personnel at CFB
Leitrim using drugs. Leitrim is probably the highest security
area we have in the military involving the collection of data
pertinent to the security of this country. Yet at CFB Leitrim
there were individuals using drugs. Where do drugs come from?
Ultimately from organized crime. They were associating with such
suppliers. Some individuals even had questionable personnel
backgrounds yet they were sitting in a seat of high security.
I do not think that is acceptable. It should not be acceptable
in this country. The information the military often involves
itself in deals with what? Organized crime. Who deals with
drugs? Organized crime. Information on terrorism, terrorists
and aid to civil power comes through CFB Leitrim.
I do not find it acceptable that a commander can have control
but cannot investigate in an adequate sense a situation that
involves the security of this country. This is exactly what has
happened.
I think these investigations definitely have to be outside the
realm of DND. If a complaint is laid it should be handled in a
very professional and appropriate manner, always with the
security intent in mind and always with the intent to convict the
wrongdoer, not to warn him.
The Somalia inquiry commissioners went into great detail regarding
the need for an inspector general. Yet this government chooses
to ignore the recommendation. It seems to be more intent,
happier I guess, to appoint committees and ombudsmans and boards
but is really not willing to have a definite line drawn to create
a genuine independent structure or infrastructure that would name
names and hold individuals accountable.
I think the matter of the Somalia inquiry might not have
happened if there had been an inspector general willing to pick
up the investigation and make sure it was carried through and
handled properly.
1205
That is the independence we are looking for. Ultimately it
frightens the Liberals. They do not want independence. They do
not want an investigation to be conducted in a thorough manner
even if it means selecting those at the top who were not
accountable, who were responsible, and removing them or having
them disciplined in some fashion. That should be happening.
Unfortunately that inquiry was cut short.
I do not think there should be a culture of secrecy, cover-up,
intimidation to exist unchecked. It was evident some of that
took place during the whole Somalia affair.
Bill C-25 is an opportunity for this government to correct the
wrong. It refuses to do it. As a result we in the Reform Party
will not be supporting the bill without substantial amendments.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
my question relates to the amendments to the National Defence Act
which would remove the death penalty from the act. As I am sure
the hon. member knows in terms of the history of this penalty,
about 25 Canadian soldiers were executed during the first world
war and I think there was only one during the second world war
for crimes ranging from showing cowardice in the face of the
enemy to murdering a superior officer.
The Canadian situation actually is juxtaposed against the
Australians who are also a Commonwealth force. No member of their
forces was executed during the first world war and I think the
same applied to the second world war. As we have seen, more and
more since the beginning of the 1990s Canadians are being placed
in combat situations, as we saw in 1993 with the action at the
Medak pocket.
Does the Reform Party support the removal of the death penalty
from the National Defence Act?
Mr. Art Hanger: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the member. We made very little mention of that amendment
to the act in our proposal. In part it deals with the fact that
we will be addressing that issue in a substantive way in this
country.
I think it is something again that should go to the people of
the country. Do they want the death penalty or not? That is a
very simple question to ask in the form of a referendum. It
would be fantastic feedback.
The member made reference to the fact that there were some
soldiers in the first and second world wars executed as a result
of their actions or lack thereof, perhaps treasonous actions.
When it comes to the security of the nation there are offences
that could very well warrant the death penalty. I am talking
from a personal point of view. If it means a loss of life over
the treasonous action of a member in the military, but not
necessarily in a war like situation, by withholding information,
by failing to act, by failing to protect, and people lose their
lives or the security of the country is jeopardized, what do we
do?
I think those are good questions that should be put to the
people in the country. When it comes to the issue of the death
penalty overall that is what the Reform Party's position is, to
see what kind of feedback we get from those in our nation on that
issue, yes or no, are they in favour of reinstating the death
penalty.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we
have heard the debate today on Bill C-25 I could not help but
think of several things that touch on the whole issue of the
military in this country.
1210
We have recently had a base closure in the city of Calgary,
something with which we have had a long tradition. Indeed
Calgary has been a fine recruiting centre for the Canadian armed
forces. It is the only city of its size in this country that does
not have a base any more.
There are all sorts of rumours going on now with regard to the
land deals that will be happening and who will get a sweet deal
out of the sale of the lands.
Other cities that have had similar base closures have actually
received money from the federal government, some form of
compensation. In this case the federal government is looking to
max out the value of the lands that Calgarians have already paid
for in their taxes.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary Northeast what
his feelings are on the idea of closing CFB Calgary and the
military institution, the traditions that we had in that city
with little or no compensation. It is certainly not commensurate
with what other Canadian cities have received. Perhaps it was
political retribution for Calgarians not electing Liberals in the
last election.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for Calgary West for his question because I think it is a
very important one to Calgary. It is pertinent to Calgarians and
to the military.
The base has been moved. One thousand acres of prime real
estate are sitting in the heart of Calgary. What is that worth?
Just the raw land itself is worth hundreds of millions of
dollars.
That is not the only city. Edmonton has a sizeable chunk of
land in its centre, 640 acres of prime real estate, and Griesbach
barracks that will be turned over to whom?
Where will that money go? There is a squabble going on right
now regarding what is going to happen to the land in Calgary. The
member for Calgary West knows full well what is happening there
because it sits right in his riding.
Who is going to be taking all those luscious dollars that are
going to come from the sale of that land? Where will they go?
There is no legislation anywhere that shows what will happen to
the land to be dispersed. It will have to go up for development
in some fashion.
Was it a political move to get rid of the military? Absolutely.
I do not see any other reason for moving the base out of Calgary
to Edmonton. The infrastructure in Edmonton was a disaster and
it still is a disaster. In fact, our soldiers are living in
squalor for the most part, those taking part in the program for
military housing. It is disgusting. Sewage is backing up.
There was no excuse to move the Calgary military base to
Edmonton. There was no advantage whatsoever. It was a political
move and it is costing hundreds of millions of dollars, much more
than the $65 million that the government put on the price tag for
making the move. We have not seen the end of it yet.
Getting back to the land in Calgary, there has been no
compensation offered to Calgary for the move in the first place
and the land is still up for dispute regarding what will happen.
I think it will be worth looking into.
My intent is to further examine the agreement between the city
of Calgary which is a major player in this affair and DND or
whoever is looking after that land.
It does not seem like there is a whole lot of consideration on
the part of the Liberal government to pay any attention to what
it meant to move the base from Calgary to Edmonton.
When we look at the bottom line on that move, there were only
four Liberal seats in the province of Alberta before that move
was made. They moved the base from Calgary to Edmonton because
Edmonton was where the four seats were. Lo and behold, now there
are only two Liberal seats left in the entire province of
Alberta. Hopefully at the next election there will be no seats.
I am sure members would be pleased to hear that.
It would sort of solidify Reform's position in western Canada for
good reason because of the abuse we have been suffering at the
hands of the Liberals over the last several years.
1215
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the amendments being proposed to the National Defence
Act, and especially the code of service discipline, relates to
the abolition of the death penalty as a punishment and
substitutes it with life imprisonment.
I am a little unclear from the member opposite with respect to
the position of the Reform Party on the matter relating to the
death penalty. I listened to the hon. member's response to a
previous question, but I would still seek clarification if I
might is as it relates to Bill C-25. As I have already stated,
the death penalty is being taken out.
Will the Reform Party be introducing an amendment as it relates
to the death penalty, or is it satisfied that what is in Bill
C-25 is appropriate and will proceed accordingly? I would like
the hon. member's response to that.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, we will not be introducing
an amendment. I thought I made that clear when I spoke the last
time in reference to the death penalty. The matter was
previously covered in the Criminal Code as far as treason is
concerned and those issues dealing with actions of citizens and
the military. If they violated those sections they were subject
to the death penalty.
When it comes to the issue of the death penalty let me make
clear that this matter will be put before the people of the
country. I understand the majority of people would like to see
the death penalty for murder. It certainly can be extended into
treasonous actions by the military if the public so desires. I
do not see any reason they should not be consulted.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-25.
The Esquimalt base is in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Marine Pacific command is in my riding and as such provides me
with an enormous amount of information and insight into what is
taking place within the military today. As the No. 1 employer in
my riding, the number of constituents dependent upon the military
is vast. Therefore the bill is exceedingly important to the
constituents of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
We are disappointed because Bill C-25 had an enormous
opportunity to make some substantive changes within the military
that would enable men and women in our fighting force to be able
once again to do the best they can in an institution that
traditionally has served our country exceptionally well.
Parliament as an institution has not served the military well.
We have not provided the military with the tools to be able to do
its job. Bill C-25 was an opportunity to enable us to give the
military the tools to do its job, to strengthen the faith it has
within its own institution, but unfortunately again we failed.
We ignored the recommendations of the $30 million plus Somalia
inquiry. We ignored the recommendations of many learned people
within and without the military to build a stronger Canadian
fighting force. This cannot be a witch-hunt. We must focus on
the constructive solutions that would enable the Canadian
military to be the best that it can become.
We have put forward a number of constructive suggestions
regarding the military police. We suggested that it be taken out
of the chain of command and be given more independence. It
should report directly to the military attorney general. This
was ignored.
We asked that the office of the judge advocate general be split
into defence and prosecutorial roles. Judges should not come
from the same office and probably should come from the federal
court trial division. Removing the judicial role of the judge
advocate general would allow for the offices to be renamed the
attorney general with the responsibilities of policing and
prosecuting.
1220
The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of an independent
inspector general. We believe this was ignored because the
inspector general would be independent. If we believe in
transparency, if we believe that we should have independence and
the ability to investigate potential problems within the
military, as in any other organization we should give this group
independence.
The Somalia inquiry recommended numerous things. It recommended
that the Minister of National Defence report to parliament by
June 30, 1998 on all actions taken in response to the
recommendations by the inquiry.
Is the Somalia inquiry to be just another study that is tossed
under the table and forgotten? We repeatedly do this, be it the
inquiry into aboriginal affairs, the Somalia inquiry or committee
reports. After they get their day of media attention the vast
majority of committee reports, which contain superb ideas and
suggestions, are merely tossed under the carpet and forgotten.
This is an enormous waste of opportunity. It is also an enormous
waste of taxpayers' money.
Bill C-25 also failed to address the suggestion that action be
taken regarding witnesses who lied or broke officers trust or
oath. It ignored twelve recommendations addressing the creation
of the office of the inspector general. It ignored five
recommendations charging the CDS with clarifying and
strengthening the change of command. It ignored eight
recommendations charging the CDS with more effective screening
with respect to promotions, self-discipline and how personnel
impose discipline on others. Bill C-25 ignored twelve
recommendations charging the CDS with applying merit as the prime
factor in promotion through improving the performance and
evaluating reporting system.
Today in the military, as in other organizations, people are not
necessarily promoted on the basis of merit but on the basis of
some other characteristic. That is not fair. It erodes the very
essence of any organization.
When people, regardless of where they happen to be from, say
that they cannot ascend through the ranks of an organization on
the basis of merit, why should they improve themselves? Why
should they give the best performance? Why should they be the
best they can become?
They are not being promoted on the basis of merit. They are
being promoted on the basis of some other characteristic. That
erodes the very heart and soul of the system and what we get is
an organization that is far less than what it could be.
The bill has ignored numerous recommendations. I will not go
through the rest of them because my colleague has eloquently
spoken about them. There are numerous other things that the
military has failed to deal with. One particularly important
situation is what has been occurring in my riding on the dockyard
and in the depot.
A few months ago military personnel heard through the grapevine
that roughly 18,000 jobs were to be lost. Can we imagine being
people in the military and hearing that our jobs might be lost?
I told the Minister of National Defence that these rumours were
flying around. The NDP asked questions, as well they should and
should be commended for doing so. When we asked these questions
of the minister he said that they were just rumours, that they
would not really lose 18,000 jobs. I then asked the minister to
tell the personnel on these bases what would or would not happen.
Have we heard anything? No, we have not.
Representatives of the Union of National Defence Employees have
asked the minister what is going on. There might be some
reallocation of jobs through the alternative service delivery
plan. How many jobs will it be? Who will have to do this? Will
personnel be allowed to bid for their jobs on a fair and level
playing field? These are important issues.
I would like to point out the backdrop against which this takes
place.
In my riding men and women at the base service depot have gone
through the downsizing. In fact they are a model of downsizing
in the country. They have cut where they have needed to cut.
They streamlined where they needed to streamline. They improved
their efficiency where they needed to improve their efficiency,
so much so that they are a model of downsizing. They have been
held up as a model of downsizing.
1225
For over 10 years many of those personnel have been working at a
wage level with no raises that is less than they would make on
welfare. Some people for 12 of their 14 years in the military
have been working at a wage less than they would make on welfare.
They stuck out the job because they felt it was the right thing
to do. They felt committed to the institution. They wanted to
make a contribution. They liked their job. They felt strongly
about the military. They felt the military was a part of Canada.
They felt it was a duty and responsibility to the country to
support the institution even though they could have made more
money not working.
Against this backdrop the ministry said to them that their jobs
may be cut. They have also not said to them that they could
apply for their jobs if it is under the ASD or bid for their jobs
in a fair and equitable fashion.
What kind of a situation do we have? What kind of a minister do
we have? What kind of a ministry do we have that will kick
hard-working men and women in the teeth who have done their jobs
faithfully? What kind of a government kicks its employees in the
teeth when they are down, when they have given more honour, more
credibility, more faithfulness to the institution than perhaps
the government has?
These people are not asking for miracles. They just want a fair
shake. The Union of Defence Employees wants a fair shake. They
want to be able to bid for their jobs on a level playing field.
They want to be treated fairly. They understand that cuts have
to be made. They understand that streamlining has to occur but
they do not understand that when they have done this and have
done it very well they are kicked in the teeth.
I challenge the minister to speak to the employees in the
military, tell them the truth, tell them what is going on, treat
them fairly and enable them to compete for their jobs on a level
and fair playing field.
If cuts are to take place it would do the taxpayer and the
military an enormous disservice if the reorganization is to make
the military less effective than it is today. That is also a
concern of these people.
If an ASD is to be used, will the people this is being given to
be able to do a better job? There are concerns that the people
who will be getting these jobs might be friends of the military,
friends of the people in power. Will these hard working people
who have been working for years for the military be tossed aside
because the contract will be awarded to somebody who knows
somebody in the ministry or in the defence department? Is that
fair?
The truth has to come out and it is the minister's
responsibility to do that. There have been no responses to my
questions so far. I want those answers and I want them now. The
employees of the defence department, members of the UNDE, who
live in my riding want and deserve answers. They want them now.
With respect to the soldiers in our defence department, they
have been labouring under an egregious situation for years. In a
presentation at the defence committee over a year ago to General
Roméo Dallaire who was there, along with the assistant deputy
minister, I pointed out some constructive solutions from the men
and women at the base in Esquimalt. They were solutions that
would have enabled them to provide a better standard of living
and to improve the situation within the military without costing
the military more money.
1230
It could have been a win-win situation. We could have made the
accommodation assistance allowance applicable to all members in
the military. When someone in the military is moved from an area
where accommodation is cheap to an area where it is very
expensive, such as Victoria or Vancouver, the person has to bear
the cost. There is very little accommodation for that
particularly if the person lives off base.
People in the military understand that they can be moved around
and that they have no say in where they go. However, these
people want to have some fairness built into the system. People
who work in an embassy and who are moved to another country where
the standard of living is much higher and more expensive are
accommodated for that. Our military men and women should have
the same consideration.
We can do this by making sure that the accommodation assistance
allowance applies to everybody and that the AAA is tax free. It
is not much but it would provide them with some money.
The raises the military personnel received were an absolute
disgrace. As we have said before, the military has to live
within its budget but for heaven's sake, when we are sending
people out to fight for our country, we should provide them with
enough money to feed their children back home.
Right now a soldier can make $800 a month and an extra $400 a
month if he or she goes away. It is clearly to the soldier's
advantage to go away. But what does that do to the family? When
those soldiers are away they worry about their spouses and
children. There has to be some fairness built in.
A large number of our military personnel travel half a world
away to fight in areas such as Iraq and they worry whether there
is enough food on the table to provide for their children. Our
military people are not looking to get rich but they are looking
for fairness. If they are going to put their lives on the line,
they want fairness.
Another thing which is eroding our military is the inability of
our soldiers to move up the ranks based on merit. I and my
colleague have addressed this issue before. There is the
perception, and I would argue the reality, that members in our
military are not moving through the ranks on the basis of merit.
Other factors extraneous to merit are taken into consideration.
It is discrimination if someone is not able to move up the ranks
because they are not of the right category. A level playing field
must exist within the military as in every organization. A
person must be able to ascend the ranks of an organization on the
basis of merit, competence, experience, on the basis of their
qualities, not on whether they fit within a certain demographic
group.
Our armed forces demand and deserve a game plan. What is their
role in the world? They do not know. The military personnel
will do the job they are tasked to do if we task them with it.
They will do it with honour and they will do it well. We have to
give them direction. Are they going to be a peacekeeping force?
Are they going to be a military force that intervenes in active
combat? Are they going to be a force that is going to live up to
our obligations as a country under NATO?
We know that our individual security as a nation is intimately
entwined with the security of other nations. In this era of
globalization we have to live up to our obligations in
international organizations such as NATO.
If we are going to have security, we have to provide our
military personnel with the tools to do their job. There is no
compromise on that. We must give them the required tools. This
means the equipment and direction. We are not doing that in
spite of repeated white papers, commissions and studies that have
called for just that.
Give our military personnel a game plan. Give them the tools to
do their job.
1235
In this era of cutting, efficiency can be put into the military.
By giving base commanders the ability to manage their affairs
more closely without the intervention of the Treasury Board there
will be more money, more flexibility and better bases for the
Canadian men and women in the military.
Treasury Board repeatedly meddles in the affairs of the
military. It ties the hands of the military. Base commanders
cannot actively try to provide support nor can they use their
intelligence and abilities to ensure their bases are as good as
they can be.
It is true that in the past the minister and the government have
done some good things to try to give base commanders some
flexibility. It is a significant departure from what occurred
before. They can do more. A lot more could be done to give base
commanders the flexibility and the ability to improve the social
and economic conditions among our military.
The armed forces need our help. Their social and economic
situation needs improvement. The government needs to listen to
the solutions we have put forward, solutions which have been
given by our military, the men and women in uniform and their
families. The government needs to listen to our critic. It needs
to work with members across party lines. It needs to work for our
military.
We will not accept the subterfuge that has taken place for so
long. We will not accept the military being ignored. We will
not accept that it has not been listened to. The government must
be held accountable. It must act on the solutions and
suggestions it has on its plate. We will work with the
government to help our military become the best it can become.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will comment on something recently brought to my attention which
got under my skin. I would like the comments of the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on this issue.
Soldiers in Calgary and people who have worked with the U.S.
embassy in Ottawa have informed me that our government was
offered the Abrams tanks that the U.S. military was going to
mothball in Arizona. It was cheaper for the U.S. military to
offer these tanks to the Canadian forces. It was also cheaper
for the U.S. to pay for the maintenance of the tanks than it
would be for it to mothball the machines in Arizona.
Who could possibly turn down the opportunity to use world class
equipment when somebody else was willing to pay the maintenance
and when our own forces are not able to purchase that type of
machine? Lo and behold, our fine Liberal government turned down
the opportunity to use the Abrams tanks which would be provided
with paid maintenance by the American military.
I have a very difficult time understanding why our forces were
deprived of the opportunity to learn how to use Abrams tanks and
to have the maintenance charges picked up. When somebody is such
a staunch defender and friend of Canadian interests in terms of
our geopolitical situation, to not take up this opportunity
smacks against our friendship with our American neighbours. It
also deprives our Canadian forces of the opportunity to utilize
the machines. I encourage the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca to comment on this.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend
for his question, which hits the heart of two issues.
What is the role of our military? There is no clear description
of the military's role. If it has a role as a fighting force
with ground forces and if we need tanks to fulfil our NATO
obligations or for our peacekeeping roles, then this would make
absolute sense.
My colleague illustrated the important issue of why we do not
hear whether or not we are accepting those tanks. It is like the
submarine situation.
We do not know why the submarines were rejected. We do not even
know if they were considered properly.
1240
We do not know what the minister of defence is thinking, be it
regarding submarines or tanks because a direction for the
military has not been articulated. The government waffles all
over the spectrum. It is as if it goes with the breeze. We do
not know what the government's plan is for the military. If we
knew what the plan was, then we would know whether or not we
should buy the Abrams tanks or the submarines. First should be
the role. The government has been sitting here for five years
and has not articulated a strong clear position on what the role
of the military should be.
A second issue is that of the U.S. military. The U.S. military,
as much as some people in our country like to criticize it, has
been an enormous friend to Canada. We cannot do our job without
its help. In many cases the U.S. military relies on our help.
The co-operation that exists between both countries on a
military level is astounding, be it in the use of military
satellites, communications skills, or our frigates protecting
their ships against submarines. There is an intimate
relationship between the U.S. and Canadian militaries which
serves us both well. Our ability to protect ourselves would not
be nearly as good if the U.S. military did not have such a
co-operative relationship with our men and women in the military.
It is important that we do not treat Bill C-25 or this
discussion as a witch-hunt against the military. There have been
criticisms against the leadership in the military. As in any
organization there are good eggs and bad eggs. It is the
minister's role to separate them. Get rid of the bad eggs and
keep the good eggs. Enable the many good people in the military
to percolate up to the top, to strengthen our military to be the
best that it can become.
There is so much dissatisfaction with the military personnel in
their ability to advance. As a result huge numbers of
extraordinarily talented people in the prime of their lives, in
their thirties, forties and fifties have been lost to early
retirement. They do not have the faith in the military to
contribute to the organization they originally went into because
they believed in it with their hearts and souls. Many of them
came from families who gave their lives to the military for our
country. What a sad reflection of our country that we cannot
support an institution which has served our country and the world
so well for so long.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have one question.
The hon. Reform member spoke about our friendly relations with
the Americans. Would he agree that sometimes that relationship
gets a little too friendly?
I am talking about the used MOX fuel we are importing from the
United States along our rails and roads into our Chalk River
facility. Most Canadians were unaware that this was happening.
The member may be aware that a lot of environmentalists and
groups are very concerned about a possible accident which may
occur and what it could mean to the Canadian public.
Would he agree that we should stop these shipments of used
plutonium and MOX fuels into Canada?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I am not as well versed
as the hon. member on that issue.
With respect to our relationship with the American military, it
is co-operative. It is not incestuous. We do retain our
autonomy. Our friends in the United States military understand
that our soldiers are Canadian soldiers and not American soldiers
in Canadian uniforms. That has always been very clear. Perhaps
the hon member would be very interested to know of the enormous
respect Canadian soldiers have in the United States when they
help our friends in that country with their military initiatives.
1245
As I said before, I am not as well versed as the member but I
would certainly appreciate the member's giving me some
information on this so I would be able to read about it and give
him my opinion on it.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I know the member speaks from experience. He has had very close
liaison with the military bases in his riding. He has spent a
number of days examining their situation and listening carefully.
The defence committee has travelled to Esquimalt and we have
seen firsthand the problems that have arisen. I say problems
because those problems need not be there had the government been
paying attention to the military, its needs and acting on those
needs a long time ago. But it chose not to do it.
Morale plays a big role in the military. The government makes
wonderful announcements about the pay raises it has given the
military, 3.2% the most recent, 2.2% previously and 1.5% going
back to 1996 and .6%. Yet I am going to ask the member what kind
of pay is the military going to actually realize when it looks at
all the clawbacks in Canada pension, in tax, employment insurance
and will it be all that much better off with what it has now or
does it need something better like tax relief.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, tax relief, tax relief,
tax relief is what the military needs, as all Canadians need. I
thank my friend from Calgary Northeast, our defence critic. He
has done an enormous job of trying to be the advocate for our
military.
Treasury Board hacks away at our defence department personnel's
accommodation. It has raised their rents repeatedly while
freezing their pay. That is the kind of situation we have.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak today to Bill C-25, an act
to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts. The purpose of this act is to make
substantial changes to the military justice system in the
Canadian Armed Forces.
Probably the impetus or a lot of this dates back to October 1995
when the Liberal government issued an order in council to
establish what became known as the Somalia commission of inquiry.
Later that commission by order in council was prematurely shut
down. This is the first time in Canadian history that an order in
council has been used to shut down a commission of inquiry.
The reason that happened was the commission was about to
investigate the involvement of the Liberal government in the
Somalia affair. Allegations of murder, the cover-up of murder,
the failure of the general staff and the government to hold
anyone accountable for their actions or omissions, the culture of
secrecy at the Department of National Defence and the double
standards of the military justice system all bubbled up during
the Somalia inquiry.
We all know that the Liberal government is no friend to the
Canadian Armed Forces. It has done no favours for our armed
forces by allowing a cloud to hang over them by shutting down the
Somalia inquiry. It has not given them a clear mandate to fulfil
and it has failed to adequately equip them for their tasks.
During the term of this government the Canadian military has
never been asked to do more with less resources. The government
has failed to provide openness, accountability and independence
for the Canadian Armed Forces. There were three important
recommendations that came out of the Somalia inquiry. They
continue to be ignored by the government.
Regarding the military police, they should be taken out of the
chain of command and given more independence.
Judge Marin was commissioned to report on the military police.
He recommended that they not have the power in Canada to conduct
criminal investigations. This recommendation is totally ignored
in the legislation.
1250
It was recommended that the office of the judge advocate general
be split into defence and prosecutorial roles. It was also
recommended that the judge not come from the same office and
probably should not come from the federal court, trials division.
The Somalia inquiry recommended the creation of an inspector
general. The government continues to ignore this recommendation.
It ignores this request because an inspector general would be
independent. The Liberals continuously ignore the role of
Parliament with respect to national defence. The government has
forgotten that deployment decisions of our troops should be taken
by Parliament.
British Columbians are justifiably proud of our military. But we
are also very concerned that this government has denuded British
Columbia of part of our military. It decimated Chilliwack. We
still have Esquimalt and we still have Comox. It would be very
difficult indeed for this government to remove the naval presence
from British Columbia. Otherwise it would have done so by now,
there is no doubt about that. All the west coast coverage for
the air force comes from Comox, which is essential. It is bad
news for British Columbia that we no longer have an armed forces
base in Chilliwack. We no longer have the army presence that we
look for in national or international emergencies, ice storms,
Bosnia, Kosovo or Haiti.
If we have an earthquake on the west coast who are we going to
look to? We are going to look to our military. Ottawa has let
British Columbia down very badly indeed.
The Liberals have put politics before principle. They have put
politics before what is good for the nation and good for society.
The Liberals are no friends of the military. They are continuing
to ask our personnel to fly unsafe helicopters. We had another
helicopter crash last week. As my colleague said, it is a good
thing they float better than they fly.
I think what we have to remember out of all this is that people
in uniform are ordinary Canadians. They come from our communities
and they are trying to do a job for our country. Yes, they are
trained to an extraordinary degree in many disciplines and they
are often extremely responsive and responsible. Let us be very
thankful that we have them. This is not the treatment the
military has received from this government.
In downtown Ottawa and in other cities we have military
personnel in uniform being mistaken for security guards or
parking lot attendants. That is how far our military has
plummeted in terms of public perception in this country because
our government is doing nothing to maintain, restore and give
Canadians pride in our military tradition, a very important
military tradition. It is crucial that we go beyond Liberal lip
service and live off the legacy which is this government's way of
dealing with our military.
Recently at the APEC conference we received a slap in the face.
The Seaforth Highlanders were not considered Canadian enough for
APEC.
The Seaforth Highlanders from British Columbia, that proud group,
were replaced by the Van Doos because of a decision by the Prime
Minister's office. I wanted to ask a question but unfortunately
I already know the answer.
1255
There was a political decision to fly those people to Vancouver
from the province of Quebec at a cost of $210,000. Who pays for
a political decision? The Prime Minister's office? No. The
Department of National Defence paid that $210,000. A hard
pressed department of government paid for that political
decision. That is the ultimate slap in the face.
Under the government the military has lost pay comparability
with the public service. This is what our Liberal administration
told us on Friday. Non-commissioned officer pay had a 6.7%
shortfall compared to the public service and our general service
officers had a 14.7% shortfall compared to our public service.
This displays Liberal mindset. First of all, our military
personnel should not be compared with the public service. They
are not the public service. They do not resemble the public
service. Our personnel should be compared with military personnel
on a world scale. I would suggest we start with other
Commonwealth forces and U.S. forces. More on that later.
Shame on this government for allowing our military personnel and
our police personnel, by the way, to fall even shorter than our
public service. Why was this allowed to happen? Talk about
demoralizing.
I see it right up front. I do not think I explained but within
my riding is Comox armed forces base. I have a fairly good feel
for what is going on with personnel. The problems all rest with
this frontbench. Shame on it.
As I mentioned, Comox armed forces base is in my riding. The
stress of low pay and extended absences on individuals and
families is tremendous. Moonlighting is rampant and essential for
many of the young members. A news release from government on
Friday states that economic increases for Canadian forces
personnel were intended to mirror similar pay increases expected
to be awarded to all federal employees, including members of the
public service.
This makes no sense. They are not doing the same job and there
is no comparability. We should be tying our military to
Commonwealth forces, to U.S. forces. We can look at the pay. We
can look at the perks. We can look at the tax treatments.
If we had looked at all this we would not have a scramble from
over here trying to deal with catch-up for our pilots. They are
losing pilots one after the other. We will have a shortfall.
There is no doubt about that.
Instituting a measure that favourably treats pilots is
demoralizing for the rest of the personnel. Why in heaven's name
we got ourself into this. There is no vision over there.
Canadian forces personnel travelling in the United States have
more perks than in our own country.
1300
Why this reciprocity is there is a little beyond me because
there is a lack of any substantive favourable treatment shown to
U.S. personnel travelling in Canada. They are not extended the
courtesy that our personnel are extended there. Once again, this
is shameful. It is something that needs to be addressed, but all
we get is lip service.
The pay of the military has been frozen since 1991. We started
to see some increases in an attempt to catch up with the public
service, as I described earlier. However, a four year phase-in
period is totally inappropriate. The morale within the armed
forces is not only down because of the pay, it is down because
there is no clear indication from government when the cuts are
going to stop, when their organization is going to stop being
downsized, when their organization is going to be equipped in the
way that it needs to be equipped. There is nothing but
uncertainty and concern that it is so far down the priority list
in the pecking order of this government that it is becoming
increasingly difficult to keep people in the military, especially
our best and our brightest.
Where is the government's vision? The only conclusion that I am
able to come to, after observing this place for four years, is
that there is none. If we read the documents, all the fine
words are there, but it is lip service.
Another thing that is contributing to problems with morale in
the Department of National Defence is that the organization is
always getting smaller and there are obviously very few
opportunities for advancement. People are having to stay in
their job classifications or job categories. Those are valuable
people. We want to keep them. We also want to compensate them
in a way that they deserve. That is not happening.
This government is great at pitting one group against another.
It is starting to split the military into groups. I have already
talked about this favourable treatment to pilots and how that is
going to be viewed and is viewed by some personnel. This is just
not the way to operate. We cannot constantly be ad libbing about
how we are going to manage a major department.
Something we should all be very proud of is Canada's long
military tradition. In many respects what makes and defines
Canada as a nation started back at Vimy Ridge and continues to
this day.
Whenever there has been a military engagement, peacekeeping or
otherwise, since I came here in 1993, the impression I have had
is that the government is making up the rules as it goes along.
It does not have any sense of creating stability in the armed
forces, creating combat capability or high morale within the
voluntary military to represent Canada's interests and to fulfill
what we deservedly should represent given our strong military
tradition and history. All we have seen is the death of 1,000
cuts and a lack of commitment from Liberal administrations. We
have actually never had a Liberal administration which has been
supportive of the military beyond lip service and living off a
legacy.
1305
I have a brother who lives and works in the United States. I
consider him to be part of the brain drain. He has been there
for a long time. He works in a university environment where
there are many very intellectual and intelligent people who are
on the leading edge of many endeavours. It can be rather
humbling at times for anyone in that environment to recognize
that one has met someone who is more than one's intellectual
match. One observation he carries that has really struck home
with me is that some of the brightest and best in American
society have their roots in the U.S. military. They say that the
U.S. military has many of the nation's best and brightest. It is
all because of this legacy and tradition and devotion to country
and to making society a better place.
We have to ensure that we carry that tradition in this country.
It is very important that we do that.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I agree with the fact that military personnel in this
country are severely underpaid. My riding of Sackville—Eastern
Shore has a large military air base and naval base called
Shearwater. I was at a dinner the other day with the commander
of the base. We were discussing the very same concern about the
lack of attention that previous governments and current
governments have given with respect to the pay for all ranks
within the military.
There is one question I would like to ask the hon. member for
Vancouver Island North. Would he not agree that the military
within Canada and the United States have a large attachment of
civilian workers who work with them? I have yet to hear
anyone from the Reform Party talk about the very serious cuts,
not only to the civilian workers, but to the alternate service
delivery and the effect they have on the workers who are
currently there.
Many workers are losing their jobs. Goose Bay-Labrador is a
prime example where people who have worked with the military for
many years on a civilian basis are now being asked to take
a 60% cut in pay and a different job classification.
I would like either the hon. member's personal comments or his
party's comments on how they view alternate service delivery and
the effect it has not only on civilian workers but on the
military as well.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, regarding the member's
question about alternate service delivery, I do understand from
my visits to Comox air force base that there has been a lot of
alternate service delivery which has been brought into the
military and to that base over the last several years. I think
much of it makes sense, so far. However, there comes a point at
which some of the essential things, especially those things
that military personnel need to carry with them into combat,
should be retained by the military.
The member's question about personnel being asked to take a 60%
pay cut concerns me greatly. It tells me that somebody else
has become the new employer and they want to retain the same
employees but pay them less. If that is the circumstance, it is
not one that I am aware of on the home front. I cannot say that
it is something I would subscribe to. If there is alternate
service delivery I would assume that the reason it is being done
is because efficiencies are going to be achieved in some other
way, through scheduling, through economies of scale or
inventory.
1310
However, to make one's cost savings by offloading onto employees
does not make sense to me. I am with the member in terms of that
part of his question.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member opposite
and was astounded by some of the comments he made with respect to
the military and some of the jingoistic statements he made.
I want to remind the hon. member that the government has moved
on a number of fronts with respect to our military, certainly on
issues relating to housing, across the board pay increases and
capital equipment acquisition. We are in fact positioned in a
way that will meet not only our obligations here in Canada but
around the world.
It recently came to my attention that the defence committee is
working very well in trying to address some of the issues raised
and the problems that are identified in a very collegial fashion.
I was somewhat amazed when one of the members from the Reform
Party, the member for Lakeland, was chided for trying to turn the
committee into a political side show. Talk about turning people
against people and region against region. I guess the Reform
Party is obviously very good at that in all cases and in all
ways.
My question to the hon. member is: Why does the Reform Party,
in its usual extreme manner, always insist on trying to turn the
military into a political football? Maybe the Reform member
could answer that for me.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I consider that comment
an insult. If the member thinks that way about me it is because
he has not listened to me very much. That is the last thing I am
doing here. This is a Liberal apologist.
He said that I made jingoistic statements. I suggest the member
look up jingoistic in the dictionary. Somehow he tied that to
housing and pay increases.
An hon. member: Jingle bells.
Mr. John Duncan: I heard that comment, too. That is
highly inappropriate when we are trying to have a constructive
debate. That is the ultimate in lip service to a Liberal
apologist.
The member made reference to the defence committee addressing
some of the problems in the military. That points out a
fundamental flaw in the way this administration operates. Those
problems did not originate this year. Those problems have been
brewing and the lid is just bubbling. We have people who have to
moonlight. We have members of the military going to food banks
and collecting welfare supplements because of structural problems
in the military. This has been front page news in Esquimalt,
Victoria, Edmonton and other locations. We do not need a defence
committee to tell us how to address these problems. The
government has known full well about these problems for a long
time and has chosen to ignore them because it places the
interests of the military at the bottom of the totem pole and not
where they rightfully belong.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is always interesting to hear the Liberal viewpoint on the
military and to see how quickly they point the finger elsewhere,
blaming others for the problems they have created.
From the very beginning the Liberals have hated the military,
all the way back to the Trudeau era, and have cut it apart. Under
Hellyer, Trudeau wanted to unify the military, which was the most
destructive force that ever could have happened to destroy the
military. It was done under Trudeau and it continues to this
day. They then turn around and say they are going to fix the
problems.
1315
The member talks a lot about morale. The morale problem is the
result of Liberal action and inaction. Morale is a major issue.
It is equated to pay, to equipment, to purpose and to honour and
courage in their leadership. That is what morale deals with. I
would like the member to talk about honour and courage in the
leadership and in the ministry of defence.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, the frontbench of the
Liberals is a place where Canadians should think that they can
look for leadership and for profound demonstrated
progressiveness. What do we see instead? We see a caretaker
status quo, protect their behind attitude from the frontbench and
it starts at the top.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Division on this motion
stands deferred until tomorrow.
* * *
[English]
JUDGES ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
judicial interdependence is the cornerstone of our democratic
society, a principle clearly reflected in—
1320
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I could not get any translation through my earphones but
I was of the understanding that our party was to speak next. The
translation did not come through when you said resuming debate. I
did not get any translation at all. I do not know if it is
working or not.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We are following the
normal rotation on Bill C-37. Was the member referring to Bill
C-37?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, if we are following
the rotation that is fine. It is just that I was not sure what
we were doing because I could not get English translation.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, judicial
interdependence is the cornerstone of our democratic society, a
principle clearly reflected in and protected by sections 96 to
100 of the Canadian Constitution.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently reiterated that financial
security for judges is a constitutional requirement established
to ensure public confidence in the independence and impartiality
of the judiciary.
[Translation]
On September 18, 1997, in the reference on the independence of
provincial court judges in Prince Edward Island, the Supreme
Court of Canada reiterated that financial security for judges is
a constitutional requirement established to ensure public
confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
[English]
In 1981, in recognition of the importance of judicial
interdependence and the unique constitutional role of the
judiciary, Parliament provided for an independent commission to
examine the adequacy of judges' salaries and benefits. In its
recent decision, the supreme court underscored the importance and
necessity of the role played by such independent commissions in
ensuring public confidence in the independence and impartiality
of the Canadian judiciary.
A key part of that decision is to require public justification
by government for a decision not to implement or to only
partially implement the recommendation of such a commission. The
most recent commission on judges' salaries and benefits, chaired
by Mr. David Scott, reported on September 30, 1996 and the
commission's report was tabled in Parliament on October 11, 1996.
This government continues to support the principles that led
Parliament to institute the judicial salary commission process 17
years ago. In light of those principles and the enhanced
constitutional role of independent salary commissions following
the supreme court decision, we have given serious consideration
to the recommendations of the Scott commission. Bill C-37 would
implement those recommendations which the government is prepared
to accept.
[Translation]
Regarding judicial remuneration, the Scott commission
recommended that judges' salaries be gradually increased by 8.3%
from the date when the salary freeze was lifted: April 1, 1997.
By proposing only prospective increases, the Scott report
reflects a position endorsed by the government and according to
which it would be unreasonable for the judiciary not to be
affected by the necessary budget restraints that were imposed
from 1992 until just recently on all Canadians paid by the
federal government.
[English]
This government agrees with Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme
Court of Canada when he stated in Beauregard v. Canada:
“Canadian judges are Canadian citizens and must bear their fair
share of the financial burden of administering the country”.
This view is echoed in the recent decision of the Supreme Court
of Canada where the chief justice of Canada observed: “Nothing
could be more damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and the
administration of justice than a perception that judges were not
shouldering their share of the burden in difficult economic
times”.
1325
At the same time, in deciding what was reasonable the Scott
commission recognized that a complex range of factors must be
considered in establishing an appropriate level of remuneration,
including the need to ensure levels of compensation that attract
and keep the most qualified candidates for judicial office.
[Translation]
The government is also aware that a number of provincial
governments across Canada reacted to the recent supreme court
decision by increasing their judges' salaries and that, in some
cases, retroactive adjustments were also made to remedy previous
salary cuts or freezes.
That is why the government proposed to amend the Judges Act to
increase judges' salaries by 4.1% per year for two years, as of
April 1, 1997.
[English]
Bill C-37 would also implement certain pension related
amendments to the Judges Act, including the rule of 80 which will
permit retirement when a judge has served on the bench for a
minimum of 15 years and the sum of age and years of service
equals at least 80.
The government agrees with this recommendation which responds in
an important way to the changing democratic profile of the
judiciary. More and more judges are being appointed at a younger
age and many of these younger judges are women.
The current provision, although based on the rule of 80,
requires the minimum age of 65. A judge who retires before 65
has no right to a pension at all. Therefore a judge appointed at
the age of 50 can retire with a pension at 65 with 15 years of
service but a judge who is appointed at 40 must serve 25 years, a
situation that is increasingly considered unfair.
This situation is even more unacceptable when we consider that
it has a particular impact on women judges, who constitute the
majority of those appointed at an early age. The rule of 80
would allow older, longer serving judges to retire when they feel
they no longer wish to continue in that role. Permitting this
would be good for them and for the court as an institution.
The Scott commission has proposed a different retirement option
for the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada who would be
permitted to retire with a full pension after serving a minimum
of 10 years on the bench. The government agrees with the
commission that the immense workload and heavy responsibility
inherent in membership on that court justifies the proposed
retirement provision. However, the government proposes to limit
it to those judges who have reached age 65.
The bill would also make a couple of other changes to judges'
pensions in the interest of fairness. It would allow common law
spouses to receive surviving spouses' annuities and it would give
a judge who marries after retirement the option of receiving an
actuarially reduced pension which continues until the judge and
the spouse have both died.
These are both common features of other pension plans. The
common law provision in particular is an equality issue which
recent jurisprudence suggests is overdue for inclusion in the
act.
I want to point out that while the government has given serious
consideration to the Scott commission recommendations, we are not
prepared to accept them all.
[Translation]
The Scott commission recommended that the judges' life insurance
coverage paid by the government be more in line with that of
deputy ministers. However, before responding to the proposals
made by the Scott commission, complex and serious matters must
first be considered, including the equity issue arising from the
potential diverse impact on younger judges, including women
judges, of the resulting increase in a taxable benefit.
[English]
While there has been some discussion of the range of approaches
to this issue, fuller consideration of this and other options is
required. This is therefore an issue that would be appropriate
to refer to the new commission once established for further study
and recommendations.
A very important part of Bill C-37 is improvements to the
judicial compensation commission process that are responsive to
the supreme court decision and are designed to reinforce its
independence, objectivity and effectiveness.
The judicial compensation and benefits commission would conduct
an inquiry into the adequacy of judicial compensation once every
four years. However, to provide flexibility timeframes would be
extended on agreement.
1330
The commission would have nine months to complete its inquiry
and submit a report to the Minister of Justice. Again
flexibility is provided by providing that the period to report be
extended on the agreement of the minister. In addition, the
minister could submit a matter to the commission for full
inquiry, make recommendations at any time and establish the
timeframe for a report in such cases.
The independence of the commission would be enhanced by our
proposal that it have one member nominated by the judiciary and
one nominated by the Minister of Justice. The representatives of
each side would in turn nominate a third member who would be
chair. Members would be appointed by the governor in council for
a fixed four year term on good behaviour, removable for cause.
Terms could be renewed once on renomination.
The bill also includes a proposal that the Minister of Justice
be required to respond to a report of a salary commission. This
is responsive in part to the recommendations of the Scott
commission that would require the Minister of Justice to table
the report of a commission in the House of Commons, together with
the government's response to the report and the government bill.
More important, perhaps, this proposal is designed to comply
with the new constitutional requirement that commission reports
be dealt with in due dispatch.
[Translation]
The government is proposing a response that differs in two
respects from that recommended by the Scott commission, however.
First, we are proposing that the minister respond, at the latest,
six months, and not three, after the report, so as to allow the
time required for careful study of a commission's reports.
Second, the government cannot agree with the recommendation that
bills should be tabled within a set time frame. Control of
legislative priorities and of the House agenda are the
government's prerogative and this prerogative must not be
hampered by rigid or inflexible deadlines.
I am very happy that this bill also follows up on a promise we
made in the 1997 budget to expand family courts. It proposes
adding 24 new judges positions, paving the way for the largest
increase yet in these very important courts.
[English]
We support the model of the unified family court in part because
it allows one judge to resolve all family law issues resulting
from separation or divorce. This reduces complexity, delay and
costs, and helps ensure that these matters are presided over by
expert specialist judges.
[Translation]
It is equally important to point out that the courts are based on
a model which we have supported from the outset and have
discussed with the provinces and territories interested in
establishing or expanding courts, and which would see
extrajudicial services incorporated into the conflict resolution
process.
These services include information on family law, educational
programs on the effects of separation on children, home studies,
referrals to counselling and other community services,
information on alternatives to litigation and access to such
services, including mediation, and supervised visiting programs.
[English]
Including these services with appropriate safeguards for power
imbalances and special measures where required to ensure equality
of access can reduce the level of conflict both during and after
the resolution of the matter and promote resolutions which are
acceptable to the parties and likely to last.
From the perspective of the children involved, better long term
outcomes can be expected from the lower levels of conflict,
quicker resolutions, greater focus on impacts on children,
increased durability of outcomes, and from the emphasis on an
integrated service intensive approach to child protection, child
support and custody and access issues.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the bill includes an amendment requested by the
Government of Ontario, which is calling for the appointment of
three new judges to that province's court of appeal.
The Ontario Court of Appeal is by far the busiest appeal court in
the country but, with its complement of 19 full-time judges, it is
only the second largest of all provincial appeal courts, and its
combined staff of full-time and supernumerary judges equals that
of two other provinces.
1335
[English]
The Ontario Court of Appeal is facing significant delays,
particularly in civil appeals. The civil appeal backlog
increased from 1,400 in 1990 to over 2,300 at the end of 1996,
notwithstanding that between 1990 and 1996 the court increased
the number of civil appeals yearly by 100%.
To deal with this growing backlog the court embarked on a number
of innovative measures to further increase its productivity. As
a result of these initiatives, in 1996 the court heard about 50%
more civil appeals than it did in 1995 and, as I indicated, 100%
more than it did in 1990. Notwithstanding this very significant
productivity improvement, the growing number of new appeals that
were filed resulted in the civil appeal backlog decreasing only
marginally in 1996 over 1995.
The province's increasing population and overall economic
activity suggest that the court's workload will increase rather
than decrease in the years ahead, contributing further to the
backlog situation.
The Ontario and federal governments, as well as the court
itself, have examined the nature and extent of the court's case
load. The consensus is that an increase of three to the court's
full-time complement of 19 would result in a significant
reduction in the backlog and a concomitant reduction in the
delays experienced by litigants before the court.
[Translation]
The bill includes other technical amendments, including
amendments arising from changes in the names of the Ontario
Court, General Division, and the Ontario Court, Provincial
Division, made by the Government of Ontario.
[English]
In conclusion, these amendments will serve to strengthen what is
already one of the best judicial systems in the world by
enhancing the independence of our courts and improving access to
justice.
The improvements to the judicial compensation process will
ensure continued public confidence in the independence of our
judiciary. Increased judicial resources for unified family
courts combined with provincial commitment of support services
will improve the way our courts respond to families and children
in crisis. Increased court of appeal judges will improve access
to justice generally.
I hope we can look forward to the support of all members in the
House in moving these important amendments to the Judges Act
quickly through parliament to the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be the first on behalf of the Reform Party to respond
to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, and to explain why we
cannot support the bill.
First and foremost, this is the third time the Liberals have
amended the Judges Act. During the last parliament in 1996 they
introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42. Both were inconsequential
pieces of legislation and of little significance to Canadians
concerned about their safety.
Here we are again spending our precious time on judge's salaries
and benefits. The Liberal government has failed to introduce a
victims' bill of rights. It has failed to amend the YOA. It has
failed to limit the Conditional Release Act. It has failed to
address the parole system, which is failing constantly in a
number of cases.
It fails to deal with the safety of Canadians but we are to talk
about judges' pay and benefits. We will occupy our time doing
that instead of dealing with important issues like maybe amending
some law pertaining to drinking and driving. The government will
wait for forever. In the four years I have been here we have
hounded the government to make important changes, but, no, not
yet.
At the heart of the legislation is the fact that it increases
judges' salaries retroactively from April 1, 1997 to March 31,
1998 by 4.1% and an additional 4.1% or a little more from April
1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. In other words judges will get an
8.3% increase over two years. With the average salary of a judge
being approximately $140,000, this means they will make in excess
of $151,000. This is a substantial increase.
My question is simple. How many other public servants have
received pay raises in a two year period of 8.3%? I hope all
security guards will hold up their hands and shout hurrah for the
8.3% raise the judges got who went from $140,000 to $151,000.
I hope the lady pushing the carpet sweeper and broom and emptying
garbage cans in front of my office this morning is pleased to
hear that judges will now make $151,000 instead of $140,000
because of a pay raise. I hope bus drivers do not get too
disappointed because they have not had a raise for nearly seven
or eight years.
1340
What about prison guards? I spend a lot of time in the prisons.
The guards have been crying out for nine years that some of them
have not seen a raise or pay increase of any kind. They go to
work in the morning and are at high risk and in high stress day
after day. It is a dangerous and difficult job. Yet the
government makes certain that the judges receive an increase from
$140,000 to $151,000 while the guards in our institutions who
have been asking for a pay raise for seven to nine years simply
do not get one.
When I arrived in Ottawa in 1993 the weepy teared deputy prime
minister said the government had to do something as there were a
million children starving and living in poverty. Today there are
still a million or perhaps more children in this situation. The
government does not have time to address that. It can give away
$25 million worth of flags and not worry about starving children
living in poverty. It goes on, and four years later there are
still a million children living in poverty. Yet it has time to
deal with the judges and give them another big raise, increasing
their salaries to $151,000.
The government would simply say it is extremist and does not
care. It shows its caring by making sure senior bureaucrats,
possibly their frontline officers in caucus and judges are all
well looked after with their bonuses. Let us not forget big
business grants. It has several millions of dollars to give to
big businesses. Maybe they are donors to the Liberal Party. I
do not know.
These are the kinds of issues we hoped would be solved when we
came here. However, what are debating today? Judges' salaries
and benefits. The government is not worried about those million
children. It has not worried about this issue for four years so
why worry about it today? It is not worried about prison guards
or security guards in this building. They have not had a raise
for seven or eight years. The government will not worry about
that today. It has to look after judges.
Usually judges come from a lawyer background as do most of the
people on that side of the House. There is a good industry going
on here. Maybe we need to protect that industry. I wish the
government would show a little more caring about some things that
are going on.
People in my riding are being evicted from their homes because
they cannot afford to pay the rent or their mortgages. They have
children. I could name three families who are being evicted from
their homes because they can no longer afford to pay their
mortgage payments. The government does not deal with that. It
deals with high wages for the bureaucrats and all the highfalutin
Liberal garble. It gives them bonuses and makes it look good. It
goes on and on. When will it stop? When will it begin taking
care of the needy instead of the greedy? When will that happen?
The caring government of the day, huh.
Another point about the bill brings some things out in me that
should not be brought out. There will to be a commission that
has to report but not to parliament. There will not be
opportunity for members to respond. The commission is a creation
which will provide the federal government with another
opportunity to make more patronage appointments.
1345
Is that not good news? More appointments in a government where
the Prime Minister said many times that he was going to put an
end to that, much the way he said he was going to put an end to
the GST. Instead there are more and more appointments. It is
going to be a patronage heaven by the time they get done.
Members will hold office for four years and they are eligible to
be reappointed for another term. One will be appointed by the
justice minister. Another one will be appointed by the governor
in council. A couple more will be recommended by somebody else.
Another patronage appointment, welcome to Liberal world.
Patronage heaven, what a great place to be. How can this
government ever be seen as being accountable when the patronage
appointments process is rejuvenated again and again, bill after
bill, more patronage, appointments galore.
In the government's press release on compensation and benefits,
the supreme court underscored the importance and the necessity of
the role played by such an independent commission in ensuring
public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the
Canadian judiciary. This clearly does not mean a system of
patronage, yet that is what we got.
They clearly know how to talk the talk, but they do not walk the
walk. The public confidence is at an all-time low because of
these kinds of patronage patronage appointments. Club Chrétien
with its exclusive membership is already at 124 members. This
legislation will open the door for more. Is that not good news?
More patronage appointments.
Have a good time taxpayers of Canada. You think your taxes are
high now, they are going to go up and up. We are not going to
really address the needs of the nation. It is not a priority of
that crowd over there.
The third highlight of the bill increases the number of appeal
court judges from 10 to 13. It is no wonder this has become
necessary in light of the shoddy pieces of legislation, such as
conditional sentencing. In B.C. alone there have been a record
number of cases appealed because of Bill C-41 in the last
Parliament. What does all does that mean? What is happening?
An hon. member: The Liberals are doing it to B.C.
Mr. Myron Thompson: That is exactly what the Liberals are
doing to B.C.
Let us take a good close look at this. I want to refer to a
case as I move into the next area regarding backlog. They are
going to increase the number of judges in the family court from
12 to 36 to take care of the backlog.
There is a case going on in Calgary right now. In June 1996
Christopher Goodstoney was charged in an accident which took the
lives of four people. He was accused of being drunk and was
found guilty. His first court appearance after the accident in
June 1996 was on June 27, 1996, the same day the four children
who were killed were to be buried. Because of the snail's pace
of our justice system, these grieving families have yet to lay
their children to rest. The overloaded courts are squarely to
blame.
Let me show the chronology of this event as in the eyes of Carla
Powell, the only surviving sibling of all the families. The other
four were killed in the automobile wreck:
We were normal families. Ben Keuben is a house painter; his
wife Darlene is a school librarian. Gordon Smith is a long time
employee of the Calgary Sun; his wife Susan is an executive
at Hewlett-Packard. Douglas Powell is the custodian of the Big
Country Educational Consortium in Drumheller; his wife Jean is
an English instructor with the Alberta Vocational College in Calgary
in the outreach program in Drumheller. Carla Powell, the only
remaining sibling of the three families, has a B.A. from the
University of Calgary and is presently employed by the University
of Saskatchewan. Craig, her brother, who was one of the victims
in this wreck attended SAIT in welding engineering technology and
was employed by All New Manufacturing in Calgary.
Amber, who was another victim, attended the University of
Lethbridge and planned on continuing her studies at Mount Royal
College. Brandy and Stephanie, the other two victims, were
fun-loving teenagers who had just finished their school terms
when they were killed. Not only is there a past but also there
is a future that we have helped plan and optimistically
anticipated.
We feel that we must explain the journey from our perspective
rather than that of the courts or the accused.
On June 27, 1996, the day of the funerals for all of our
children, Christopher Goodstoney, along with his lawyer, Larry
Hursh, made his first court appearance before Judge John Reilly
and he was remanded into custody until August 13 charged with
five counts, four of criminal negligence causing death and one of
criminal negligence causing injury.
On July 3, at which time five more counts had been added to his
charges, four of impaired driving causing death and one of
impaired driving causing injury, he appeared in Court of Queen's
Bench in Calgary before Justice Ernest Hutchinson and was
released into his community with no cash bail because of the
tremendous support shown by members of his tribe. However, he was
given very strict bail conditions. He was not to drive, he was
not to drink, he was to live with his mother and he was to report
on a regular basis to the Cochrane RCMP.
On August 13, Goodstoney appeared in court in Cochrane for a
minute or two and the proceedings were set over to September 24.
Sometime along the line, an 11th charge of being over the legal
blood alcohol limit of .08 was added to the charges.
On September 24, the appearance of Goodstoney in court was, if
that is possible, even shorter than the previous time, but a date
was set for the preliminary hearing.
On March 19, 20 and 21, 1997 a preliminary hearing was
conducted. After three days of testimony, the proceedings were
adjourned until May 6.
On May 6 the court heard from a witness who had been out of the
country for several months. The defendant was ordered to stand
trial on 11 charges and an arraignment date was set for June 11.
On June 11 the proceedings were postponed until August 13
because the defendant said he needed more time to find funding
for his lawyer. His lawyer told the newspaper he needed the time
to make a deal with the crown prosecutor. All deals were refused
by the prosecution.
On August 13 the same argument of needing more time and
requiring money was presented to the Court of the Queen's Bench
and the arraignment was set over until September 10.
On September 10 Goodstoney's lawyer quit and Goodstoney was told
to be back in court on October 8 with a lawyer. At that time,
however, the trial date for the case was set down for days
starting on March 16, 1998.
1350
I was there on March 16 and what we were waiting for was his
sentencing. We listened to one lawyer on one side and another
lawyer on the other side debate for an hour or two about this
person who had been charged with drunk driving, who had killed
four people because of his actions two years ago and guess what,
they did not arrive at a sentencing. The judge was a little
confused about what was being said and so it was postponed.
Eighteen court trials on a clear-cut drunk driving case where
people were killed. The driver of the vehicle said that he was
guilty, that he was sorry and he wished he had not done it. He
wanted to be dealt with and have it over with. It has now been
two and a half years and 18 court trials on a case like that.
And the government is coming in with a piece of legislation that
is going to help all this backlog. There is one judge in Ottawa
who, if he does not get a raise, I will be glad to take out for a
steak because he hit the nail on the head in an article “Judge
scolds greedy lawyers”.
One of Canada's most senior judges has blatantly condemned the
legal profession's growing preoccupation with making money. This
judge of the Supreme Court of Canada said “Law has become more
of a business than a profession or a calling and many lawyers are
rapidly losing sight of their obligation to the public and to the
pursuit of justice”. I will take that judge out for a steak if
he does not get his raise, and an Alberta steak at that.
There were 18 court cases on a clear-cut case of negligence
causing death over two years ago. This goes on and on. Pockets
are getting fatter and fatter. The victims and even the families
of the criminals are not satisfied. They want this to come to
end but the system carries it on and on.
1355
Our wonderful solution givers over on that side of the House
will create more positions for judges to help get rid of the
backlog. It is too bad we cannot do something to get rid of the
Liberals. They are the cause of the whole mess to start with.
The sooner that happens the better it will be.
One of these days the time will come when victims rights are a
priority in this land. Victims rights will come first. Some
day, and it will be real soon. One day the Liberal honeymoon
will be over. The voters who say that the Liberals are doing a
wonderful job will soon wake up and smell the roses.
They keep feeding these greedy little parasitic fraternities
that exist across this land. The longer they keep that up, the
worse it is going to get. Please taxpayers of Canada, stop
feeding these greedy people and stop nurturing this kind of
appetite.
Let us look after those million kids who are living in poverty.
Let us look after the soldiers we were talking about earlier so
they do not have to go to the soup kitchens and food banks to
survive. Let us look after these public servants who serve us in
this building who have not had a raise for eight or nine years.
Let us start doing what we ought to be doing instead of having a
greedy little political are we not great attitude. That attitude
stinks and it is time to get rid of it.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I think it is now the turn of the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm. However, since it is almost 2 p.m., I will
give him the floor after oral question period.
[English]
It is almost two o'clock and we will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CENTAUR THERMAL SYSTEMS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week
marked the launch of a new technology poised to revolutionize the
automotive industry. Centaur Thermal Systems of Cambridge
unveiled its new heat storage system.
In the dead of winter this new technology will provide near
instant heat to a vehicle's interior, decrease windshield
de-icing time, reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency. I
congratulate Mr. Klaus Woerner, president of ATS, for his vision.
I encourage the Canadian automotive industry to follow its
European competitors in adopting this remarkable technology.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice has tabled 142 pages of firearms
regulations just in time for April Fool's Day. We can all
breathe easily now because violent criminals are going to be
lining up to get possession licences and to register their guns
which, once registered, will be non-lethal.
The $85 million price tag forecast by the previous minister has
already been exceeded by a multiple of three with nothing to show
for it. There is plenty of money for this idiocy but nothing to
upgrade the national highway system. That is something that would
really save lives, but it would not give the pleasure, the rush,
that Liberals get from stepping on the necks of their fellow
citizens.
Safe highways are unaffordable but there will be hundreds of
millions of dollars for this useless bureaucratic exercise in
people control.
* * *
CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today Canada celebrates the 80th anniversary of the
birth of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The CNIB
aims to better the condition of the blind of Canada, to prevent
blindness and to promote sight enhancement services.
The number of Canadians with seeing disabilities is projected to
reach almost one million by the year 2015. The role of the CNIB
is growing ever more crucial.
Prominent among the many services the CNIB provides is a
national library service for print handicapped persons. This
library is a major source of books and information in alternate
format for print handicapped Canadians in both official
languages.
I call upon all Canadians to congratulate the CNIB for its
valuable service to Canada.
* * *
1400
HUGH YIK
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 15
year old Moncton skater Hugh Yik captured his first consecutive
junior men's title at the 1998 Bank of Montreal Canadian figure
skating championships in Hamilton, Ontario in January 1998.
Hugh Yik is a grade 10 student at Moncton high school and is the
first male skater in more than 20 years to win the national
novice and junior titles in back to back years. This win will
probably give him the opportunity to participate in the 2002
Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
[Translation]
Hugh Yik is currently a member of Canada's figure skating team.
From now on, he will compete at the international level.
We are supportive of Hugh Yik's athletic career, and we wish him
the greatest possible success.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the 80th anniversary of the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind.
Over the last 80 years the CNIB has worked tirelessly to improve
the conditions of the blind, to prevent blindness and to promote
sight enhancement services.
Through its work at home and abroad, the CNIB has made a
positive difference in the lives of the blind, visually impaired
and deaf-blind persons.
In recognition of this, in 1996 CNIB President Dr. E.J. Herie
was elected president of the World Blind Union which consists of
both service providers and consumer organizations. The WBU brings
under its umbrella 150 million blind and visually impaired
persons in 160 countries.
I am proud that the CNIB Ottawa office is located in my riding.
Today I would like to recognize Mr. Garrick Homer, chairman, and
Dr. Euclid Herie, president and chief executive officer, for
their hard work and dedication to this issue. Congratulations on
a job well done.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs has failed to take timely
action on two major issues affecting the well-being of grassroots
aboriginal people living on the Fairford Indian reserve in my
riding.
The chief and council have mismanaged the band's finances. One
serious aspect of this is that the band has not paid the
Lakeshore school division for off-reserve schooling to the tune
of $121,000. The children will not be allowed to attend school
this fall if the payment is not made. The children are under
emotional stress and the local taxpayers are under financial
stress.
The second situation involves the appeal of the October 4, 1997
Fairford band elections. Political instability on the reserve is
causing massive problems.
These are only two of the problems on the reserve but they are
two that the minister has a direct responsibility to resolve. The
minister has been aware of these problems for a long time and
still no resolution.
I am asking the minister of Indian affairs on behalf of
thousands of my constituents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal,
to make payment to the school division and to adjudicate the
election appeal forthwith.
* * *
CURLING
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last weekend the women's and men's junior curling teams took gold
at the world junior championship held in Thunder Bay.
I am proud to congratulate the Canadian team and would like to
make special mention of a member of the men's team from my riding
of Bruce—Grey.
Andy Ormsby, the junior men's team second, is from Meaford, a
great and beautiful small town on the wonderful shores of
Georgian Bay.
Curling is one of the many sports where Canadians are showcasing
their skills and dedication to excellence. As a former high
school coach, it is wonderful to see another generation of
Canadians come to the world stage as effective team players and
skilled performers.
On behalf of all Canadians I want to congratulate our junior
men's and women 's curling teams for a job well done.
* * *
LEARNING DISABILITIES
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
March is learning disabilities awareness month and it is our
responsibility as members of the House to do everything in our
power to increase awareness of this issue and to acknowledge the
contributions of those dedicated to this task.
As a member of the Learning Disabilities Association of
Kitchener, I would like to thank it for the good work it does,
the Saturday morning clubs it runs and the summer camps my son
went to which foster self-confidence through skills development,
the parenting courses, the annual conference which arms parents
with coping strategies and teach both them and their children
with learning disabilities how to be effective advocates for
themselves within the school system.
Universities are beginning to adjust to accommodate the
different learning styles of students with learning disabilities.
The 1998 budget acknowledged the needs of Canadians with learning
disabilities.
1405
Society needs to continue to address these barriers to this
invisible disability. Learning disabled children do not have
limits on their abilities. Simply, they learn in a different way.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to
express my concerns over this Liberal government's double
standard when it comes to the issue of federal aid for Canadian
farmers.
The 1997 fruit growers in Okanagan and Similkameen valleys were
devastated by hail and other weather related disasters. The B.C.
government sought help for the farmers affected by these
disasters through a cost sharing program with the federal
government like the new B.C. whole farm insurance program. This
government continues to stonewall.
After the central Canada ice storm it took less than a month for
the federal government to give aid to the maple syrup producers.
Orchardists in British Columbia have been waiting almost a year.
The rules determining which farmers qualify for federal disaster
relief assistance should be the same for all Canadians and should
not be based on what part of the country they live in. The
Liberal government must end this double standard today and
announce financial aid for B.C. fruit growers.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on March 27, Canada became the first country to ratify
the amendments to the Montreal protocol dealing with ozone
depleting substances.
The purpose of the amendments approved in Montreal this past
September is to strengthen the treaty's provisions.
These amendments include the prohibition of imports and exports
of bromide between countries that have not signed the protocol,
and the establishment of a world system to monitor the movement
of ozone depleting substances.
The amendments to the Montreal protocol will only come into
effect after being ratified by 20 states. This initiative
demonstrates the Canadian government's determination to follow up
on its decisions regarding the environment.
* * *
POVERTY
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Human Rights Act does not include poverty in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination, but poverty is a real threat to
equality and should have no place in a democratic, free and open
society.
In this regard, I would recall article 25 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which reads “Everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and his family”.
It is shocking to realize that in Canada 1.5 million poor
children do not manage to meet their basic needs.
The real responsibility for this mess lies with the Prime
Minister and his cuts in transfers to the provinces, with the
Minister of Human Resources Development and his attack on the
unemployed and with the Minister of Finance, who is hiding the
employment insurance fund surplus.
With these choices, the Liberal government is directly attacking
the dignity of poor children and their parents.
* * *
[English]
MILLENNIUM FUND
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today the Prime Minister met with the premier of Quebec to set up
a committee to look at how the millennium fund is implemented in
Quebec. Nine other provincial governments are still waiting for
a call. Students who want to see a national grants program based
on need have also yet to hear from the Prime Minister.
The government has been running a great public relations game on
the millennium fund. However, we still do not have any idea how
it will meet the needs of students or how it fits in with
existing student assistance programs.
I am calling on the federal government to recognize the serious
flaws within the millennium fund and immediately work with all
provinces and student groups to come up with a program that
genuinely meets the needs of students.
* * *
DON ATTRIDGE
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
extend my congratulations to a constituent of mine and a resident
of Markham. Mr. Don Attridge has received the prestigious Adrien
Pouliot award. The award recognizes individuals or teams of
individuals who have made significant and sustained contributions
to mathematics.
The 1997 award was given to Mr. Attridge as part of a team
including Edwin Anderson, Ronald Dunkley and Ronald Scoins. The
team was honoured because of its creation and development of the
Canadian mathematics competition which began in 1962 with 300
children from 19 schools in rural Ontario participating.
The original mathematics competition was created for students in
grades 9, 10 and 11 in order to better prepare them for more
senior competitions. Mr. Attridge, in addition to being a major
contributor since the first Canadian mathematics competition was
launched, taught mathematics for 37 years.
Until his retirement in 1992 he was also the mathematics
consultant for the York region board of education.
1410
Mr. Attridge's award is just another example of the tremendous
contribution that Markham residents and businesses make to
Ontario and Canada.
Thanks to Mr. Attridge for making Markham proud.
* * *
[Translation]
ASSISTANCE TO ICE STORM VICTIMS
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for economic development today announced, on
behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
payment of over $3.7 million to three projects aimed at helping
the regions hit by the ice storm.
These projects will provide work experience to 280 unemployed
Montrealers and help others deal with the effects of the ice
storm. This contribution comes from the disaster relief fund,
which amounts to $50 million.
These projects will help the City of Montreal recover its charm
and beauty quickly.
I pay tribute to the Government of Canada's part in revitalizing
Montreal.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today all of
Quebec, from the premier to the entire coalition on education,
has spoken out against the creation of the millennium
scholarships.
As presented, these scholarships do not in any way meet Quebec's
needs in the field of education. What is more, they penalize
Quebec for its longstanding choice to keep tuition fees and
student debt down to reasonable levels.
The education system in Quebec has suffered, and continues to
suffer, from the deep cuts in transfer payments imposed by the
federal government.
The federal government must allow Quebec to exercise its right to
withdraw from the millennium scholarship program with full
compensation, because investment in education in Quebec must be
tailored to the needs Quebeckers have identified and not imposed
unilaterally by a government anxious to enhance its visibility.
* * *
[English]
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM BYELECTION
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this weekend showed that Reform Party members do not
know what they want to be.
Some suggest that Reformers go back and join the revamped
Conservative Party. Others will do anything to convert former
Conservatives. The leader wants a party with a new name but the
same leader.
One thing that unites all Reformers is an admission that the
Reform vision for Canada cannot attract support on its own merit.
The best they can hope for is to be Reformatories. The
Reformers today are up Beaver Creek without a paddle.
Today the voters for Port Moody—Coquitlam have a choice. They
can choose a party that does not know what it wants to be and may
not exist by the year 2000. Or voters can choose a strong local
representative in the Liberal Party, the only national party that
has a future, a party that is focused on everyday needs of
people, not political opportunism.
I am sure the voters of Port Moody—Coquitlam will do what is
best for their community and support Lou Sekora.
* * *
THE DEBT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last the week the President of the Treasury Board
released part III of the main estimates. These estimates clearly
show the government's intention to continue its tax and spend
ways. Canadians are now so overtaxed that bankruptcies are at
record levels and now we have a lower standard of living than we
did five years ago.
Out of the estimated budgetary expenditure of $148 billion,
$43.5 billion is being spent on interest payments alone on the
national debt. That is 29% of total government spending just to
service the debt.
My Cariboo—Chilcotin constituents have told me time and again
they need more money in their pockets for minimum necessities.
While this government boasts of busting the deficit on the backs
of taxpayers, it is looking for new ways to spend more tax
dollars.
Did the government not learn its lesson that it cannot pay down
the debt with money already spent? Apparently not.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise to discuss an issue which is not only of great
importance in my riding of Brandon—Souris but transcends into an
issue of national importance.
The issue involves providing the city of Brandon the highway
infrastructure needed to attract and service the Maple Leaf hog
processing plant. This will have a great economic impact not only
on the city of Brandon but also on the province of Manitoba and
Canada as a whole.
The federal Minister of Transport has said that his department
has been generous in funding highway networks. However, the
federal government's involvement in highways since the Liberal
government took power has been dismal. On average the federal
government has allocated only $6.4 million per year to Manitoba
highways despite collecting in Manitoba an average of $124
million per year in road fuel excise taxes.
1415
In reality, the federal government has only put 4.8% back into
Manitoba roads. This clearly illustrates Liberal government
policy toward the provinces. We will take when we are supposed
to give. We will take credit when credit is not due and we
will lay blame where fault is our own.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the health minister has tried to craft a public image of being a
really caring and compassionate individual. That is his
leadership strategy: he has more heart than his rival, the
finance minister.
However, last week we saw the real McCoy come forward. He
callously sentenced thousands of hepatitis C victims to suffer
alone without any hope.
I would like to ask Mr. Compassion today, why is it that he
found $2 million for Brian Mulroney and not one thin dime for the
victims of hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
13 governments, all the provinces, the two territories and the
Government of Canada had to make a tough decision. We identified
in this tainted blood tragedy a period of 1986 to 1990 which
stands apart from all the others.
During that period there were tests available that could have
and should have been put in place to avoid infections and they
were not. We are compensating people during that period because
it was during that period that something could have been done to
help.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is no comfort for those who were tainted and infected
outside of that time. This health minister made a legal
decision, an accounting decision, a budgetary decision. It had
nothing to do with compassionate, fair, human decisions at all.
There are now two tiers of hepatitis C victims in this country.
There are those whose life is valued and those who do not even
seem to exist at all in the eyes of this minister.
How much money has the minister set aside to fight these victims
in courts and lawsuits and how much has he spent on PR damage
control?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the period before 1986 hepatitis C was not even known. It was
called non-A, non-B hepatitis. In the period before 1986 people
in the medical system, acting in the best of faith and with the
scientific and medical knowledge of the day, did the best they
could. There are risks and benefits in every medical procedure.
In these cases, tragically, before 1986 that risk benefit worked
out in the case of tainted blood to cause infections with
hepatitis C. However, the period 1986 to 1990 was the period
during which something could have been done and was not done. It
is for that reason, as a matter of principle, that we
distinguished that period from all the others.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not much comfort for those who were infected before 1986.
Frankly, they do not really care what it is called.
The minister is so fond of saying “We care. We have families
too and we really understand how you feel”. The hepatitis C
victims have family members also, except they are dying. Instead
of spending their last months with their families, they are now
going to be going through the courts fighting against this
minister for compensation.
Is this the new Liberal definition of compassion?
Hon. Allan Rock (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not recall and I do not think my colleagues, the ministers of
health, can recall any decision which has been more difficult
than dealing with this issue of compensation for those who
innocently were tainted by contaminated blood.
However, we also agreed that we should proceed on a principle.
We agreed that we should look at the situation to determine
whether distinctions could be drawn. To say that anybody who
has an adverse consequence from the health system, no matter
fault, no matter good faith, no matter the state of scientific
knowledge, should receive compensation is not a principle on
which we—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister says there was nothing that could have been done before
1986. That is categorically false. In 1981 one of the main
directors of the Red Cross sent a memo around to the Red Cross
saying that there was something specific that could be done and
they did nothing.
There is no way to differentiate people who have hepatitis C.
They are sick and many of them will die.
Why does the government not just admit that what it has done is
wrong and compensate all the victims of hepatitis C? Why not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the best history of all of this tragedy was written by Mr.
Justice Krever who spent four years going through the evidence.
It is clear from the chronology that 1986 was the turning point.
That was the year in which the countries to whom we compare
ourselves internationally, for example the United States, adopted
surrogate testing. That was the turning point.
1420
It is for that reason that all health ministers agree that the
period 1986 to 1990 should be the period during which we make a
distinction compared to the rest and that is the period during
which compensation will be paid.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted that the health minister brings up Justice Krever's
report. He said “Compensate everyone”. That was his
recommendation.
There have been two other major public relations blunders in the
last few months in Canada. Two governments suggested
compensation packages which were wrong for the Dionne quintuplets
and for those who were sterilized in Canada without their
permission. As soon as they realized they were wrong, they
reversed their stand.
There is a right way and a wrong way to treat the victims of
hepatitis C. Why has this health minister chosen the wrong way?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Justice Krever did his job. He was speaking about just the
blood system. He made his recommendations. Then it was up to
governments to do their job, to take responsibility for making
decisions about the health system in general.
I have explained to this House and to the public of Canada the
basis on which we proceeded. The distinction between this and
the other cases referred to by the hon. member is that in those
cases they proceeded on the wrong principle. Here we are
proceeding on a rational analysis, a basis of principle which
will remain a distinction justified by the facts. It is a
distinction with which I believe the Canadian people will agree.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSITIONAL JOB CREATION FUND
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
reference to the transitional job creation fund, the Minister of
Human Resources Development said, and I quote “It is one of the
effective tools used by this government and we certainly intend
to continue providing assistance to the unemployed in this way”.
Since the fund has now run dry, will the minister confirm that
he does indeed plan to invest additional amounts in the
transitional job creation fund?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our commitment to the
transitional job creation fund was for three years. There is one
year to go. It is true that certain amounts have already been
spent over the previous year, but we are extremely pleased with
what the transitional job creation fund has accomplished.
We are certainly pleased to see real jobs being created by
attracting more private sector investments. It has been a useful
tool in the past. However, the transitional job creation fund was
established for a three year period, and there is one year to go.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
may be a year remaining in the program, but the coffers are
empty. There is no money left in the fund.
While the fund was overflowing with money last year, before the
election, it is all gone now. We know there is a $19 billion
surplus in the employment insurance fund.
Does the minister realize that, even if this is not an election
year, the unemployed, their children and their families still
need help and assistance, especially as the spring gap nears?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Bloc leader's
congratulations on the good work we have done with the
transitional job creation fund.
It is indeed a very dynamic tool, which has helped thousands and
thousands of unemployed workers. Ninety five million dollars, or
30% of this fund, is earmarked for Quebec, and I think this is
extremely beneficial to Quebeckers living in regions with a
particularly high rate of unemployment.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Minister of Human
Resources Development is still refusing to shore up the
transitional job creation fund and is handing out grants one by
one from what is left at the bottom of the barrel, as was done in
the case of the Matane shrimp plant.
Are we to understand that, from now on, applications to the
transitional job creation fund will be handled on a piecemeal
basis?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy that we
were able to help save the Matane shrimp plant and I am astounded
to hear the Bloc Quebecois accuse us of doing a poor job in this
case.
I am continually astonished at how they are prepared to
grandstand with their charges that we are scraping the bottom of
the barrel as soon as we make strategic investments in regions
where unemployment is too high. I am not interested in
grandstanding.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we are not interested in is the minister's
piecemeal management.
1425
Are we to understand that the minister is in the process of
converting the transitional job creation fund into a
discretionary program for his own political use?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the member
for Matane, who belongs to the same political party as the hon.
member, approached us and agreed that it was not discretionary,
for he gave me his support.
So the hon. member should do his homework before saying that it
is a discretionary decision.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, by agreeing to
negotiate with Quebec on the millennium fund, the Prime Minister
is acknowledging the failure of his unilateral approach. The
other provinces also have reservations about the millennium fund.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to discuss with all the provinces
to determine the use to be made of the money available for
students?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the NDP
for giving me the opportunity to talk about the meeting the
Minister of Finance and I had last Thursday evening with the
Canadian Council of Ministers of Education. All the provinces
were represented.
We had very positive discussions on the millennium fund.
Everyone around the table gave the government credit for its
initiative and was very favourably impressed by the government's
vision in support of knowledge and the acquisition of skills in
Canada.
We will, of course, be having discussions and negotiations. The
representatives of the foundation that will be set up will be
talking with each of the provinces.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if this
government would not keep engaging in unilateralism it would not
always have to be scrambling to do damage control.
With the millennium fund unilateralism did not work.
Unilateralism will never work. It just gives separatists another
cause célèbre. Bilateralism will not work either.
In the spirit of co-operative federalism, will the government
agree to meet with all the premiers to ensure that the education
funds are allocated to meet the real and pressing needs of our
students?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and
myself met with the education ministers of the provinces just
last week precisely to make sure that the foundation's
contribution would be able to reach the students who most need it
to continue their post-secondary education.
Because we are working with the provinces, a margin of
manoeuvres will be developed in some provinces which will give
them more of a margin to manoeuvre to make the wisest possible
investment in the right direction.
This is federalism at its best, working together to help young
Canadians.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health is wrong. There was a test available and it
was being run in Germany prior to 1986, in fact in 1982, to
screen out what is now know as hepatitis C, but the department
did not act on it.
As a consequence, we have 40,000 people left outside the
compensation package. Will the minister now act unilaterally to
compensate these innocent victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I mentioned, I think it is clear that 1986 was the year of
demarcation, when countries to whom we compare ourselves, such as
the United States, put in place as a matter of standard practice
a test for looking for this contaminant in blood.
This is not a partisan issue. At the table last week with me
were ministers from Conservative provincial governments, from NDP
provincial governments, who all agreed as a matter of public
policy that this is the right and the responsible course to take.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
agree—and this is probably the only thing we agree on—that this
is not a partisan issue.
The fact is that the only reason the minister is using the U.S.
model is because it is a model of convenience. That model of
convenience allows him to fit within the timeframe of 1986 and
1990, therefore leaving out 40,000 innocent victims.
He is talking about fairness. I want those 40,000 victims
compensated. It is as simple as that. He has the constitutional
and moral responsibility to do that. Will he act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take a different view of the facts. My provincial colleagues,
my counterparts, take a different view of the facts.
I have explained the principle upon which we proceeded. The
member is entitled to disagree.
1430
This is the basis upon which all governments have approached
this matter. If we are to compensate people who are harmed
however tragically through no fault, with people acting in good
faith based on the evidence that is in hand in the medical
system, then that is a very dangerous course on which to proceed.
We have identified the principle upon which we have acted. All
governments are agreed that this is the appropriate approach.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister says that this is a golden age for Canada but
maybe not.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Monte Solberg: I am surprised members would clap when
one in ten Canadians is on welfare today. It is interesting they
would take that attitude.
According to the National Council of Welfare one in ten of
Canadians is on welfare and 78% are continuously on welfare for
more than seven months.
Is that the finance minister's definition of a golden age for
Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the definition of a golden age is one in which
employment increased by 82,000 in February. This is the biggest
one month increase in employment since November 1994.
A golden age is when the help wanted index increases 2.3% in
February to 136 points. Housing starts increased 11% in
February, the largest monthly increase in over a year. Real
exports of goods and services grew 8.3% in the fourth quarter.
Those are the kinds of numbers that give Canadians confidence.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 2.8
million Canadians are dependent on welfare today. Hopefully that
is not the minister's definition of a golden age.
Today in Canada we have seen take home pay plummet since the
government came to power by $3,000 for a family of four. We have
seen an increase in personal bankruptcies and in personal debts.
Is that the finance minister's definition of a golden age, 2.8
million people on welfare?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the numbers the hon. member referred to have
improved since the government took office and in fact have
improved more over the course of the last six months.
The real issue is the crocodile tears of the hon. member when he
talks about welfare. We must remember that his party wants to
take a further $3.5 billion out of the transfers. It
specifically targeted welfare. The Reform Party stands up and
talks about its compassion for the poor which flies in the face
of everything it has ever said or every written.
* * *
[Translation]
COPYRIGHT BOARD
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
Judging from the main estimates, and according to certain
sources, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage have apparently opted for financing the Copyright Board
through a user-pay system.
Can the Minister of Industry tell us if it is true that his
department and the Department of Canadian Heritage have given
their approval to the Board's being run on a cost-recovery basis?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just asked a
question relating to funding which comes under the jurisdiction
of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of
Industry.
I have taken note of the question and will get back to
the hon. member as soon as possible.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Federal Court's McGillis ruling has laid the board's
independence open to question, the departments, the ministers and
the secretaries of state must realize that they would be
jeopardizing the very independence of the Copyright Board and the
principle of equity itself.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention,
of course, to respect the decisions that have been brought down
and it is our intention to act in the best interests of Canadian
authors, as always.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me read a statement about the Immigration and Refugee Board.
“The board should be scrapped”. This came from Saleem Giga of
the Canada Employment and Immigration Union, the very people who
work at the board. His complaint is patronage and incompetence.
I would like to ask the immigration minister which is worse,
that the board is so incompetent or that the minister will not
even listen to them to fix it?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Board is a
quasi-judiciary tribunal which plays a vital role in determining
the refugee status of those who come here claiming persecution in
their country of origin.
1435
Its competency is very clear. However, as part of the legislative
review we are going to look into improving the entire refugee
determination process, so that it will be more efficient and more
responsive to the needs of those who come to our country.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been through a lot of refugee hearings and I can assure
you there is a lot of incompetence there.
Mr. Giga says that a lot of the problems at the board are
because of patronage appointments. We have to return to merit,
he says. He also says that some appointees have no experience in
dealing with refugee cases.
Just last week Anna Terrana, a defeated Liberal MP, I might add,
who was appointed to the board admitted that she was not the best
person for the job. She was appointed because she was a good
Liberal.
What does the immigration minister think she is running, a
refugee board or the Senate?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member, like his colleague from British
Columbia, misquoted what Mrs. Terrana said. She did not say that
there are others better qualified. She said “I am very well
qualified. I am sure there are others who are also very well
qualified but I do not know who is on the list”.
I point out that Mrs. Terrana worked with the B.C. Police
Commission for 10 years. She worked with the National Parole
Board. She worked with refugees as executive director of the
Italian community in B.C. for many years.
* * *
[Translation]
MARINE RADIO STATION
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In the matter of the closure of the Magdalen Islands marine radio
station, the minister said last week that his department had
consulted a vast number of users before deciding to close the
station.
How can the minister say his decision to close the island station
was based on public consultation, when the facts indicate that
nothing more than an information meeting was held for the
employees affected?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the closing of that station has had an
extensive airing in the press and in public on the islands.
There are few decisions taken by the government which have had
more involvement of the public. I should point, however, that
not a single employee is being laid off. They are all being
transferred to another coast guard station within the same
constituency, I believe, but very close by in any event. It is a
question of trying to organize our resources in the most
efficient way possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, however, the
minister had said he would consult service users.
If the minister wants to avoid making a mistake, should he not
suspend his decision to close the island radio, publish the
technical studies behind his decision and really consult on the
matter?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have looked at this matter many times and
looking at it again does not make any sense.
We consulted the fishers, the mayors of the region and the
residents of the Magdalen Islands on many occasions. The
decision is firm, and it is impossible to change it now.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Tsuu
T'ina reserve suffered a tragic loss last week with the deaths of
Connie and Ty Jacobs. This is a very wealthy reserve, a reserve
of just over 1,000 people which took in $20 million last year
alone.
The reserve, the government and the minister should have done
better by Connie Jacobs and her family.
Will the minister now agree to stop digging in her heels and
authorize a full public inquiry into the social and economic
conditions that led up to this terrible tragedy?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I might take the advice of
the hon. member seriously if I felt he had any credibility at all
on aboriginal issues. His party has not read or understood the
work of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. His party
has not read or understood the response to that work from this
side of the House in Gathering Strength.
We have a comprehensive approach that focuses on the issues of
welfare reform, the provision of infrastructure, the
strengthening of education, all things that will help build a
stronger Tsuu T'ina Nation and other first nations in the
country.
1440
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to hear the minister tell that to the people of the Tsuu T'ina
reserve. I emphasize the $20 million to a thousand people
including children, but this issue goes far deeper than money.
This morning an Alberta native elder advised me that Connie
Jacobs' family also wants an investigation “into all of the
conditions that created the situation that led up to the
shooting”.
Why will the minister not commit here and now to carry out the
wishes of Connie's family and order a public inquiry? What is
she trying to hide?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 1997, the
hon. member for Skeena said “The Tsuu T'ina band have used their
wealth to build themselves into one of the most self-sufficient
and successful bands in this country”.
I have to ask the hon. member why all of a sudden he has changed
his point of view. Why is it that only when there is a tragedy
or an issue of division the hon. member raises issues in support
of aboriginal people.
The answers to these questions and the challenges are with us.
They are about building in partnership strong aboriginal nations
with accountable transparent governments.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
millennium scholarship fund it established to promote its own
visibility, the federal government once again made a blunder by
invading an area of provincial jurisdiction. Now, the Minister of
Health is about to do the same with home care services.
Considering what is happening in the education sector, does the
minister not believe that he should immediately change his
position before it is too late and stay away from home care,
which is a provincial—not federal—jurisdiction?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
intention is simply to discuss with the provinces our shared
priorities in the health care sector, which includes home care or
community care. We are moving toward ambulatory care, as Minister
Rochon is doing in Quebec. It is important to have a community
care infrastructure to support the shift toward ambulatory care.
I intend to discuss a joint approach with Quebec and the other
provinces, and to reach an agreement with them on what is a
priority for Canadians.
* * *
[English]
APEC
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
The APEC meeting in Vancouver was an important event for the
economy of British Columbia. What action is the government
planning to ensure the conference leaves a lasting legacy?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government
is using funds left over from the recent APEC conference to grant
$4 million for the new international centre for dialogue in
Vancouver at Simon Fraser University's downtown campus. It will
be a world conference centre for specialized professional and
academic scientific reunions. It will have the most advanced
state of the art communications and translation facilities.
The new centre will not merely commemorate the APEC reunion in
Vancouver. It will also symbolize Vancouver's role as North
America's prime gateway to the Pacific and a world metropolis for
the 21st century.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two
weeks ago a local newspaper reported that 23 inmates at the
Kingston Penitentiary for Women were given LSD as part of a
psychiatric experiment in the early sixties.
The report says that CSC can only locate 2 of the 23 inmates and
that the other 21 files have gone mysteriously missing. Is this a
Somalia sequel or what is going on here? Are we to shut down CSC
for a day to find these missing files?
My question is for the solicitor general. Other than
advertising in the newspaper, what is his department doing to
find these 21 victims?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for wild guess—I am sorry, Wild Rose—is
wrong again as usual.
The fact remains that many people involved in this file do not
wish to come forward. In many cases they have been pardoned.
They are remarried. Sometimes their partners are not aware of
their past.
This is a very serious and delicate matter and I urge the hon.
member to deal with it as a very serious and delicate matter.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1995 changes were made to the last post fund legislation to allow
merchant navy veterans to be buried in cemeteries as Canadian war
veterans.
The Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes these merchant navy
sailors as veterans when they die but will not officially
recognize them as war veterans when they are alive.
1445
Can the minister explain why Canada's merchant navy sailors must
pass on from this land in order to be recognized by this land?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that is not true. He also knows
that the current legislation which governs merchant seamen was
passed in 1992. This legislation extended equal veterans rights
to wartime merchant seamen. It provided them with the same
rights to all the benefits that were currently available to the
armed forces, not a few, not some, but all of the benefits.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
at the request of the Dene community of Deline, Northwest
Territories.
The community calls on the ministers for health, Indian affairs
and natural resources to meet with them to discuss the radiation
deaths of their men and women and to address the loss to their
families, culture and community.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister
to give assurance to the Dene that the ministers will meet with
the community and this grave injustice will be dealt with
honourably.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in partnership with my
colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, we are looking into
the history associated with this particularly difficult
circumstance.
It behoves us to understand the circumstances as they have
occurred over the course of time. Indeed we will be involving
the Dene people as we further our understanding of this
investigation.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Dene community has outlined a plan for essential response and
necessary redress. This is a constructive response to the
radioactive contamination of the human and biophysical
environment as a result of uranium mining activities by the
federal crown.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the Dene of Deline on
Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories that his ministers
will respect the community's request?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate, the
government takes this circumstance extremely seriously. My
colleagues and I are looking at the history associated with this.
We will act to include the Dene people in our review. We are
taking a very responsible and focused approach to this.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, according
to the minister in his previous answer to me he said that they
identified the principle on which they acted. I think everyone
on this side of the House has told him that principle is
obviously flawed.
I am quoting the minister now from February. In the Globe
and Mail in February he said “This compensation package is
about compassion, about fairness and appropriate compensation to
people who were injured through no fault of their own”. How can
he actually stand up in his place and say that this package is
fair when it excludes 40,000 Canadians who are hurting?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is entitled to his view.
I can tell him that ministers of health from across the country
looked at this tragedy. They decided that the period 1986 to 1990
is set apart from all the rest of the history because it was a
period during which something could have been done to change what
happened.
Before that, it is very difficult to distinguish the tragedy of
those who were infected before 1986 from those who have an
adverse outcome from any part of the health or the medical system
when people act in good faith and unintended consequences occur.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
gallery today are members of that hepatitis C group who were not
compensated.
The question for the minister is this. Instead of sneaking out
the back door as he did in Toronto, is he prepared to meet them
immediately following question period?
The Speaker: If the Minister of Health wants to answer
that question, I will permit it. The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member can play to the gallery if he chooses, but this
minister sat with his fellow ministers in front of those very
victims on Friday. We sat there for an extended period taking
questions from the victims. This minister has met with those
representatives. This minister has spoken to the members of the
Hepatitis C Society. He has met with the victims of before 1986.
Then this minister made a decision and that is my responsibility.
* * *
1450
ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Ontario Hydro has apparently decided not to outfit an
oil-burning power plant in eastern Ontario with the easily
installed equipment necessary to reduce polluting nitrogen
oxides. This decision will result in pollution which is
seriously damaging.
Will the minister seek an opportunity to raise the matter with
her Ontario colleague and urge a reversal of this decision?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this
important issue here in the House.
Certainly the Ontario ministry has spoken to me about its
concern with sources of air pollution coming from south of the
border into the province. I will take the opportunity to speak to
the province to make sure that it takes every effort to minimize
sources of air pollution within the province of Ontario to ensure
it does not affect Ontario citizens and citizens in other parts
of Canada.
* * *
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
question is for the minister or parliamentary secretary who is in
charge of financial institutions.
Canadians are being denied the right to choose freely. Large
financial institutions, like banks, are bullying, intimidating
and forcing certain individuals, consumers, to move their RRSPs
for example from their independent investment dealers to the bank
as a condition to get a loan. This is called tied selling.
When will the Liberal government stop this bullying and
intimidating tactic by financial institutions?
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue of tied selling has been referred to the
committee. The committee is currently taking a look at it and
the government eagerly anticipates its findings.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Energy.
The Official Languages Act requires the government to provide
its services in French and in English. However, the act is not
always complied with on certain sites on the Internet.
Is the Minister of Industry aware that several links of the
STRATEGIS site are in English only, contrary to the
recommendations of the commissioner of official languages, who
asked that any information be produced in both official
languages, as early as January 1997?
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has
spoken on this subject once before. He has taken note of the
questions brought before this House. The Minister of Industry
endeavours to continue to work toward the programs on the
Internet being fully bilingual.
* * *
MERGERS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
We know now that our friends in the United States and in Europe
are toughening up their merger legislation. At the same time
Canada is just trundling along as it has before never really
seriously looking at mergers and anti-competitive activities.
Why is the government not prepared to stand up for consumers in
a competitive market structure? Why is it more prepared to run
the franchise “Mergers R Us”?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking for the Minister of Industry who has the
responsibility for the competition bureau, as the member knows,
the competition bureau has reviewed all of its procedures. I can
let the member know that our procedures in this area are as tough
and as enlightened as any other country's procedures.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the details of
the financial assistance provided to Canadians infected with
hepatitis C through Canada's blood system will be worked out
based on the seriousness of their condition, through a
negotiation process submitted to the courts.
Why is the Minister of Health putting the fate of the victims of
that tragedy in the hands of the courts, instead of offering
them an assistance program similar to the one for AIDS victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government's position is that we have offered
compensation. Details will be negotiated with the victims' legal
representatives, and I hope negotiations will begin immediately.
* * *
1455
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question on behalf of Mr. Bob Hunter of
Campbell River in my riding. This question is for the Minister
of Justice.
As you know we have been having a terrible time in fisheries
with the disappearance of fish stocks. However, the justice
department has a great catch and release policy. My suggestion
is that we switch ministers so that the justice minister runs
fisheries and oceans and the fisheries minister runs justice.
That way criminals would be as scarce as cod fish and there would
be lots of fish in the ocean.
Will the Minister of Justice change places with the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that just as
nobody wishes to switch with the official opposition critic for
fisheries, no minister is willing to switch with the minister of
fisheries.
* * *
PRISONS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the solicitor general.
New Brunswick, Ontario and Nova Scotia are experimenting with
jails planned, constructed or operated by private interests. Does
the solicitor general advocate that the federal government should
also privatize prisons or should prisons continue to be run by
the public sector?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me advise the House that there are no plans to
privatize the operation of any federal facility of that kind. We
have a strong tradition to involve non-government agencies and
others in the private sector impartial to our operation. In fact
some 12% of our operation is handled outside the public service.
The ethical questions relating to the kinds of powers that are
enforced by the correctional service are very serious and there
has been no establishment that in fact there are savings to be
accomplished.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
although it is home to 25% of young Canadians, Quebec receives
only 18% of federal funds allocated to the provinces for use in
implementing the federal Young Offenders Act.
On October 25, the Quebec justice minister wrote to the federal
justice minister asking that Quebec be given its fair share of
compensation.
Since six months have gone by and the minister has not deigned to
give the minister an answer, will she at least announce in the
House whether she intends to follow up on Quebec's pressing
request for its fair share?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will inquire into the reason why the hon. member of the
opposition has not yet received a reply.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Justice Krever said in his final report that the
compassion of a society can be judged by the measures it takes to
reduce the impact of tragedy on its members. That compassion
requires the government to act on behalf of everyone infected by
blood transfusions.
Will the Minister of Health commit himself today to begin to
develop a compensation package for at least those hepatitis C
victims who are sick and who were infected before 1986?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
13 ministers of health, including those from Saskatchewan and
British Columbia, took into account what the Krever commission
had recommended. We took into account the need for compassion
but also faced up to our responsibilities as ministers of
governments who have to make the right decision.
In all those circumstances for the reasons that were explained
on Friday and developed here in the House today in response to
other questions asked, we chose to proceed as we did. It is
noteworthy that all governments in Canada acted together in
making that decision.
* * *
[Translation]
TAINTED BLOOD
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, according to Bob
Rae, the chief negotiator for the Red Cross, “it would be far
wiser and far more fair if compensation were not linked to a
specific time period, but rather to the fact that people
contracted the disease from a blood transfusion”.
Is the Minister of Health going to ignore the recommendations of
the Red Cross chief negotiator, or is he going to show some
compassion and extend assistance to all the victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I may
say so, the Red Cross is not really in a position to make
comments.
[English]
Where is the Red Cross? Has it contributed one nickel to this
compensation package? Of course not. The Red Cross is not
exactly in an ideal position to comment on the compensation paid
by governments to the victims who are in part the victims of the
Red Cross itself.
* * *
1500
COPYRIGHT BOARD
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals make a great noise about the fact that they want to
stand up for the owners of copyright under the copyright law.
Therefore, it was surprising to me that the House leader had no
answer for the question that was asked earlier.
Let me ask him another question about copyright. Why is it that
appointments have not been made to the copyright board? Why has
it taken so long? When are appointments going to be made to the
board?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the
importance of the copyright board.
I should mention that the copyright board has operated, without
incident, for many years. The amount of work required by the
copyright board has been minimal. However, now the copyright
board is getting more and more items coming before it for review.
The appointments will be looked at in the future by the Minister
of Industry.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 10
petitions.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Andy Mitchell (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an act to amend the
National Parks Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-388, an act to amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (withdrawal of applications for full
parole by offenders serving two or more years).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
Wild Rose for seconding this bill.
I am privileged to introduce this private member's bill which
would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The
present act not only permits offenders to make application for
parole, it also allows them to withdraw that application at any
time with little if any repercussion. They can then reapply
almost immediately.
1505
A great deal of time, effort and money is expended by
authorities to prepare for these parole hearings. Arguably even
more troubling is the fact that victims expend enormous emotional
and perhaps financial resources in preparing to attend these
hearings which frequently take place far from their homes. Not
only does it make little sense, it is just not good enough to
permit offenders to have complete control over a process that
burdens the taxpayer and revictimizes the victim.
These amendments will place a consequence on offenders who
withdraw applications for parole at the last moment. Unless
there are reasonable and valid grounds for withdrawal, the
offender will be barred from reapplying for a period of two
years.
I urge all members to give careful consideration to the support
of these amendments.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 29 residents of Sointula
which is in my riding.
The petitioners are asking parliament to impose a moratorium on
the ratification of the multilateral agreement on investment
until public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across
Canada.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 36(6) to
present a petition from the residents of the riding of Prince
George—Peace River regarding the multilateral agreement on
investment.
The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the
fact that this government has done precious little to communicate
the terms under negotiation to the Canadian people. Therefore
they request that parliament impose a moratorium on the
ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the
proposed treaty are held across the country.
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. Two of them
are very similar in form and content. They follow several other
petitions that I have previously presented on this subject.
There are 681 signatures from residents of my riding who live
adjacent to the infamous Trans-Canada death strip. The
Saskatchewan government has recently announced plans to do some
upgrading on the death strip and to start twinning. So far the
federal government has not offered to contribute its share.
The petitioners say that, notwithstanding the constitutional
division of powers, the federal government has a responsibility
to assist provinces with upgrading sub-standard sections of the
Trans-Canada Highway.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon parliament to instruct
its servants to immediately commence negotiations with the
Government of Saskatchewan to jointly fund the upgrading of this
vital national transportation link by constructing two additional
lanes.
FIREARMS CONTROL
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition bearing 567 signatures from residents
of Saskatchewan has to do with firearms control and specifically
with Bill C-68 which the petitioners say would be a major
unnecessary burden on law enforcement officers.
The petitioners further state that the search and seizure
provisions of the bill would constitute a breach of traditional
civil liberties and an affront to law-abiding Canadians.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon parliament
to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated regulations with respect
to firearms or ammunition and to pass new legislation designed to
severely penalize the criminal use of any weapons.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have in my hand a petition signed by thousands of
residents of my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The petitioners indicate that incidents of violent crime,
particularly among youth, are becoming more frequent, that the
incidents of violent crime cause harm to the public and that
there should be fewer such incidents.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to
repeal the Young Offenders Act and to replace it with an act that
will provide penalties for violent crime committed by young
people and which will act as a deterrent to such actions and
provide safety and security to the general public as well.
1510
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a
petition to the House concerning the MAI.
The petitioners indicate that the most recent draft of the MAI,
if adopted, will have a major impact on many important areas of
Canadian life, including environmental protection, employment,
wage levels, social programs and culture. They also note that
little information on the MAI has been provided by the government
and that little public discussion about the treaty has yet taken
place.
They also request that parliament impose a moratorium on the
ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the
proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians
will have an opportunity to express their opinions on the MAI.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition
containing the names of some 285 citizens who are calling on
parliament to remove the goods and services tax from all books,
magazines and newspapers.
The petitioners cite the taxing of reading material as being not
only unfair and wrong, but also as imposing an impediment to the
promotion of literacy in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an
act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges
Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, because
of its extreme importance.
As with all bills relating to justice, I am going to try to
examine it as in as cool and level-headed a manner as possible,
and I will make a particular effort to avoid descending into the
demagoguery I heard this morning from several of the Reform
Party members, or the complacency the government party members
seem to have with respect to courts and to judges.
This is a special bill in that it addresses an essential aspect
of our democratic system: judiciary independence. This is a
concept we often hear referred to, without always understanding
exactly what it is all about. I believe it is important to take
a few minutes, or seconds, to examine the principal aspects of
this principle, in order to be able to assess and criticize the
bill in a properly informed manner.
The basis for asserting that judiciary bodies responsible for
interpreting and enforcing the rules of law must have a minimum
of independence from governments and parliaments is the
separation of powers concept. The expression institutional
independence will be used in relation to the judicial system as a
whole, while individual or functional independence relates to the
judges sitting on the court. The bill before us today, Bill C-37,
deals with the latter aspect.
The process by which judges are appointed must be considered in
dealing with the individual independence of judges. The
Constitution and parliaments recognize that the power to appoint
judges is vested in the governments. The federal government
appoints superior court judges and federal court judges, while
provincial governments appoint provincial court judges.
The Constitutional Act, 1867 requires a single condition be met
to become a judge and only for superior courts: judges must be
selected from the bar of the province where they are being
appointed, in accordance with the provisions of sections 97 and
98 of the Constitutional Act, 1867.
The federal lawmaker imposes an extra requirement on the central
government. Judges must have at least 10 years standing at the
bar of the province. Section 3 of the Judges Act deals more
specifically with this additional requirement. The federal
government therefore has considerable leeway in exercising its
power to appoint judges.
No other criterion limits its discretion regarding applicants'
competency or qualifications.
1515
As constitutional experts Henri Brun and Guy Tremblay pointed
out in their book “Now that judicial independence has become a
formal constitutional principle, one may wonder about the
appropriateness of the process for appointing judges,
particularly in the federal government”.
Before going any further, I would be remiss if I did not repeat
once again in this House that it is also out of respect for
judicial independence that the Bloc Quebecois opposed, and
continues to oppose, the reference on Quebec's right to be the
only one to decide its future. By imposing its reference to the
supreme court, the Liberal government is seriously jeopardizing
that tribunal's credibility.
It is sad to see the government stubbornly forcing supreme court
justices to be part of its despicable intimidation tactics
toward Quebeckers.
When members opposite claim that their government is acting out
of respect for the law, I am not convinced, far from it. In fact,
I am convinced of just the opposite, particularly when I look at
the statements made by the federal Minister of Justice and by the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
But let us go back to the legislation before us, Bill C-37, to
take a good look at it and determine its purpose.
Bill C-37
amends the Judges Act to, among other things, increase judges'
salaries and change eligibility criteria for an annuity. The bill
also establishes the judicial compensation and benefits
commission.
Finally, Bill C-37 seeks to increase the number of judges on
appeal courts and provincial family courts.
In her March 18 release, the Minister of Justice told us that
the bill was in response to the recommendations of the 1995
triennial commission on judges' salaries and benefits. In its
report, the Scott commission—named after the chairperson of the
group which conducted the review of judges' salaries—recommended
a gradual salary increase of 8.3%. The Liberal government
accepted the recommendation and is proposing in its bill a 4.1%
annual increase, over a two-year period.
In determining what was reasonable, the Scott commission
recognized that a complex range of factors should be taken into
consideration in setting an appropriate level of compensation,
including the need to offer levels of compensation that will
attract and keep candidates for the judiciary, and ensure that
they are as highly qualified as possible.
In addition, it should be noted that the report is based on the
relationship that exists between the income of a judge and that
of a lawyer from the private sector, from which, it must be
said, the majority of candidates for the office of judge come.
Section 25 of the Judges Act now provides a legal mechanism by
which a judge's salary may be increased, in accordance with the
industrial aggregate, by a maximum of 7%.
Under the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, judges'
salaries were frozen in December 1992 until March 31, 1997.
There is also the reference with respect to the independence and
impartiality of Prince Edward Island provincial court judges. In
a September 18, 1997 ruling, the supreme court stressed the
importance of such independent commissions, which establish an
essential link between two of the government's arms, the
executive and the judiciary. The court also emphasized the
constitutional obligation to determine the salaries of members of
the judiciary.
1520
The court so stipulated, and the following quote is extremely
important in understanding the context in which the Bloc examined
Bill C-37. The court found, and I quote: “However, to avoid the
possibility of, or the appearance of, political interference
through economic manipulation, a body, such as a commission, must
be interposed between the judiciary and the other branches of
government. The constitutional function of this body would be to
depoliticize the process of determining changes to or freezes in
judicial remuneration”.
In the words of the justices of the supreme court, in order to
avoid the possibility of political interference, the court is
proposing the creation of an independent body that would
depoliticize the decision to increase or not to increase
justices' salaries and benefits.
The Bloc therefore is right to worry about the way the Liberal
government appoints justices to the supreme court. The justices
have said themselves that there could be political interference
through financial manipulation. What about their own
appointments?
With the flourish of the Prime Minister's pen, a lawyer could be
comfortably installed in a judge's chair on the bench of the
Supreme Court of Canada. This is no fantasy. We have seen it
happen just recently.
In addition to the conventional and constitutional criteria of
eligibility, there are no doubt certain criteria the Prime
Minister alone could explain to us. I will be careful not to
head down this path.
However, I would like the Prime Minister to list the criteria
that guided him in appointing two justices to the supreme court.
Clearly, there is room for political interference in the
remuneration of justices. There is certainly room for it in the
appointment of justices, especially when the judges are
appointed sub judice by the party initiating the reference to the
supreme court in the matter of the future of Quebec.
This, less financial aspect of the function of a justice,
although important, was not analyzed by the court, and we will
limit ourselves naturally to the part on salaries, benefits and
pensions relating to Bill C-37.
Although the recommendations of the Scott commission are not
binding on the government, the same cannot be said for
constitutional decisions of the supreme court, and the Bloc
Quebecois is keenly aware of this.
Nonetheless, despite the arguments I have advanced since the
beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois wants the House to
know that it will not be supporting this bill for several
reasons.
First, it is important to look at Bill C-37 in context. The bill
is proposing many amendments to the Judges Act. These amendments
include a salary increase of 4.1% annually over two years. As I
mentioned earlier, this increase would give effect to a
recommendation by the Scott commission that a progressive salary
increase of 8.3% would be justified.
Once again, the Bloc Quebecois decries the fact that the Scott
report is based solely on indices of federal economic activities
with no regard for the economic sectors most affected since the
beginning of the 1993 cutbacks, some of which were the work of
the present government.
As lawmakers, as elected officials living in a period of
budgetary restraint, the most fundamental question we must ask
ourselves in 1998 is therefore the following: Should we be
putting books in our schools, or beds in our hospitals, or
increasing the salaries of judges which, it should be remembered,
stand at around $155,800 annually for superior court judges? To
ask the question is to answer it.
The $155,800 salary of a superior court judge is hardly a
starvation wage.
1525
Through its leader, the member for Laurier—Saint-Marie, the Bloc
Quebecois recently stated its views on salary increases for MPs
and senior public servants.
Tabled on January 31, the Blais report, which looked at the
salaries and benefits of members of the House, recommended that
parliamentarians' expense allowances be abolished and their
parliamentary allowances increased by an equivalent taxable
amount.
One thing we must not forget is that this report did not
recommend any increase in the total value of MPs' compensation.
The proposals focussed solely on making this compensation more
transparent.
In my opinion, whether one is a superior or lower court judge, an
MP, a minister or the Prime Minister himself, we all have an
extremely important role to play in the democratic system of
Canada and of Quebec, and I sincerely believe that no one should
be getting any increases if Canada or Quebec cannot afford them
right now.
The Bloc Quebecois endorsed the recommendations of the Blais
report, stating its view that an increase in MPs' salaries was
not justified at this time. The same goes for superior court
judges.>Paradoxically, the President of the Treasury Board, a good
Liberal, recently announced an increase in the salaries of senior
federal government managers, increasing the budget envelope by
7.96% between 1998 and 2002.
In the view of the Liberal government, the increase is justified
by the exodus of senior managers for the private sector and the
dearth of experienced and qualified managers that would result.
It is great for those that remain, who are extremely competent,
to hear that, if they are not paid enough, the good ones leave.
Some encouragement for those who stay. But this is the
explanation offered by the Treasury Board president.
With the salaries they are paid, and the associated benefits,
these public servants are hardly to be pitied either, in my view.
Yet, the President of the Treasury Board raised their salaries,
but this raise did not affect superior court justices, and that
is why the government decided to introduce Bill C-37, among
others. As I understand it, this bill is in response to a
decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, and as responsible
legislators, as I was saying earlier, we have to respond to the
remarks of the justices in their decision.
Let us now take a look at what happens in this area, in Quebec,
among other places. I am a member from Quebec. I am going to
talk to you about my country, Quebec, about what is being done in
Quebec in this area.
In a press release dated February 20, 1998, the Quebec justice
minister, Serge Ménard, announced the appointment of the members
of the committee on the remuneration of justices of the court of
Quebec and municipal courts.
While this is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada through
a reference to it, Quebec responded with its usual
professionalism and speed to a decision by this court.
Although this commission has the mandate to evaluate the
remuneration of justices, clearly the government is not obliged
to accept its recommendations. Indeed, the Quebec government or
governments in general must be able to assess the economic
context of any recommendation to increase salaries.
It is important to note that, on March 22, 1997, the Quebec
government passed a bill which aimed to reduce labour costs in
the public sector and which implemented the agreements concluded
in this regard. It provided that the salaries of Quebec court
judges would be cut by 2.3%.
There was no mention in this legislation, as there is in Bill
C-37 of a salary increase. In Quebec, legislation was passed to
reduce the salaries of the provincial magistrates by 2.3%.
Need we point out that this reduction also applied to the premier
of Quebec, to all the provincial ministers, to all the MNAs and
to all the employees of the Quebec government.
1530
In Quebec, the entire private sector has been or will be called
upon to contribute to the deficit reduction effort. It is a
matter of solidarity, as Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard so aptly
said.
We are going through difficult times of restraint due, to a
large extent, to federal cuts to transfer payments to the
provinces. Everyone must do his or her share to help balance the
budget. Again, whether one is a judge sitting on a court, a
member of Parliament, the Prime Minister, a minister, the speaker
or deputy speaker of the House, I think that everyone must
contribute to balancing the budget.
To conclude, the federal government has finally achieved its
zero deficit, but must I remind you that this objective was
achieved on the backs of the provinces and the unemployed.
Over the course of two mandates, the Liberal government opposite
will have cut $42 billion in social transfers to the provinces.
These transfers are used to fund hospitals, higher education and
social assistance among other things. Any money the federal
government takes away from the provinces is money the provinces
cannot invest in hospitals, education and social assistance.
The federal government is spending the money thus saved to
increase its visibility, while the provinces are left with the
dirty job of implementing the cuts. The Liberal government must
not start squandering the taxpayers' money.
Accordingly, while the Minister of Justice may want to be nice
to judges by increasing their salaries, she should instead
convince her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to give back the
money cut from transfer payments to the provinces for health,
social assistance and post-secondary education.
The Bloc Quebecois does not question the fact that judges play
an essential role and that they work hard to create a just and
fair society. However, we feel that before increasing judges'
salaries, certain other priorities should be met.
We do not think that the state of judicial independence in
Canada and in Quebec requires that Bill C-37 provide an 8.2%
increase, over a two-year period, to superior court judges. These
are prestigious positions and, to my knowledge, no appointee was
ever forced to accept the job.
There is no arm twisting required to appoint a judge. When a
person agrees to become a judge, whether on the supreme court,
the federal court, the superior court or other Quebec courts,
surely that person knows about the salary that goes with the job
and accepts it. The government must not introduce a bill such as
this one under the pretence that judges are not adequately paid.
It is for these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to
increasing judges' salaries. We support the establishment of an
independent commission, but we cannot support a lack of
solidarity and vision in an economic context where the fight
against the deficit was conducted mostly at the expense of the
provinces.
We heard the government say that the most qualified lawyers must
be interested in becoming judges.
But a magistrate is also part of society, and being part of
society means bearing part of the collective burden. Even if the
federal deficit is eliminated, as we have seen, the $500 billion
debt remains to haunt us. It will continue to haunt us for many
years and many generations to come.
With the money we are preparing to inject into this salary hike
for judges and magistrates, the government could have enabled the
provinces to invest in their hospitals, where they feel the money
would be put to better use.
The supplementary estimates tabled last Wednesday also indicate
that the Canadian unity group at Justice—within the Department of
Justice there is a so-called Canadian unity group, the main
responsibility of which is the reference to the Supreme Court—is
costing Canadian and Quebec taxpayers $700,000.
1535
Such expenditures are unacceptable. This money could pay for a
number of hospital beds. Especially since the Minister of
Justice herself has said that the reference was of no use
whatsoever to clarify the constitutionality of the potential
secession of Quebec.
The government ought to re-examine its budget priorities. Should
it raise judges' salaries and spend a fortune on a reference to
the Supreme Court, which even the Minister of Justice admits is
of no use and whose validity is being challenged left and right,
or should it hand over all these millions, these billions even,
appropriated from the provinces?
Today I am therefore asking the Minister of Justice to withdraw
her bill as drafted and instead to compensate the provinces for
the unjust cuts her government and herself have forced upon the
governments of each and every province. In our opinion, because
Bill C-37 was introduced in the House subsequent to the Supreme
Court of Canada ruling on this important matter of appointing
justices, the Minister ought not to be giving the judges such a
gift during these difficult times.
If the government wants the support of the Bloc Quebecois, it
must limit its actions to striking what the Supreme Court ruling
calls for, a Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, as
provided for in clause 6 of the bill. Nowhere in the Supreme
Court ruling is there a request that the federal government
increase the salaries of superior court justices in this way.
On the contrary, the supreme court ruling asks the Canadian
government and all provincial governments to establish a
commission that would rely on various external, objective factors
in determining compensation. The supreme court judges never said
that the decision of such a commission would be binding on the
government.
Each of us in the House was elected in a general election or a
by-election. The government was also elected. The Minister of
Justice was elected to administer as fairly as possible. In
handing down such a ruling, the judges never thought that the
increase would be given automatically, with judges receiving
increases when no one else did. Judges are not above everyone
else.
It is each one of us, all taxpayers in Canada and Quebec, who,
indirectly, pay the salaries of judges of the superior court,
or, in Quebec's case, of family, criminal or youth courts. Each
one of us pays for these judges.
If the public were to be asked, the answer would be immediate.
If you were to ask the average citizen: “Do you agree that the
judges of the superior court, who are earning only $155,800 a
year, should have their salaries increased by 8.2%?” The answer
will obviously be no. Is $155,800 a starvation wage? Do they
not earn enough to hand down fair rulings? No.
I am a lawyer myself. Before coming here, I was a practicing
lawyer and often had to deal with judges.
I was frequently in court. One must keep one's distance from
judges, but no one who had accepted the office of judge ever
told me that they were surprised to be earning only $150,000 for
the honour. We all know how federal judges are appointed.
1540
In my office in Joliette, my articling supervisor received a call
from the then Minister of Justice, a Progressive Conservative.
The telephone rang, and it was the Minister of Justice. He
said: “Hello, Mr. Justice” as if he had no idea that he had been
seeking such an appointment for years. That is how these things
are done. But when he said “Yes, Mr. Minister” he knew what a
judge earned, and he accepted the appointment. I think that,
nowadays, neither judges nor the Prime Minister—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa
on a point of order.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, the measures and the strategies
of the previous Conservative government have nothing to do with
the current government.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member would like to
participate in the debate later on, but as he will recognize,
this is a point of debate and not of order.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa is
partly right. The Liberals are not operating at all like the
Conservatives. They are worse.
Never did the Conservative government—and I am not a
Conservative, I have no ties to this party—never did it appoint
during proceedings two judges, who are deciding on the reference
regarding Quebec's right to secede. This Liberal government,
for considerations known only to the Prime Minister, appointed
two judges during the course of proceedings. No Conservative or
other government has ever done such a thing.
I will not get into the criteria that might have guided the Prime
Minister in making these two appointments. That is inadmissible.
I think the member made this comment without really thinking
about what he was saying and without considering the history of
the Liberal Party of Canada.
That said, if I were to give the Minister of Justice some advice,
if she appears concerned about the independence of the judiciary
and especially her image, she should introduce a bill in this
House to amend the process for appointing justices to the supreme
court.
I think there is something much more important than the pay or
benefits of justices and that is the principle of the source of
our confidence in judges—their training—which is vital in a
democratic system of justice. I believe very sincerely that the
Minister of Justice should listen to these comments and
particularly to the proposals of the Bloc Quebecois on
appointments to the judiciary.
Today, we would perhaps have a much fairer system, as far as the
judges of the Supreme Court of Canada among others were
concerned, if the Liberal government had taken advantage of the
two opportunities it had to put in place a transparent process
for appointing these judges. It preferred, as it often does, or
to put it more accurately, always does, to play politics. It
went looking for candidates among the ranks of the Liberal Party.
Of course, they were all perfectly qualified to be supreme court
judges, I am not suggesting otherwise. I have great respect for
the Supreme Court of Canada.
I think, however, that it would have helped the Supreme Court of
Canada tremendously, and especially those selected by the Prime
Minister for these positions, to have had a much more open
system of appointment, in which the House or a parliamentary
committee could have taken part.
We made several suggestions. The government has often told us,
both when we were in the official opposition and today in our
role as the third party, that we never make suggestions and that
we are not constructive. Yet, on more than one occasion, we made
some very important suggestions as to how judges should be
appointed that even had the support of eminent jurists in Quebec
and in Canada.
1545
Many journalists backed up our suggestions for an appointment
system, and, at her earliest opportunity, the minister should
introduce a bill for making the judicial appointment process as
transparent as possible.
That having been said, we will be voting against Bill C-37. We
will do so not because we oppose the often fantastic and very
professional work that judges do, but out of a concern for
equity, solidarity, greater fairness for all. I do not think
that today is the time to give a raise to judges, either judges
of the superior court, or judges reporting to the National
Assembly or the provincial legislatures, when, the premier,
ministers and members of the National Assembly and public
servants saw their
salaries cut.
Given that the bill has to do, in large part, with this issue,
the House will understand that we will be voting against Bill
C-37. We call on the Minister of Justice to go back to the drawing
board, to be more realistic, and to realize that the public is
against any bill that would increase judges' salaries.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to rise today to address Bill C-37 on
behalf of the New Democratic Party. I read this bill with some
interest. As I went through it, it could not help but remind me a
bit of my own family.
When my grandfather came to this country from Italy he was very
proud of a sauce he made. As hard as he tried to pass the recipe
on to his children, he would on a regular basis taste their sauce
and he would say that they got a little bit of it right and a
whole lot of it wrong. As I look at this bill I see that the
Minister of Justice got a little bit of it right but forgot a
whole lot of ingredients that might have made this bill worth
supporting in the House of Commons.
Let me start with the few ingredients she got right. It is
important to note there are to be some changes which will allow
certain parts of the legislation to be treated as matrimonial
assets that could be divisible upon separation or divorce by the
judiciary. That needed to be done in the act.
It is also helpful to have a unified family court. In the
province I come from many people have been very frustrated at the
way the family court process works. They have to appear before
provincial family court judges to deal with essentially custody,
access, division of property and maintenance provisions. Then
they have to appear before federal court judges to deal with the
same issues. To repeat them all over again is a duplication.
Those issues, the creation of unified family courts and of
justices that can deal with those matters, as well as the
division of annuities and so on are some of the positive aspects
of the bill.
Unfortunately the minister could have taken the opportunity to
truly address the concerns Canadians have about the way judges
are appointed in this country. There is some reference in the
bill to a commission. I believe the bill makes a recommendation
that a commission be set up. The commission would be composed of
three individuals. One would be appointed by the Minister of
Justice and one would be appointed by the judiciary. Then those
two individuals would appoint a third member to review judges'
benefits and salaries.
There was an opportunity to go further with this legislation.
There was an opportunity to open up the way judges are appointed.
A special committee or a subcommittee of the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights could have been set up to review
different proposals to see how the judiciary might better be
appointed.
1550
Even with this minute change, it does not go far enough. The
minister could have added to this commission a representative of
the Canadian Bar Association. Nobody knows better the workings
of the courts and the workload of judges than many of the lawyers
who appear in front of them.
There is a missed opportunity here. It is a golden opportunity
for the Minister of Justice to address some fundamental issues.
Some hon. members have commented on the Young Offenders Act and
on young people in the courts. Young people appear before judges
every day. Families appear before judges every day. Those people
have to ask how the people who make such fundamental decisions on
guilt or innocence, on custody or access arrived at such an
important position of making such decisions on people's lives. It
is unfortunate that Canada's history is a legacy of patronage
appointments, appointments to the bench of people who may not
have the best legal qualifications and the best legal judgment
but who support the right party. There is some relief in sight.
In my province of Nova Scotia there are many Liberal lawyers who
in the last few days have seen their chances for judicial
appointments recede into the mist as Nova Scotians have made
fundamental political changes in their province. When the New
Democratic Party takes power in that province, I expect there
will be a change in the method of appointing judges.
This was an opportunity to address those concerns. It was also
an opportunity to look at the crisis in the justice system. If
money can be found to increase the salaries of judges, surely
that money could be better directed to the very system which is
in crisis right now.
In many provinces in Canada crown attorneys do not have
sufficient resources to prosecute the crimes that come before
them. In many parts of this country legal aid lawyers do not
have sufficient resources to ensure proper fundamental freedoms
are met and that trials are done in a proper way. That results
in injustice for all, for the accused, for the victims and for
those involved in the justice system.
Rather than give those who are among the wealthiest in our
society an increase of 8% or more, we could look at funnelling
that money back into the provinces through the Canada health and
social transfer payments. These have been cut so drastically by
the government the result of which has been the very crisis in
the courts which has caused the judiciary to say it is
overworked.
Today we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice talk about the backlog of cases in provinces like
Ontario. I know she is talking about civil cases but civil cases
include family cases. Many people, in particular women, cannot
afford legal representation when their marriages come undone,
when there are questions of custody and there are backlogs of
cases.
The Nova Scotia legal aid offices have stopped representing
people who are seeking divorces because they simply do not have
the resources to fulfil that role. They have stopped
representing people in civil cases who do not have the funds or
the ability to hire private lawyers. The provincial government
says it does not have the money. It has cut back on resources.
That is not just happening in Nova Scotia. When I was
practising law in that province, I tried to get hold of a legal
aid lawyer in Ontario and it was almost impossible to find one.
When I tried to get hold of a legal aid lawyer in New Brunswick
to represent a woman in a custody fight whose children had been
taken, there was one family law lawyer for almost the whole
province.
There is a crisis at the grassroots level in Canada's justice
system.
Instead of addressing that, instead of providing funding which
might better address that issue, the Minister of Justice has
decided to give the judges a pay increase. That is the third
problem with this piece of legislation.
1555
The legislation does not go far enough in terms of addressing
the way judges are appointed. It does not address the flaws in
the justice system that are creating the overburden in the
courts. It does not help the crown attorneys and the defence
lawyers who have to operate in the courts.
At the same time we have to look further at the other public
servants who are involved in the justice system. There has not
been an increase for the average cop on the beat for so long that
he or she probably cannot remember. There has not been an
increase for those who work in the prison system, for those who
work in the probation offices with young offenders, with the
people who are coming out of prisons.
There is very little money for alternate forms of punishment and
alternate forms of dispute resolution in the family law areas,
the civil law areas and the criminal law areas.
All of those people for the last number of years have toiled
with an ever increasing workload and fewer resources and without
any kind of pay increase whatsoever.
It is simply unfair to provide the judiciary with an increase of
8% when they already make well over $120,000 or $130,000. It is
unfair to provide them with an increase when those who hold the
system together and who do much work in the system are suffering
because they have had such an increased workload and have had no
increase in resources.
That is another thing which is lacking from this piece of
legislation. It is another area the Minister of Justice might
very well have addressed.
That is not to say that judges are not important. In fact, this
government has increased the workload on many of the provincial
court judges by downloading on the system, by changes to the
Criminal Code, by proposed changes involving things like
preliminary inquiries. The government has downloaded on to the
provincial judiciary taking work away from the federally
appointed judges. It has created more backlog in the provincial
courts.
This is not the appropriate way to address the system. The
minister had a golden opportunity. Everyone in this House who
has spoken on this piece of legislation, my colleagues in every
party, have called for a review of the method of the appointment
of judges. That is what we are hearing from our constituents.
That is what the Minister of Justice is not hearing. However, its
time will come and it may come when we have another party
governing on that side of the House.
With respect to a crisis in the justice system, if people do not
believe that judges truly represent impartiality, then they are
not going to have respect for the justice system. That leads to
cynicism. It leads to a lack of faith. The minister may well
say that she has no choice, that she is bound in trying to keep
the independence of the judiciary, that she is bound by the Scott
recommendations.
Those recommendations provided the minister with a way to not
necessarily implement the recommendations. As long as she could
explain that to the public, as long as there was a reason given
not to implement those recommendations which was justifiable,
then they did not have to be implemented. The reasons we have
indicated would provide the minister with some substantial
grounds and certainly with public approval had she chosen not to
implement the recommendation of the increase in salary but had
offered instead to overhaul the entire Judges Act, to open it up
to the standing committee on justice for a proper review and to
make fundamental recommendations and fundamental changes.
For those reasons we will not be supporting the legislation. It
is too bad the opportunity has been squandered but we look
forward to better days ahead.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure the hon. member would agree with me. I was listening to his
speech.
1600
I have said this before in the House of Commons and I will say
it again. The primary purpose of a judge is to bring decisions
that are a benefit to this country and that meet the needs of the
people of this country. That is what it was in the very
beginning. That is what it should be today. That does not
happen all that often. I wonder if the member would agree with
that statement?
Second, being a lawyer I would like to know his comments with
regard to Justice Frank Iacobucci saying that the legal
profession's growing preoccupation with making money is a
problem. Laws have become more of a business profession than a
professional calling. Lawyers are losing sight of their
obligations to the public.
In my riding we have an individual who has been charged with
drunk driving causing fatality, which can bring a sentence of up
to life. He immediately plead guilty following the accident.
That accident was in 1996. He plead guilty to causing four
deaths. Can the hon. member explain to me any reason why this
trial should be in court for the 18th time next month? They have
not got around to sentencing that individual.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, there are actually three
questions. I will attempt to answer each one of them in the time
allotted to me.
The hon. member for Wild Rose asked is it not the job of
the judge to make decisions in the best interests of the country.
In essence, as I see it, it is the job of the judge to weigh very
carefully the competing arguments and the evidence in front of
him of her and to try and best find a just result.
The judge or the justice has to be free from political
considerations. In the case of an appeal it would be a panel.
Sometimes it may appear that he or she is making a decision that
goes against what the population at large might want. The
distinction between the judiciary and legislature is well known.
It is not the job of the judiciary to make popular decisions.
That is very dangerous. That is what happens south of the border
in some states where the judiciary is elected. What we have
then is a judge perhaps not making a just decision but playing to
what the public opinion polls indicate he should do. A just
decision, well written, well reasoned and explained to the public
would avoid the concern the hon. member raises.
On his second point on the comments of Justice Iacobucci, it was
mentioned earlier that one of the reasons salaries for judges are
so high is they want to make sure they can draw good people from
the law benches. They look at the salaries of private lawyers.
There is a fault in that reasoning.
Many of the best legal minds in this country and many of the
best lawyers in this country are in the public service. They do
not make nearly the salaries those in the private sector make.
The average public defender in this country, the average employee
of the justice department does not get paid the same as those in
private practice. I concur with some of the comments of the
justice in that many young members of the bar are finding it
incredibly difficult to meet the billing hours as we race toward
profit margins.
That being said, many members of the bar I know in private
practice have served their communities well, have served their
bar societies well, have taken time from their practice to be
involved in public and volunteer organizations. Many do work on a
pro bono basis.
Unfortunately in this race to profit, for those who might be
served on a pro bono basis where the private lawyer does the work
for free, their file falls to the bottom which underscores the
need for a public legal aid system across this country that is
properly funded and can meet the needs of all individuals.
1605
The third question is one that I have not heard all the facts
on. I am not suggesting the hon. member would mislead me. I do
not know the facts of the case. I do not understand why an
individual who plead guilty in 1996 would be before the courts 18
times. It sounds incredible to me and I do not know all the
facts and so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to
make a decision in that regard.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and other
consequential acts.
Bill C-37 is the government's response to the last triennial
commission on judges' salaries and benefits, the Scott
commission. Since 1981 Parliament has provided for an
independent commission to examine judges' salaries and benefits.
Bill C-37 is also responding to the Supreme Court of Canada's
independent decision on judicial compensation. On September 18,
1997 the Supreme Court of Canada released a key decision
relating to the constitutional requirements of financial security
of judges. That decision reinforced the principle of judicial
independence and outlined the broad constitutional requirements
for the determination of judicial compensation such as there must
be an independent, objective and effective commission that makes
recommendations on all aspects of judicial compensation, salaries
and benefits.
To be independent the commission members must be appointed for a
fixed term and the judiciary must nominate at least one member.
To be objective the commission must use objective criteria in
coming to its decision.
To be effective the government must deal with recommendations
with due diligence and reasonable dispatch. Bill C-37 proposed
amendments to the Judges Act that will, following the Supreme
Court decision, improve the independence, the objectivity and the
effectiveness of the salary and benefits commission process.
Regarding the principles of Bill C-37, there is very little we
can disagree with. The bill establishes new rules for an
independent commission which has the responsibility to review the
salaries and benefits of judges every four years. These rules do
seem to ensure in a certain way that the system is equitable and
reflects reality.
Where the PC Party of Canada has concerns is in the way these
new proposals will be implemented. As parliamentarians we must
ensure that the commission will be accountable to Parliament and
that the process will be transparent. On accountability, the
membership of the commission should not become once again an
opportunity for patronage by the government.
Section 26 of the Judges Act, before the amendments proposed in
Bill C-37, requires that the minister of justice appoint the
whole commission, which means all three to five members. The new
provisions certainly improve that situation. While one of the
three members will be appointed by the minister of justice, we
are encouraged by the provision which makes the other member
appointed by the judiciary. Together the two members will
appoint a third member as the chair.
One question has to be raised here in favour of improving the
accountability and transparency process. Why not have the one
member nominated by the minister appointed instead by a committee
of the House, such as the standing committee on justice?
Such a process would not only improve the transparency but also
avoid patronage appointments. It also appears that Bill C-37 is
addressing the important question of transparency. The
commission will have to report at regular intervals, which
encourages an open process.
The commission's report with its recommendations has to be
presented to the Minister of Justice who in turn has to table it
in the House of Commons within 10 sitting days after having
received it.
This is certainly playing in favour of accountability but a
question should be raised in the interest of further
transparency. Why not make the commission accountable directly
to Parliament? If the report has to be made available to both
houses why not then eliminate going through the minister?
1610
For example, government Bill S-5 which the standing committee on
justice has just completed studying provides for the human rights
commission to report directly to Parliament instead of the
minister. If this can be done for the human rights commission,
why not do it for the commission on judges' salaries and
benefits?
By reporting to both houses, the commission would be more
accountable and more transparent than if it has to report to the
minister first. Furthermore, the standing orders of the House of
Commons provide for the report to be referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights which completes the public
request on transparency and accountability.
With regard to the amendments pertaining to the salary
commission, improvements have been made but we could do more in
order to have more accountability and transparency.
Bill C-37 supports the creation and expansion for unified family
courts across Canada. Bill C-37 will appoint 27 new federal
judges for unified family courts in four provinces. We welcome
these amendments as they will permit the improvement of legal
services given to families and help the provinces direct more
resources to the courts and the services themselves.
Finally, Bill C-37 provides for some changes in the criteria for
supreme court judges to retire with a full pension. Judges will
now have to be 65 years of age or older and have served for at
least 10 years. The PC Party of Canada does not have any problem
with these proposals. The bill could be improved further on
certain provisions dealing with accountability and transparency.
The commission could report directly to the House of Commons
improving its accountability.
The one member of the commission appointed by the minister could
instead be appointed by a committee of the House of Commons,
improving its transparency and avoiding the possibility of
patronage. We will be raising these points in committee.
In conclusion, we are encouraged by the provisions contained in
Bill C-37. We are prepared to support it in principle at second
reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask my distinguished colleague for some additional
explanations concerning clause 26, which would create a three- to
five-member commission.
He indicated that, if there were three members, one would be
appointed by the Minister of Justice, one by the judiciary, and
the third by the first two, in other words, those appointed by
the Minister of Justice and the judiciary. If there were four or
five, what would be procedure be?
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, the idea here is to make the
system as transparent and as accountable as possible and the way
the judges would be chosen if it could be done through the
process of having nominations from all aspects of the system in
place would make it more so.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I first of all wish to convey to the House that a very
good maritimer just stood and gave a speech. We know he is not
feeling very well today and our party gives credit to him for
hanging in there and being a real trooper.
My question is with regard to the pay scales of judges in those
positions. Would he not agree, being in support of the bill,
that other people in other aspects of the public service such as
PSAC workers should be seriously looked at for pay increases too?
They have been waiting an awful long time for pay increases as
well.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, my position is very clear on
pay equity and PSAC. Pay equity is something that should be
resolved. There is no question about that. However, people in
judges' positions come from situations whereby they could earn a
lot more money in the private sector and they have to be
compensated fairly.
1615
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be afforded the opportunity to speak today to Bill
C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
Today I would like to deal with four specific topics: first,
the issue of the pay raise for our judges; second, the issue of
the establishment of a judicial compensation and benefits
commission; third, the Judges Act itself; and fourth, a
particularly troublesome definition within the legislation.
On the issue of the pay raise I must state how disappointed I
am. Once again we witness this government going to great lengths
to look after what some might refer to as the upper class or the
elite of our society. At the same time, what is it doing for the
ordinary citizens other than taxing them into the ground?
Just a few weeks ago this government announced pay increases for
the executive levels of the civil service. Those who occupy the
upper echelons of our civil service were well looked after.
Meanwhile, those in the trenches, the clerks and receptionists
who form the first line of contact between the government and its
citizens, are again expected to do without.
I would like to illustrate my point with a specific example from
my own community of Surrey, British Columbia. When this
government provided pay increases to the executive levels of the
civil service it included the person who we in Surrey might refer
to as our chief of police, even though he is with the RCMP and
they do not use that title.
Chief Superintendent Terry Smith, the officer in charge of the
Surrey detachment, the largest in the country, came within the
qualifications for a raise in pay. In fact all chief
superintendents, assistant commissioners, deputy commissioners,
as well as the commissioner himself received raises in pay. The
constables and the corporals did not. Those men and women
charged with keeping our communities safe were passed over. It
was not until this past Friday that the lower ranks obtained
raises in pay after a five year freeze.
I would suggest that this raise came about primarily as a result
of the leadership shown not by the government, but by the upper
management of the RCMP itself. Chief Superintendent Smith and
his colleagues, to their credit, had refused to accept their pay
raises until those in the lower ranks received the long overdue
and much needed increase in salaries.
I have spoken with Chief Superintendent Smith on several
occasions and he has expressed concern over significant staffing
problems within the Surrey detachment. If he has a problem, then
the citizens of my community definitely have a problem. If my
constituents have a problem, then it is my duty to bring it to
the attention of those who are in a position to do something
about it, namely the officials of this place.
What is happening is that experienced members of the RCMP are
leaving the force in droves. They are being lured away by other
police departments. The Vancouver Police Department and the
Calgary Police Service are just two of the organizations which
have been quite eager to obtain fully trained and experienced
RCMP officers. In Vancouver an RCMP member can leave the force on
Friday, start with the Vancouver Police Department on Monday and,
in effect, receive a $5,000 a year raise. Some go to the special
investigations unit of the Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia and some go to B.C. Transit. Indeed, the Surrey
detachment just recently lost a much respected and experienced
member to the Municipal Bylaw Enforcement Department, one
presumes for better pay, better hours and in all likelihood
significantly less stress.
Chief Superintendent Smith is plagued with almost perpetual
vacancies. He is forced to fill positions with either raw new
recruits or with personnel of lesser experience. In fact, when
last we spoke he estimated that between 25% and 28% of Surrey's
finest were rookies. That has the effect of reducing the overall
efficiency of the detachment.
I regularly go on ride-alongs and I can assure members that it
is not an easy community to police, partly because Surrey has one
of the poorest if not the poorest police-to-resident ratios in
the country.
Where does this leave the residents of Surrey, a large,
sprawling, diverse municipality with both urban and rural aspects
and a very large immigrant community? Terry Smith has every
reason to be concerned, as do my constituents.
Residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia will tell
everybody who wants to hear about it that it is the most
desirable place in the country in which to live, primarily
because of the climate, although we would never know it the way
the weather has been here for the last few days. However, there
is a price to be paid, which is the high cost of living. For
that very reason it is well known within the RCMP establishment
that the lower mainland is not an enviable posting. Experienced
police officers are not compelled to accept transfers to Surrey
and they do not do so because it is just not a practical
financial decision.
1620
What did the RCMP rank and file receive after five years of
waiting? They received 2.75%. They have to wait until next
October to benefit from the whole package. Even then they will
still be approximately $3,000 behind their Vancouver
counterparts.
I compare the increase in pay received by the already well
compensated judges with the increases afforded our RCMP officers.
As I said, the Mounties get 2.75%, payable in increments,
retroactive to January 1 of this year, while the judges get 4.1%,
retroactive to April 1, 1997 and then get a further 4.1%
compounded to their new 1997 salary figures, payable on April 1,
1998. They already receive, on average, in the vicinity of
$140,000 per year. The government seems to believe that it needs
to retroactively come to the aid of these poor, financially
strapped judges all the way back to April of last year.
Does it come to the same conclusion when compensating our police
officers? No. The government throws a few pennies at them,
retroactive to January, gives them a few more pennies in April
and then tells them to wait until October for the remainder.
Another example is the violent crime linkage analysis system, or
ViCLAS. ViCLAS is a computer database developed by the RCMP,
used to analyze, research and search out potential links between
violent crimes. It has the potential to save enormous amounts of
investigative time and effort. More important, since it targets
serial killers and sex offenders, the potential to prevent future
victims is invaluable. Used by police forces throughout the
world it has already been proven successful and is recognized as
the best.
Yet in speaking with E Division ViCLAS representatives, the
project is in serious danger of going under due to lack of
funding and inadequate staffing. How ironic. This is a world
class crime solving and crime prevention tool originally
developed by the RCMP, but the RCMP will not be able to use it.
Why? The government says it does not have the money, yet there
appears to be plenty of money available to give judges a raise.
This government appears to have its priorities all out of sync.
It falls over backwards to look after its friends, but fails to
look after those who need it most. It likes to talk about public
safety and crime prevention, but it seems to have a difficult
time putting its money where its mouth is.
I will now move on to the issue of the judicial compensation and
benefits commission. The government wants to set up yet another
bureaucratic agency merely to concern itself with the salaries
and benefits of judges. I see, as well, that the governor in
council will appoint this new commission. The Minister of
Justice gets to make another political patronage appointment. It
is just what this country needs, more patronage, more friends of
the government to carry out governmental responsibilities without
being accountable to the citizens of this country. What we need
is less patronage.
If we must establish a commission why is it not set up to
conduct public hearings into judicial appointments? Yes, it
could also govern pay and benefits, all subject of course to
parliamentary approval.
How much is the judicial compensation and benefits commission
going to cost Canadian taxpayers? What do we get for this money?
We are going to appoint three people at, no doubt, fairly
attractive salaries to carry out their duties. They will be paid
fees fixed by the governor in council. In addition, they will be
paid travel and living expenses which are also fixed by the
governor in council. There will be no parliamentary review or
control of these salaries and fees.
It gets worse. Under section 26.2 as proposed by the bill the
commission may engage the services of any persons necessary for
the proper conduct of the commission.
Once again we are being asked to create a new agency of
bureaucrats and provide them with all the financial resources to
have others do the work for them. There are obviously other
portions of this bill which deserve comment, but my limited time
will not permit me to discuss them today.
I will now move on to the third issue I mentioned at the
beginning of my speech, the Judges Act itself. This is the third
time this act has been before the House in the last couple of
years. Bill C-2 was passed in March 1996. Bill C-42 was passed
in June 1996. We now have the Judges Act back once again for
amendment. One must ask: Was the previous minister of justice
so incompetent that he had to bring the same legislation before
the House twice within a matter of months? Did he still not get
it right as it is now back again?
I hope we do not have other acts of parliament like this. I am
sure Canadian people would not be too impressed if it came to
their attention how much time and debate is devoted in this place
just to our judges. No wonder our country has a $600 billion
debt. In the last two years legislation regarding judges has
been brought before the House three times.
1625
One must wonder about the misplaced priorities. Maybe we should
not be too surprised. Last June, eight months ago, the Minister
of Justice stated that the young offender legislation was her top
priority. We have not seen it yet.
The former minister of justice promised almost two years ago to
bring in victims' rights legislation. This past summer the
present Minister of Justice told Canadians that it was also one
of her priorities. Victims are still waiting.
But the Liberals are certainly wasting no time in looking after
the judges. Imagine.
I will now move on to the fourth issue. As I mentioned earlier,
a definition within the legislation causes me some difficulty.
It appears at the first clause of the bill. It amends section 2
of the act to include the definition for surviving spouse. What
attracts my attention is that the definition of spouse is limited
to a person of the opposite sex. It seems to me that this
Liberal government has gone to great ends to foist the whole
issue of same sex benefits onto Canadians, but it would appear as
though this legislation creates an exception for judges.
Regardless of one's personal opinion, I have to ask why there
seems to be one rule for judges and another rule for the rest of
us.
There is another reason to be concerned with legislation which
proposes to give judges an increase in pay. Recent surveys have
shown beyond a doubt that Canadians have lost confidence in the
courts; not just the justice system, but the judiciary itself.
That is extremely troubling. Canadians are telling us that they
have no faith in judges to uphold the law.
There are those who will undoubtedly argue that people who say
such things do not understand the system. There is that elitism
showing through again. Certainly most citizens are unfamiliar
with the intricacies and the vagaries of the justice system. My
goodness, I know lawyers who become confused. What the public
does understand, however, are dubious decisions which come from
the bench, like decisions to sanction violent offenders by
sending them home on conditional sentences. Even the Alberta
court of appeal was extremely critical of some of their peers in
this regard.
What about this one? A man suspected in the kidnapping and
forcible confinement of two young women while fleeing from the
police attacks a third woman, puts a plastic bag over her head
and wraps a length of wire tightly around her neck. The judge
ruled that this could not be viewed as an attempt to kill her.
The man was eventually convicted of not only the initial offences
but two murders in another province.
What Canadians also understand are outrageous comments from the
bench, comments suggesting that a three-year old child was
sexually provocative, implying that she was in part responsible
for an assault against herself; comments suggesting that rape is
acceptable in some cultures; comments implying that the sexual
assault of three young girls by their teacher was not as serious
as the “buggery of little boys”.
We know that most judges conduct themselves in an extremely
responsible and thoughtful manner, but in this climate of public
mistrust to grant our judiciary such a generous increase while
other public servants receive nothing or a pittance at best
merely invites more cynicism.
With that note, I will end my comments on this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
some ways I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party,
particularly on the issue of retroactive raises back to January
1, 1997.
To make a quick calculation, a supreme court justice earning
$148,000 and getting a 4.1% increase would end up with about
$6,000, or $120 a week, more.
When I visited a sugar bush operation in my riding on Sunday, a
group of women told me their average wage was $240 for 37 hours.
So the increase weekly to a justice would be about half of what
these women are earning for 37.5 hours. Four per cent of their
$8 an hour makes 32 cents, but 4% of the justice's $148,000 makes
$6,000.
I do not believe that at any time in the history of mankind, a
superior court justice has resigned because he was underpaid. I
personally have never seen such a thing.
1630
Worse still, when the time comes for a judge to be appointed,
nearly all of the lawyers belonging to the party in power call
upon their MP, or the minister, or the Prime Minister to remind
him “Keep me in mind, it ought to be my turn for a court
appointment”.
I have a question for my distinguished colleague in the Reform
Party. In order to make the Canadian judiciary a little more
transparent, should we not add a clause to Bill C-37, precisely
so as to facilitate appointments, to make them more transparent
and to move away for once from a type of patronage comparable to
what happens, for instance, in Senate appointments?
[English]
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, what can I say? I
mentioned in my speech that if the commission is to be appointed
why do we not take a look to see if the commission could have
something to do with reviewing or actually considering the
appointments? Of course this would be subject to approval of the
House. Whether the bill is the appropriate vehicle to put this
clause into effect remains to be seen.
The way the whole process of appointments to the bench is now
has left the public absolutely cynical. Again I say it is not an
appropriate time to give judges a raise.
I would just like to add that the 4.1% is compounded in the
second year, so we are looking at 8.3% by the time we are
finished, which is considerably more.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday an RCMP officer came into my constituency office. He
was exceptionally upset over the whole issue of pay raises. There
had been quite a discussion at the police station about the issue
of pay raises and how long they had been delayed. He said there
was a tremendous resentment over the fact that the raises were so
very small: 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998; a second
increment of 1% on April 1, 1998; and an additional .75% on April
1, 1998. Basically he was saying that this put him in a position
of moving from $50,508 up to $52,423, but left him in
approximately 11th position against all other police members
throughout Canada.
Bearing in mind what my colleague has just said, effectively the
bill would give the judges an 8.3% increase over a two year
period. It creates greater disparity between those who are
attempting to enforce the law, already having a serious morale
problem because of their wages having been frozen for as long as
they have been, with a very meagre increase and the judges, who
in many cases do things that end up infuriating the police
officers, with an 8.3% increase in a two year period.
I am sure the member would agree the disparity that is being
proposed by the Liberals simply should not stand. It sets out
the judges in this special case while Canada's finest, Canada's
RCMP, is not going begging but is certainly getting the short end
of the stick.
I am sure the member would agree that this will lead to further
morale and attitude problems on the part of the members of the
RCMP who serve the country so well.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. I can
speak from my own experience with RCMP members in my community of
Surrey, which as I said is the largest in the country. There is
a serious morale problem there. I know a lot of the members
personally. They are very honourable people. They will not let
it affect their ability to perform the function we ask them to
do.
However, a real serious problem is the bleeding of experienced
RCMP members into other police forces and other businesses which
give them better rates of pay and a definitely less stress
related job, not to mention usually nine to five hours.
Yes, there is definitely a morale problem now and I cannot see
it getting anything but worse when they understand how much the
judges are receiving as an increase.
1635
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
issue a challenge to the member for Surrey North. If we were to
take all the televisions and the condoms provided to prisoners,
if we were to take all the bleach provided for their needles, if
we were to take the money used in terms of their right to sue in
legal challenges, if we were to take the money allocated for
prisoners to safeguard their “right to vote”, and if we were to
take the money the government is looking at currently spending in
Bill C-37 with regard to raising the salaries of judges, how many
extra police officers could we potentially hire?
I wonder if anyone has done a calculation. I do not think
anyone would question the idea that money spent on hiring more
police officers to enforce the laws and to go after criminals
would be better spent than on bleach, condoms, right to sue,
right to vote, TV and raising the salaries of judges.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree. I
honestly do not know how many more police officers could be
hired. I do not have a calculator handy.
It spreads into other areas. It is not just the question of
salaries for the RCMP. I alluded to the ViCLAS system for
tracking sex criminals, violent offenders and repeat offenders. I
have seen this program demonstrated to be very useful. It cuts
down the amount of time police spend investigating cases. There
is a serious potential that it could go under because of lack of
resources.
They should start getting their priorities straightened out on
the other side of the House and decide where we have to spend the
money for law enforcement.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to raise another side to this question.
Rural communities like those in Caribou—Chilcotin often do
without police services because there is no money for budgets in
the larger detachments. I think of places with interesting names
like Gold Bridge and Horsefly, but when there is a crisis in such
communities it will be an hour or two hours minimum before
policemen can respond after driving the distance to get there.
I have been watching the government cut its expenditures. The
difficulty is that while frontline services are being cut senior
bureaucrats and research people are finding more resources for
their needs.
Does the member see a correlation between the increase in crime
and the lack of necessary funds for policemen to meet this
challenge?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I have
seen a correlation because I have not actually seen the data. My
gut instinct tells me that there would be if we do not have
police on the streets to deal with some of the crime we are
seeing, especially in rural parts of the country.
During my speech on Bill C-16 I alluded to the difficulties the
RCMP had in remote parts of Canada. I know the Speaker likes to
go to Whistler and knows how remote it can be up there. I go to
a place that is even further outside Vancouver than Whistler. If
the Pemberton RCMP need me they have to drive an hour up a
logging road to get me.
There are some serious problems with policing in rural areas.
Somebody had better get the idea straight as to where funds will
be allotted.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38,
to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Nepean—Carleton—Sierra Leone; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques—Employment
Insurance.
1640
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my duty at this time to rise and speak to the
Judges Act, Bill C-37 at second reading.
I say that because I am representing my constituents. As they
hear what is going on in this parliament, they are very
concerned. They feel that the emphasis of the government is not
on law enforcement as it should be. For example, in this act, as
has always been the case, the government introduces amendments to
an act of parliament which fall far short of the public's
expectations.
This bill is objectionable not for what is in it but for what is
not in it. That is of major concern to the people in my riding
of Yorkton—Melville.
My constituents are more concerned about opening up the
appointment process for judges. The more judges use the charter
of rights and freedoms to strike down parliament's laws, the more
people want to have a say in what their judges actually think.
The government could have used this opportunity to open up the
judicial process. Right now it is an old boy's club with lawyers
deciding behind closed doors who the best Liberal available is to
get these plum patronage appointments to the judiciary.
I will oppose this bill on these grounds alone, even though
there are a couple of positive aspects to this legislation.
The bill increases the number of appeal court judges from 10 to
13. Hopefully this will help to move more cases through the
appeal process and help move them through more quickly. Likewise,
the increase in the number of unified family court judges from 12
to 36 should help to deal with the huge backlog of family law
cases.
There are a couple of positive things in here. Reform supports
the use of family courts to resolve separation and custody
disputes. However, it is unfortunate that the divorce rate in
Canada has soared to such proportions that we require so many
more family court judges. Liberalized divorce laws should be
fixed first.
Unfortunately Bill C-37 also increases judges' salaries
retroactively from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 by 4.1% and an
additional 4.1% from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. Thereafter
salaries will be reviewed by the newly created judicial
compensation and benefits commission. In other words, judges
will get an 8.3% increase over two years.
As I understand it, judges are already making approximately
$140,000 per year. How many other public servants receive pay
raises of 8.3% in a two year period?
This government awards judges and senior bureaucrats, including
their own ministers, with large pay raises and bonuses while,
comparatively, frontline police officers and low level public
servants receive virtually no additional compensation.
Last Friday, March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise
of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They will receive a second
increment of 1% on April 1, 1998 and an additional 0.75% on
October 1, 1998.
RCMP officers have had their wages frozen for five years. The
starting salary for a third year constable will go from about
$50,508 to $52,423. This sends a clear message to the public
that this government cares more about judges than it does about
the frontline police officers who risk their lives to protect
Canadians in service to their communities.
That is the key point. These people are frontline. They put
their lives on the line to protect us. They need the support of
those judges but we need to properly compensate them.
That should be our first priority.
1645
Add this insult to the decisions by the government not to allow
the amendments the police recommended to the DNA act. Add this
insult to the government's ongoing expenditure of hundreds of
millions on a universal gun registration which frontline police
officers universally oppose. The Canadian Police Association even
says register criminals before guns. That is where our priorities
should be.
Police get a slap in the face with a pay raise that does not
compare to what judges will receive and the government also fails
to give them the tools they need to do their job of improving
public safety and saving lives. How many Canadian workers receive
retroactive pay raises as the judges will receive? Public
servants, especially judges, should only be given salary
increases in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner.
This bill also establishes the judicial compensation and
benefits commission to inquire into the adequacy of the salaries
and benefits for judges. The creation of the judicial
compensation and benefits commission provides the federal
government with yet another opportunity to make patronage
appointments. The Reform Party wants to reform the patronage
appointment process to make it more transparent and publicly
accountable. Meanwhile the Liberals create more opportunities to
make patronage appointments. That is going backwards. That is
not the direction things should be heading in this country.
These new patronage appointees will hold office for a term of
four years and are eligible to be reappointed for one further
term. Fees for commission members will be fixed by the governor
in council. Members are deemed to be employed in the public
service of Canada. The commission may also engage the services
of any person necessary for proper conduct of the commission
begging the question just how much will this commission cost
taxpayers. We need to know before we go any further with this
legislation.
This is the third time the Liberals have amended the Judges Act.
During the last Parliament in 1996 Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 were
introduced, both nebulous, inconsequential, fuzzy pieces of
legislation which were of little significance to Canadians who
are concerned about their safety. Canadians want violent crime
to be curbed. They do not want more of these judicial review
types of legislation.
Both Liberal justice ministers have failed to introduce the
victims bill of rights which has taken low priority on the
justice committee's agenda. They failed to substantially amend
the Young Offenders Act. They have failed to limit the use of
conditional sentences for violent offenders. Instead they occupy
the justice committee's time with these administrative matters at
the expense of more important issues such as amending the laws
pertaining to drinking and driving.
It is time that this government got its priorities straight. The
people know what is important. This bill proves the government
does not. This bill does not contain what it should and
therefore I do not support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
simply like to ask my colleague a question.
We know about the difficulties raised by the very sensitive issue
of salary increases, whether for MPs or judges. This raises all
sorts of questions with the public, perhaps legitimately so.
Does he think that the Government of Canada could once again
follow the lead of the Government of Quebec? A few years back,
the Quebec government decided to use the equivalent of a job
category in the civil service.
It was decided that all those with sensitive positions, such as
MNAs or judges, would receive the same increase as that arrived
at more objectively, through negotiations between the employer,
the Government of Quebec in this case, and government union
representatives. This gives the whole proceeding an objective
character.
What would the member think if such a procedure were to be used
here in the Government of Canada?
1650
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, of course I do not
know all the details of what the process is in Quebec.
The point that I am trying to make is that the people of Canada
should have more direct input into what is happening in the
judiciary. They have the right to determine who those judges
are. They should not be patronage appointments. They have the
right to determine what those people are paid. The people of
Canada are fair. They are the ones who should be determining
what is happening here, not us as parliamentarians, especially
the government using this as patronage appointments. I think I
have made my point abundantly clear.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make by way
of comments.
I am thinking in particular of one judgment I read recently,
Delgamuukw, in which the justices referred not to legal
precedents but to the literature from the law schools on which at
least their judgment was based in part. This means there is a
divergence from the tradition of consolidating the law, referring
to the law and using the law as the basis on which to build
judgments. I am concerned about that.
The second point I wish to raise comes out of today's Ottawa
Citizen which has a headline: “Judge scolds greedy
lawyers”. Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci of the Supreme Court of
Canada has said that many lawyers are rapidly losing sight of
their obligations to the public and to the pursuit of justice.
I am wondering if the influence of these lawyers who have lost
this sight is also being lost on the courts. Mr. Justice
Iacobucci, to his credit, says that lawyers are not merchants of
legal services but members of a calling dedicated to helping
clients and improving society generally. But he is concerned
that there is a clear tendency for a lawyer to be a hired gun, as
he says, in the promotion of the client's cause rather than an
active and constructive participant in the course of justice.
These two points cause me concern which I add to the debate. I
would like to ask my hon. colleague if he sees any relationship
between the justices, their influence by the law schools, by the
lawyers of the community of which they are a part and if this is
part of the reason that these justices are being given these pay
raises that perhaps other frontline bureaucrats and government
workers are not entitled to.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the member makes an
excellent point. I can only underline and underscore the
importance of that point.
If we do not have a judiciary that is at arm's length to
Parliament it will begin to become political and will be
influenced by its political masters. That should not happen.
With regard to the law schools and the influence they are having
on the judiciary, that is becoming more and more commonplace.
People have made predictions as to the decisions that will be
coming down from the supreme court simply by reading the
literature that is coming out of the law schools. The judges are
reading that literature, the commentary and the political
correctness that is often associated with it, rather than looking
at the merits of the case.
We need judges who are not political. We need judges who are
carrying out the will of the people in this country, who are
concerned first and foremost with justice. That is I think the
point that the member was making and I agree with him.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to change the nature of the question that I posed
before because I have new information that I would like to add to
it.
If we were to take the costs of colour cable TV, free condoms,
free bleach for needles, the right to sue and legal costs
involved, the right to vote and the administrative and logistical
costs involved, gun registration and the cost of patronage
appointees the Liberals have put on the parole board, just those
costs alone, would we not be able to spend more money on hiring
more officers or more judges without the increased raises to get
rid of the backlog in the courts?
1655
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could add
to the list, the list of condoms, voting privileges, gun
registration and all of the associated costs. I could add the
costs of the golf courses, the pool tables, the cable TV and I
would be asking the government the very same that this member is
asking me. Would it not be better to put that money into law
enforcement, putting police on the street where they are going to
do a lot more good than to put it into what this government is
putting it into? That is the point that needs to be made over
and over.
I worked on that gun registration issue a long time. I examined
it very thoroughly and if we look at the hundreds of millions of
dollars being wasted in setting up a huge bureaucracy that will
not make our lives any safer we would be asking the question why
is that money not going into hiring more police. I think this
needs to be debated. I see the government unfortunately avoiding
this debate.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listen very intently when Reform talks about more
enforcement on the streets in order to make our streets safer. I
certainly do not want to debate that aspect with him but last
night 60 Minutes had a very good show on about enforcement
and what to do with young people and young offenders when they
are behind the system.
I keep hearing the hon. member say that more money should be
spent on enforcement but would he not believe, or would he not be
at least corrected, that actually more enforcement is just sort
of the other approach to it and really more resources should be
put into the education of young people so that they do not commit
these crimes to which he is referring?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
member broadening the picture. I do not agree necessarily that
more education is going to be the answer. We have already made
suggestions. In addition to putting more police on the street, we
should not be hurting the family with legislation that is coming
before this House and especially with taxation that is forcing
both parents to work and allowing children to virtually fend for
themselves.
There is a lot more to the problem and I am glad the member has
broadened this whole justice issue. Yes, more police on the
street would help but there are many other things that would help
reduce the rate of crime in our country.
We need to strengthen our families first. That will do much
more than trying to impose maybe some kind of an educational
scheme on the whole country that does not fit. I think we need
to discuss this a lot more and I thank the member for raising it.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-37. It deals with the
salary and the annuity benefits for our judges along with
establishing a judicial benefits and compensation commission. It
also authorizes additional appeal court and unified family court
judges.
I believe that judges should get a raise and that the increases
in the number of judges are probably justified according to the
government's recommendations.
We cannot always believe all the statistics, as was recently seen
in the firearms act trial in Edmonton. However I will believe
them this time that we could use more family court judges.
1700
A government's legislative actions should always reflect a
consistent and fair approach to everyone in the public sector. I
agree that judges' pay should be set by an independent council.
However their salaries are the ultimate responsibility of
Parliament. The setting of salaries can be delegated by the
government but once again ultimate responsibility and
accountability rests with the government.
I find it hard to support this bill because judges are getting a
much larger raise than those employees on the lower rungs of the
public service who make $30,000 a year. Public service employees
will get maybe a 2% raise which is around $600 on $30,000.
Previous governments have taken and the current federal Liberal
government takes a very extremist view on these kinds of issues.
They prefer to take care of the higher echelons and forget the
little people who are trying to get pay equity and a better raise
to feed their families.
The independent pay council is of concern to me. I refer to it
as independent but I do not think that is quite the word when I
look at its make-up. The council should be made up of more
middle income people who could better reflect what the average
person sees is a justifiable salary for judges. They would be
more inclined to give raises in keeping with what the rest of
society is collecting.
I am not talking about the gross amount paid. Certainly judges
have a very responsible job in society. A salary in the $140,000
range is very acceptable. It is the times that count. It is the
percentage of the raise that the average person gets compared to
the percentage of the raise that those in the upper strata of
society get that is the problem. I will probably get a question
later on about members of Parliament on that issue and I feel the
same way about members of Parliament. We should not be setting
ourselves above the average person who is struggling to make a
living in Canada today.
Let us look at the judicial compensation and benefits
commission. Under section 26.1(1), one person will be nominated
by the judiciary, one person will be nominated by the Minister of
Justice and one chairperson will be nominated by the first two
nominees. If any member can convince me that is going to be an
independent committee, I would like to have a long discussion
with that member.
In addition we certainly do not need to appoint five people to
sit on a committee to decide compensation. Three is plenty. They
are certainly going to be well compensated so costs will go up
the more people we have on the committee.
Where is the independence and fairness of this judicial
compensation and benefits commission? As was pointed out, it
really is not. As I said before, the patronage and payment of
higher increases are more extremism on the part of the Liberals.
They take care of their own and to heck with the little guy.
Once again I agree that judges should get their raise. The
salaries of the commissioners who will sit on the independent pay
commission, as I like to think of it, should not exceed $60,000
to $80,000. They too must understand what the average person is
trying to get by on.
1705
The question of how the other two members could be appointed was
dealt with a little bit by a Progressive Conservative member. A
case could be made for having one judge on this board to reflect
the judges' view. Maybe the government would even look at having
the official opposition and maybe the second largest opposition
party appoint the other two. We might see a little independence
there.
I will comment on the surviving spouse situation. In the
annuity section, section 44(4) it is stated under subsection (5):
No annuity shall be granted under this section to the surviving
spouse of a judge unless the surviving spouse
There are a couple of good things. It will address these
gold-digger marriages that happen to come along after the judge is
out of office. Also, in the definition under subsection (2), the
surviving spouse has to have cohabited or have been married for a
minimum of one year before the judge's death. That is a good part
of the bill. The surviving spouse definition confirms what is
the law in Canada today, that a spouse is a person of the
opposite sex and then it goes on to cohabitation.
The total salary for all of the increases in the number of
judges will have a significant impact on our judicial system. I
have made rough figures which indicate that the added judges will
bring the total salary compensation up into the $5.5 million
range associated with all the other expenses in setting up the
courts.
Justice is certainly not cheap. We do not want to try to get by
on a real cheap court system but we do want to keep it
reasonable. Salaries, particularly raises, should be in keeping
with what the average Canadian gets.
In conclusion, the government may want to consider the
suggestions I had for this bill before it pushes the bill
through.
The government should amend the section dealing with appointment
of members to the commission and to try to eliminate the
patronage that will be going on.
The second amendment is to try to have the salary increases more
in keeping with public sector pay raises. Fairness is really
important. In court the judges tell us that not only does
justice have to be done but it has to be seen to be done. I
think a lot of people would say that a $600 raise for a person at
the low end and a $5,000 raise for the person at the high end in
the salary scheme of things is not fair. The government should
not be reflecting that type of unfairness to Canadians.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
was wondering if my colleague would like the opportunity to
comment on the lack of priorities the government has had with
regard to Bill C-37.
1710
In this bill the Liberal government is raising judges salaries.
Yet day after day, week after week, month after month, year after
year, the justice minister has been asked when we will be seeing
changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Bill C-67 which raises the wages of our judges takes higher
priority and comes before making serious changes to the Young
Offenders Act. Not only do we see it before changes to the Young
Offenders Act, but we see it before changes to section 745, the
faint hope clause. There is also a backlog in our court system.
If there is a backlog in our court system, surely the money would
have been better allocated to hire more judges to take care of
the backlog rather than to pay the judges more money.
I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on the lack of
priorities of the Liberal government on criminal justice.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, I am always pleased
to continue on with the facts on a bill and the fact that the
government tends to waste a lot of money and does not have its
priorities straight.
In addition to the issues my hon. friend raised, we also have a
serious street gang problem. There is organized crime.
Pedophiles are out on the streets. Some jails are filled to
overflowing. Priorities are all around this government and it
fails to recognize them.
In the last Parliament the government had the great idea of
bringing in useless Bill C-68, the firearms act. It spent
millions and probably billions in the end. We are going to need
all these judges plus a few hundred more in order to handle the
court cases that will come from that.
When the government gets the priorities wrong, it has a snowball
effect all the way down. It ruins a lot of good things in
society which could have benefited by the government setting its
priorities properly.
I agree. The government should set its priorities better. It
should spend the money better. Let us get on with making Canada
a better place.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
when I spoke to Bill C-37, I was asked a question concerning the
morale within the RCMP when its members see judges getting this
kind of an increase. The RCMP is just coming out from under a
five year wage freeze and has received a pittance compared to the
judges.
My hon. colleague is a former member of the RCMP. I would like
to get his views as to what he feels this will do the morale of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to the constables out on
patrol. How is this going to affect them? My experience is that
they will do their jobs and they will do them well but it
certainly does not bode well for their morale.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, I lived through that
personally. Over those six years I did see the morale of the
people working for me decline seriously. It will recover a
little bit now.
It is not only the serving uniformed members that cause a drop
in the policing on our streets. The government is failing to
take care of the non-uniformed people, the public servants who
still have not had a raise. These are the people with the lower
salaries I was talking about earlier. Their poor morale reflects
up to the members. The members' poor morale reflects to the
general public. There are more complaints against the members.
Everything the government should have done it did not do over the
past two or three years and now we are in the situation of trying
to fix everything.
There is no real change in the government's attitude. It is
still one of keeping the rich and elite happy and letting the
little guys fight for themselves.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his fine
intervention and for bringing his expertise to the House today on
this important bill.
He is a former RCMP officer. I am sure he has a lot of
experience with arresting individuals, sending them to court,
going through the legal process and then finding out that some
members of the judicial community rather than interpreting the
laws, have decided to make the laws. They have set precedents in
a number of areas which have made it very difficult for the
police officers to do their job.
1715
In fact they have turned the judicial system to some extent on
its head. That is not what they were there for in the first
place. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws made
by the House of Commons and we as the representatives of the
people have that duty.
I would like to know from my hon. colleague in his experience
whether he agrees with that assessment. Does he agree that the
judiciary rather than interpreting the laws is making the laws?
Does the hon. member see that the House can play a role in trying
to turn that around? I would also like him to address the issue
of accountability.
There has been a number of egregious statements made by judges.
They have put forth penalties that seemed completely out of
proportion to the offence committed. In the last few years
particularly there have been rape cases where individuals
basically got off scot-free for committing some heinous crimes. I
would like my hon. colleague who has experience in these matters
to address these two issues.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, certainly there have
been some examples of this kind of decision making by judges that
has adversely affected law enforcement.
One of the most recent examples was the requirement for police
officers to obtain a warrant to arrest someone they knew had
committed a crime. The officers would approach the house and see
the offender's car parked there. They would go to the door and
his boots and hat would be sitting inside. His wife would be
there and they would see the bathroom door closed. The officers
knew the suspect was there but could not go inside to arrest him.
They had to try to get a warrant and come back later. Of course
when they returned he was gone.
The judges making decisions that result in new law is a serious
concern. We have seen a couple examples recently where
provincial government justice ministers were talking about the
primacy of parliament being usurped by the courts. In fact, they
are being pressured so heavily and so badly that they are
considering using the notwithstanding clause of the constitution
in order to have some control over judges.
Judges have to be independent. However, parliament is the rule
of law of the land and judges come under parliament. It seems
like parliament is becoming second place, which forces us into
the use of a club, the notwithstanding clause, to swat a little
mosquito.
The comments I am making regarding the accountability of judges
are that while they are independent they must be accountable to
someone. They cannot be a law unto themselves. If things
continue the way they apparently have over the past years,
eventually parliament will have to come up with a radical
surgical solution to correct the situation.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, for those watching the debate—and some may just have
joined us on CPAC—I say that we are debating Bill C-37, an act
to amend the Judges Act. This is the third time the Liberal
government has changed the Judges Act. We hope one day they will
get it right. They certainly keep flailing away at it.
This series of amendments does four things. First, it increases
the salaries of judges. Second, it provides a better pension
plan for judges. Third, it puts a full time commission in place
to monitor judicial benefits.
Fourth, it provides authority to pay some additional judges in
particular areas of the system.
1720
Those are the four things this bill provides. Canadians who are
watching the debate will be interested, because guess who gets to
pay for the measures brought in by the government. Some measures
Canadians are willing to pay for. Other measures we as Canadians
question whether they are a good use of our hard earned money.
I will give some detail on each of the four measures. First,
judges' salaries will increase by just over 8%, which is an
increase many Canadians wish they could look forward to. The
increase is retroactive for a whole year. That is a nice bonus.
The second measure concerns making the judges' pension plan more
generous. Currently a judge can draw a full pension at age 65
after a minimum of 15 years of service. The full pension is
equal to two-thirds of the judge's salary at the time of
resignation. The new changes will allow judges to retire much
earlier. Retirement will not be based on the age of 65 but on an
80 formula, that is the judge's age plus the judge's years of
service. If they equal 80, the judge can retire with a full
pension.
It should be noted that the public service formula is based on
85 years. Theirs is a more generous formula by five years than
public servants are allowed. If a judge is age 60 and has been a
judge for 20 years, the individual can retire at age 60 with a
full pension. If the judge has served for 25 years, the judge
could retire with a full pension at age 55. This is a very
generous pension formula for judges.
The third measure is the matter of the full time judicial
benefits and compensation commission. It has not been in the
past but now will be a full time commission of three people doing
nothing but monitoring judges' salaries and compensation. I am
not quite sure how many hours a week the commission will require,
but I am sure many Canadians would be quite happy to have a full
time job serving on a commission that just looks at judicial
compensation and benefits.
It is interesting these commissioners are all patronage
appointments by cabinet, more patronage appointments to good and
faithful Liberals, no doubt, if past experience is anything to go
by. It will be a four year appointment.
The fees for the commission will be fixed by cabinet and the
commission members will be deemed to be employed in the public
service, which means they will be eligible for a generous package
of benefits and a pension.
The commission has to report within nine months of being
appointed, but the report will not be debated in the House.
Whatever the commissioners say Canadians will not know because
the report will be tabled quietly. There will be no opportunity
to take issue with it, debate it or talk about it, even in the
people's House of Commons as we are doing today.
The fourth measure is the authority to pay additional judges.
The act increases the number of additional appeal court judges
that can be appointed to appeal courts across the provinces from
10 to 13. The federal government has essentially said that it
will pay for three more appeal court judges if a province can
convince it that it needs one or more.
If all ten provinces and two territories want additional appeal
court judges, there will be quite a dust up as to who comes out
on top.
1725
It is the same with unified family court judges. There will
actually be triple the number of unified family court judges
possible across the country. Right now there are 12. The
federal government is saying that it would pay 36. There will be
no additional judges, however, to other levels of the judiciary
such as Queen's bench and the provincial courts which administer
the Criminal Code.
I will talk in a few minutes particularly about the provincial
court level which administers the Criminal Code. That is where a
lot of the backlog exists and where there needs to be substantial
reform.
We have a situation where the justice committee's time has been
considerably taken up in administrative matters to do with the
judiciary. That is not to say that there may not be a need for
some of it, but certainly Canadians do not have reform of judge's
pay and pensions at the top of their list when it comes to
justice reform.
In fact the new justice minister, although she spoke nicely at
the beginning of her appointment after the last election, has
come out with no strength of purpose in overhauling the justice
system. She has simply flailed around, tinkering with small
repair jobs and avoiding the major overhauls that Canadians are
demanding to our sputtering justice system. That is a criticism
we as the official opposition with the job of holding the
government accountable need to bring before the government.
Why are we spending our time, our effort, our air time, our
study, our committee time and the time of the Canadian people on
issues that are not the ones which Canadian people are demanding
need to be dealt with when it comes to the justice system?
Canadians, for example, want victims' rights to be protected.
What does the minister spend time on? In this parliament we had
a law that limits the use of DNA evidence to protect the rights
of accused and convicted criminals. Far from protecting victims'
rights, which is what the public is demanding, particularly
families and friends of victims and victims themselves, we have a
government that has spent time in parliament making sure that the
rights of the accused and convicted criminals are not infringed
too heavily by the taking of DNA evidence. That is the kind of
perverse priority of the government.
Then we have Canadians saying that they want laws that
effectively deter youth crime. That is important to them. The
Young Offenders Act gives a slap on the wrist and almost
encourages youth crime because the consequences are so lenient.
Yet, what does the government spend its time on? As my
colleague who was with the RCMP before taking his seat in
parliament just said, we have spent time in parliament with a law
that would force law enforcement officers to break off attempts
to find suspects to obtain a search warrant to enter a building.
At that time anyone but the most inept of criminals would be long
gone.
Canadians are asking for measures that deter crime. Parliament
in response spends time on laws that will protect criminals to
make sure they are not too easily caught. We would not want to
actually bring a lawbreaker too easily to justice.
Sometimes we wonder why Canadians put up with this nonsense.
Canadians are asking for a bold new package of ideas to
substantially reduce delays and costs in the legal system. I
will talk in a minute about delays in the legal system.
What does the minister do in response to this demand by
Canadians? She beavers away on a bill to expand a tiny corner of
evidentiary procedure when it comes to disabled people. That is
her big contribution to addressing the delays and costs of the
legal system. That is what the justice committee has been asked
to spend time on.
1730
Canadians want to reverse the shocking leniency of sentences
that are handed down by our courts even for serious violent
crimes, for example, drunk driving and some of the light
sentences for incredible violations and assaults on our citizens
due to conditional sentencing. Canadians are saying enough
already.
What does the minister do? Her best shot is to introduce this
bill to appoint a few more judges, not of course in the criminal
area but in the appeal area and the family court area, and to
promise more money for judges.
Does this sound like the acts of a competent, responsive justice
minister? My answer is absolutely not. Here we are nearly a
year into the mandate of a government and the best this
government has been able to do is practically the exact opposite
on handling the four greatest concerns of the Canadian people.
What did the minister promise when she took on the job? What
was her promise? Was it to appoint a few more judges, pay them
more and give them better pensions? I did not hear any of that.
I am pretty sure Canadians did not hear that either. Did the new
justice minister say she will make sure that before a police
officer goes after a suspected criminal following the commission
of a crime that they go back to a judge and get a search warrant,
lest they catch up with this person too quickly? Did anyone hear
the justice minister say that after she was appointed? I did not
hear that.
Here is what she did say: “Improving the Young Offenders Act is
one of my top priorities”. Oh really, her top priority. Here we
are months and months from the appointment of this minister who,
by the way, had the benefit of a full two years of study of the
Young Offenders Act by the justice committee which had just been
finished prior to the election. All the study had been done.
The justice committee travelled across the country, spoke with
Canadians from top to bottom of this country, from law
enforcement officers, to the judiciary, to regular citizens, to
high school students, for two years studying the Young Offenders
Act, helping the justice minister to carry out her top priority,
to improve the Young Offenders Act. Here we are nearly a year
later without one single line of legislation to carry out the
justice minister's supposed top priority.
Instead we are spending hours of debate in this House and in
committee talking about whether we need a few more judges and if
we should pay them more.
Something is far wrong with the mandate of this government and a
justice minister who can change priorities to such a sad extent.
The record speaks for itself. As I have said, I believe the
priorities that have been carried out are bending over backwards
to protect the rights of accused, convicted and fleeing criminals
and expanding the operations of and rewards to a justice system
many Canadians describe as ineffective, inefficient and out of
touch.
There has been time for four bills to do that but no time to put
even one line of legislation before this House to deal seriously
with the glaring flaws in a justice system which has repeatedly
failed law abiding Canadians when it comes to protecting their
safety and their right to security.
I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about what is
causing so much frustration and unnecessary pain to regular
Canadians. That is the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs.
Gilles Deraiche.
1735
Mr. and Mrs. Deraiche now live in Calgary and have given me
permission to talk about their situation. They lived in Ottawa
not too long ago. In September 1996 their son was viciously
murdered in Ottawa. Since that time it took seven months to hold
a preliminary hearing. One could imagine the agony of these
parents who wanted justice and closure on this terrible family
tragedy. They had to wait seven months for the preliminary
hearing to find out if there was enough evidence to hold a trial.
Following that it took five months to schedule an examination
for discovery. Eight months after that a trial date is
scheduled.
Twenty months are going to pass before there will be a trial to
bring this personal loss to any kind of closure. My constituents
have been treated as if they have no right and no interest in
this entire proceedings. When they called the prosecutor's
office in Ottawa they were advised it was the responsibility of
the police to give them information. When they called the police
they were advised it was not the police's responsibility to
advise them of what was going on. The police also told them that
sometimes they do not even know what is going on.
When they call for information they must always state the names
of the individuals who were accused of their son's murder, thus
putting the emphasis on those who created such tragedy in their
lives. This is very painful for them.
They were advised of the trial date of their son's murder by
relatives in Ottawa who read about it in the Ottawa newspaper.
These are the parents of a murdered son. That is the way our
justice system works for Canadians. Canadians are told it is
really important that we pay judges more and that they have
better pensions. Maybe it is, but that is not how Mr. and Mrs.
Deraiche feel. Their situation will not be helped at all by this
act because it appoints judges in a totally different area.
In B.C. 40,000 criminals are awaiting trial. This has forced
the B.C. attorney general to request an amendment which would
allow a longer period of time for bringing a criminal to trial
before the case is thrown out of court. Under our charter the
criminal is entitled to a timely trial. If the system is
backlogged and the criminal does not get a timely trial he or she
walks free.
It is necessary to spend time in this Parliament to address some
of the changes being demanded for our legal and justice system.
The priorities of this government are completely wrong. I appeal
to the government to put the tinkering administrative matters on
the back burner and get on with the real job we were elected to
do, provide safety and security for Canadians and their families.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened attentively to the member's remarks. While I do not
necessarily share all her opinions, including those on the Young
Offenders Act and the severity of sentences imposed by the
courts, on the whole, as regards Bill C-37, we are not far apart
in our understanding of it and on the government's obligations
regarding decisions by the Supreme Court.
1740
On September 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down an
important decision. It is the reason we have Bill C-37 before us
now. I will quote a passage from the decision I consider very
important, and then I will ask her a question.
The justices said the following “However, to avoid the
possibility of, or the appearance of, political interference
through economic manipulation, a body, such as a commission,
must be interposed between the judiciary and the other branches
of government. The constitutional function of this body would be
to depoliticize the process of determining changes to or freezes
in judicial remuneration”.
My question to the member is quite simple, and I am sure she
shares my position on this. Could she tell us what she thinks,
in the light of the statement by the Supreme Court justices, of
the way judges are appointed to the Supreme Court, to federal
courts and to superior courts? Does she not believe that, if we
are to depoliticize the process and prevent all economic
manipulation, there has to be a commission?
Would it not be more natural or better if the government opposite
introduced a bill to set up a sort of committee, commission or
whatever for the appointment of justices? Would this serve to
prevent all political interference, all political manipulation,
as it was put by a certain lawyer with a high international
profile in the Supreme Court reference?
Would justice not be better served if the government listened to
the arguments put forward by the opposition on a number of
occasions? I think the Reform Party also has a platform or
arguments on the appointment of judges to superior courts under
federal jurisdiction.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of
Canadians found it rather shocking to suppose, if I understand
the case, that unless judges are paid more they could be open to
bribery. Therefore their integrity may be for sale unless the
government pays them more. I find that to be a tremendous insult
to the many fine people we have on the bench.
If we extend that argument we could say that law enforcement
officers, members of Parliament and legislators should be paid a
lot more for the same reason. I think the whole premise behind
that judgment was certainly very flawed and suspect in its
assessment of the character of our judiciary.
However, the member did ask me about the way judges are
appointed and whether that could be improved. I certainly agree
with him, as do most Canadians, that simply basing appointments
to the bench on patronage, past faithful service to a particular
party is very undesirable.
I remember how naive I was in law school. Some days I think I
still am but I was more so then. We had a visiting judge. I asked
him afterwards how one became a judge. I know that really sounds
naive but I was quite curious. He laughed and said most people
would say it depends on belonging to the right political party.
Surely we can do a lot better than that in this country.
The Reform Party wants to reform this patronage appointment
process to make it a lot more transparent and publicly
accountable. We formed a task force which made recommendations
in a report to our national assembly in Vancouver in 1996.
1745
What the Reform task force recommended was an appointment
process whereby a Commons committee made up of the elected
representatives of the people would review and interview
candidates whose names were put forward for judicial
appointments. We felt this would open up the process a great
deal and ensure that it was not simply done in the back
rooms of the PMO, by whomever was handling the patronage
appointments of the day.
We need to push very vigorously for this kind of reform to
restore trust and confidence in the judicial system and in its
integrity and objectiveness.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague from
Calgary—Nose Hill, who is a lawyer and who has brought her
expertise on legal matters to this party which has been greatly
appreciated.
In the beginning of her speech she mentioned that the justice
system has ground to a halt. She brought forth a heart-wrenching
example. This is a situation that we are faced with across the
country. Justice is being delayed. Justice delayed is justice
denied. If we want to make sure that justice is done, it has to
be done in an expeditious fashion.
The problem is that the government has failed to adopt any of
the constructive solutions that have been put forth to ensure
that we have an expeditious criminal justice system so that
people who are arrested get a fair trail in a timely fashion, in
a reasonable timeframe. The system right now does not provide
for that.
I ask my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill whether she can
provide to the House some constructive solutions that the
government can adopt to ensure that individuals who are in our
criminal justice system will go through the system in an
expeditious and fair fashion.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House
would like a long dissertation on this subject and I would be
happy to provide one. However, I will limit my comments to just
a minute or two.
There is a lot of frustration over the length of time it takes a
lot of these cases to be dragged through the courts, not just on
the criminal side but also on the civil side. When this matter
was studied, and it has been studied to death by the Canadian Bar
Association, by the trial lawyers association and by various task
forces, one of the main recommendations was to change some of the
rules of courts to limit the grounds upon which adjournments can
be granted and to ensure that there are specific timeframes given
within which steps in a case must go forward.
Some of my colleagues who have dealt with the justice system or
who are lawyers themselves will know that adjournments are
routinely granted for almost any reason. This can happen even
though people have taken time off work to appear as witnesses in
support of a plaintiff or the accused. All of a sudden, in two
seconds, someone stands and says “I am asking for an
adjournment” and it is off the docket until another time. This
is very frustrating and very inconvenient.
That would be one simple way to bring things forward. There are
a number of recommendations along that line. Perhaps I will get
to them at another time. I believe that is enough said on the
subject, except to add that this is an enormous frustration not
only for the constituents who I just spoke about, but for
literally thousands and thousands of Canadians who have to deal
with the justice system.
If the government were going to be responsive to the wishes of
Canadians, then it would do a lot to move in that direction
instead of dealing with some of these other matters that we have
talked about today.
1750
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-37. This bill seeks
to amend the Judges Act, something which the government has put
forth on a number of occasions. I will go through this bill
briefly and provide some constructive solutions for the
government so it can truly make meaningful amendments to this
act.
The primary purpose of the bill is to increase the pay of
federally appointed judges. They will receive a 4% increase both
for 1997-98 and for 1998-99. Their salaries have been frozen
like those of the rest of us for several years. That is a fact
of life, given our fiscal restrictions. No one has any
complaints about that. Our judges should be paid fairly. No one
has problems with that.
Let us take a look at what the judges make here and what they
make in the United States.
What are the yearly salaries for judges of the Supreme Court of
Canada? The chief justice makes $163,800. The yearly salaries
of judges of the federal court are as follows: the chief justice
of the federal court makes $139,700, an associate chief justice
makes $139,700, the 13 other judges of the trial division each
make $127,700. As I said before, no one has a problem paying for
competence.
Now let us look at what judges make in the United States. I
will look at the salary reports in the U.S. as of January 1,
1997. The average salary of associate judges of the highest
courts was $101,782. For intermediate appellate courts the
average was $100,400, and for judges of general jurisdiction of
trial courts the average was $91,000.
To put this in perspective, we can see that our judges make
roughly one-third more than judges in the United States who have
a relatively equivalent stature.
While the judges are receiving an 8% increase in their salaries,
the people in our military are receiving 1.5%. There is no
equity. As well, the proposals for MPs' salaries were much
higher than what anybody else in the private sector would get.
All we are asking for is some fairness and equity for people
across this country who are being paid, in effect, by the
taxpayer. In other words, one group should not get much more
than other groups.
There are enormous opportunities for the government to really
deal with this issue. I just returned from the United States.
They have done some innovative things in California to put
accountability back into the judicial system. They elect their
judges, instead of appointing them. Competence is ensured
through the electoral system. I will illustrate how they do this
in California in the hope that the government will adopt it so we
can elect judges in our country.
In California they use one election system for trial court
judges and another for appellate court judges. The judges serve
six-year terms and they compete in a non-partisan election. That
is important. It has nothing to do with politics. It is a
non-partisan election in which individuals run on what they will
offer and on what they have done as judges. Anyone who gets more
than 50% of the vote is declared elected.
The justices of the supreme court serve 12-year terms and are on
the ballot in November every four years. There is a revolving
door, with one-third of the judges being on the election ballot
every four years.
Individuals from the public who will be putting their ballots
forward can get information on the judicial candidates in a
number of ways.
They can read the local newspapers which cover the judges. They
can call the county bar association. They can read the
candidate's own campaign literature and evaluate the campaign
literature of the judges themselves. This way the public can
evaluate the judges based on what they are going to offer in the
position. Again, they will be evaluated on the basis of merit.
1755
There was a supreme court judge in California who tried to
overturn this. The judge tried to strip the ability of citizens
to have the power to decide whether an individual should run as a
judge. Every state in the United States has a system of election
and all but one, Rhode Island, has a term system of six, eight or
twelve years. It does not extend for life.
Any enlightened court system has to blend executive appointments
with public votes. It is probably the most sensitive way of
ensuring that our judicial system is non-partisan, has merit and
ensures that the people are the ones who are going to judge the
people who are going to judge them if they come into a court of
law.
I would ask the government to consider the suggestion of an
elected judiciary. I urge the government to look at the
California system. The California system also has the ability to
review the behaviour of judges.
Not so long ago there were a number of court rulings that had
members of the public shaking their heads. There was a man who
was charged and convicted of sexually assaulting a five-year old
girl. The judge gave this person an extraordinarily low penalty.
His argument was that the five-year old girl was being sexually
provocative by sitting on the man's lap and rubbing herself up
and down on him. Five-year olds do not think that way. This was
a judgment that was beyond comprehension and it let somebody who
had committed a foul, egregious crime out onto the streets to
probably do it again. Where was the accountability? It simply
did not exist.
Competence and a continual review process has to be in place.
In California they have a system whereby a judge can be reviewed
when his or her behaviour has been completely out of line.
We have to ensure that the judiciary is independent of the
House. Their behaviour has to be independent, but competence and
accountability in what they do as individuals has to be ensured.
We are all accountable in this country.
Let us look at the incredible costs that exist today in our
legal system. We have a legal aid system which is costing us
billions of dollars. Perhaps there is another way to ensure that
people who cannot afford the system will be able to get a good,
competent legal defence and a fair trial at an affordable price.
In the United States, as well as a system of crown prosecution
there is a system of crown defence. People are appointed to
defend a person who cannot afford to pay for his or her defence.
These appointed individuals give a good competent defence as
salaried lawyers within the department of justice. This works
very well in the U.S. I urge the government to look at that
system. Perhaps Canada could appoint public defenders to give a
good, competent defence to individuals who cannot afford a
lawyer.
To streamline and expedite the system is extremely important.
Unfortunately I am not a lawyer. Sometimes I wish I were.
However, we have a system which enables individuals to put forth
constructive solutions. I have a challenge for all the good,
competent lawyers who work in the trenches in the legal system.
I would ask them to provide us with good constructive ideas on
how we can streamline the system, to come up with a good and fair
legal system, an expeditious system that ensures people get a
fair trial within a reasonable time.
1800
Right now we have such a morass that we have justice delayed and
justice delayed is justice denied. Justice denied is not
justice. There are ways of doing this. Let us look at those
ways and ensure these changes are made to the system. My
colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill mentioned an example of
adjournment proceedings where they are far too lenient with how
those adjournment proceedings are performed.
Crime and punishment is another situation where our party has
been accused of being, for want of a better word, far too right
wing on the issue. We have really been given a hard time with
this. Fortunately for us it is not true.
We look at justice in two ways. We look at it in a balanced
way. We say that for those people who have been proven to be a
threat to society, who are a danger to society and particularly
those who are violent, it is the role of the justice department
to ensure that those people do not go out and harm innocent
people again. Those people should be met with the full force of
the law, the objective being to protect innocent people.
There is another group of people who are non-violent and perhaps
there are alternative ways of dealing with them such as the use
of restorative justice. There are some very good programs in my
province of British Columbia where restorative justice is used to
ensure that people are going to be able to pay a penalty to
society, pay a penalty to the victim and also ensure that they
receive the rehabilitation and treatment they require, that they
do not go into the cycle of crime, punishment and recidivism that
takes place in far too many cases.
There is also the issue of prevention. Many months ago I
introduced in this House a private member's motion calling for a
national headstart program. There have been horrible shootings
in Arkansas where 11 and 13-year-olds have been charged with
committing some very foul murders, and in some recent tragic
situations within our own country such as the terrible murder of
Reena Virk in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. Their
history does not exonerate these individuals from their actions
but at least by looking at it we will be helped to understand
that the origins of crime in many of these youths start at time
zero.
It has been estimated that half the people in jail suffer from
fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. Fetal alcohol
syndrome is the leading cause of preventable birth defects in
this country. These individuals have an average IQ of 68. It is
preventable. We can do something about that. But it has to
start at time zero. We have to identify families at risk. We
have to ensure that those families receive their basic needs and
the children receive their basic needs. There are programs that
have done that.
The member for Moncton, from the government, has been a leader
in the Moncton headstart program, a program that has been very
effective at preventing children from entering into lives of
crime at worst or at best suffering indignities that give them
fractured psyches and make it very difficult for them to interact
with society in a constructive fashion.
There is the Perry preschool program in Michigan, the Hawaii
headstart program, the Montreal longitudinal study with Professor
Tremblay which shows very clearly that if we are to address and
prevent crime starting at time zero, when the building blocks of
a normal psyche are developing, when we prevent the trauma to
that developmental process, we will have a cost effective and
indeed humanitarian way of preventing crime in the future.
This is how we prevent crime. The Reform Party is really taking
a multipronged approach to crime. I know there are members across
this House who have been working very hard, members from the NDP,
members from the Liberal Party, members from the Conservative
Party, members from the Bloc and members from our party, the
Reform Party, who have been working very hard to develop a
balanced approach to crime and punishment.
1805
Many of us came to this House to ensue that we would have
sensible proposals to crime and punishment so we can change the
tide of what is occurring in our streets today. Let us not
forget that with respect to youth crime the number one victims in
youth crime are youth. They are the ones who have the most to
lose and the most to gain from what we do in this House. They are
also people who are not represented well in this House because
none of them sit in this House. They are too young to be elected.
Let us do our job and ensure we can put our minds together to
put forth these sensible, constructive, pragmatic and cost
effective solutions to prevent crime. Headstart programs work.
Let us introduce one. It does not have to be some huge sink hole
of money. It can be done within existing resources.
I was in Atlanta where schools along with medical, professional
and existing resources are used to make sure that basic needs are
met. Parents need to know what proper nutrition is. Members
would be surprised to know the number of parents who are in
underprivileged situations who often had parents who did not
teach them how to be parents, who do not know what proper
nutrition is, who do not know what proper discipline is, who do
not know what setting appropriate boundaries are for children,
who do not know what substance abuse and violence do to the
development of a child.
These are not just words. These are cold, hard scientific
facts. The medical community has done studies and has ways to
look into the brain through something called positron emission
tomography which illustrates how brains work. Using a PET
scanner we can see how the brain develops and how the brain is
affected by various things. We can prove conclusively and
scientifically that the traumas I mentioned before have a
deleterious and disastrous effect on the development of that
child's psyche.
We can prevent this. I hope the government uses the collective
knowledge that is in this House today and all the tremendous
experience and expertise in our country and in others to build
these constructive solutions, work with the medical community,
work with the counsellors, work with the schools and we will have
a comprehensive plan to do this.
Of course it is absolutely essential that the government work
with the provinces because most of the control has to be on a
local basis where they can meet and fit with the needs necessary
for the local community because not all communities are the same.
An aboriginal community off reserve is different from an
aboriginal community on reserve. It is different from a
multicultural setting in urban Toronto. They are different. They
have different needs but they can all be modified to address
those needs.
It may be difficult to argue for it but pragmatically if we deal
with the facts we will ensure that our society and our country
will have a dramatic benefit in the next 10 years. The cost
savings are massive.
With crime costing us $44 billion a year, even if we shave off
5% that is over $2 billion saved. Imagine what we could do with
that $2 billion. We could provide tax relief to ensure that
families are able to better meet their needs, strengthen our
social programs, strengthen our health care system, strengthen
our education system. These are cold, pragmatic arguments for
this approach and it can be done.
Getting back to this bill, there are some innovative solutions
to revamp our judiciary. I have mentioned them in my speech and
my colleagues have mentioned it in their speeches. I hope the
Minister of Justice takes these suggestions and implements them.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to hear at the closing of the hon.
member's remarks that he decided to get back to the bill at hand.
He was speaking to childhood nutrition and crime prevention
which are of course very important issues. I always have time
for my hon. friend in debates here in the House, though he may
stray from the point of debate. He and I attended high school
together in Scarborough just a few years ago.
1810
Some of his colleagues have not provided me with so many things
to listen to. His colleagues have chided the government for not
having a list of priorities by placing this bill ahead of other
bills they believe should be at the top. One of the members
mentioned two items they felt were of priority. One was
amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code and the other was
amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
I was here in the last Parliament but I am not certain the other
hon. member was. I have to remind the House that the government
did amend both those items in the last Parliament. The government
chose to amend section 745. The government chose and Parliament
adopted legislation amending Young Offenders Act. This increased
the penalties for murder and provided for the transfer of violent
young offenders to adult court. Those were government priorities.
To the speech at hand, I could not help but note the references
to the salaries of U.S. judges. I think they were in
$90,000, $110,000, $115,000, $120,000 range. The
member suggested they were one third less than the salaries
proposed for our Canadian judges.
In fairness, did he forget to take into account the exchange
rate between the U.S. and Canadian dollars? If he did, it is
unfair to use those numbers. Would the hon. member like to
recalculate judges' salaries either in Canada or the U.S. to
incorporate the exchange rate? A member on this side did a quick
calculation and if we take the U.S. numbers, apply a 40% exchange
rate, we would have the U.S. judges being 7% ahead.
However, would my colleague like to correct this for the record?
Having not applied the exchange rate, the discrepancy between the
judicial salaries is not as great as he suggested and it would
help to put that on the record.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
and fellow graduate of Neil McNeil high school in Scarborough for
his question.
All things being equal, we do not equate salaries within a
country based on what the exchange rate du jour happens to be.
That is irrelevant. All salaries are based within the confines
of our own country. The salaries of judges in the United States
are one third less than the salaries of Canadian judges.
It would be nice if our salaries were taken into consideration
according to the exchange rate. That is not the reality we live
in. I will put this in his lap. He has been very constructive
throughout many of the debates he has entered in this House. I
hope the hon. member works with the Minister of Justice to deal
with the issue of civil courts and what is happening with the
civil court situation.
We unfortunately are moving toward the situation in the United
States where civil courts and cases they are hearing are becoming
spurious. I bring up the situation involving McDonald's. A woman
had a cup of McDonald's coffee sitting on her lap. She spilled
the coffee and received burns. She also received an
extraordinarily high million plus dollar judgement in her favour.
We as a Parliament have to seriously look at the civil court
situation to ensure we do not get tied up in spurious civil
litigation that has a very onerous effect and very restrictive
effect on society. It makes for a very fearful society. I hope
the government and my hon. colleague will address the situation
and use his expertise in the area.
1815
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member whose great
concern for the well-being of society in general has manifested
itself in many of the debates and certainly the exchanges in the
standing committee meetings.
In listening to him three points came to my attention. With
what is happening in the United States in particular with the
murder of young children by young children, does he not think
that perhaps there ought to be a change in the attitude of his
party that he could deal with? I believe his party has a view of
gun control that is not in the best interest of preventing this
very dangerous equipment from being close at hand for young
people. The member also might want to think about the fact that
the number one killer of women are guns.
Also I would like to ask my hon. colleague about his concern
with respect to the salary of judges. I am much more concerned
about the election of judges. Does he not believe that this
might put judges in a conflict of interest situation and open to
potential abuse? I have serious concerns about the misuse of
power in the hands of an elected person.
The last question I would like to pose to him is in light of the
particular bent of the Reform Party. The member is talking about
enabling legal aid. Does my colleague not realize that is
provincial jurisdiction and perhaps it would be best for him to
encourage his colleagues in the provinces to take a look at the
way they allocate funds for legal aid? I do agree that many
things need to be changed.
When he talks about the fact that we do not have a comprehensive
plan and that he is approaching this whole debate with a
comprehensive plan, it might be most informative if they looked
at the work we are doing in prenatal parental care and the grants
that we are giving to ensure nutrition, public health and a
better understanding as mothers.
They should also look into the field of prevention undertaken
jointly by the provinces and the federal government, the question
of the aboriginal head start and the $1.7 billion child tax
credit which is not enough but it is certainly on the way.
The concern of the hon. member is being addressed in a way that
can end up being a consolidated approach to better child
development and learning.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend
from Montreal who has repeatedly demonstrated in the House her
deep interest, expertise and experience in the issue of crime
prevention.
I would like to address a couple of points. I am glad she
mentioned the Reform Party's attitude toward gun control. If the
gun control bill, Bill C-68, would make our streets safer this
party would vote for it. I looked at all the data in this regard
very carefully. In fact, I appeared before the House standing
committee on justice. I would be happy to speak with the member
on this matter, to deal with the facts and to have good discourse
with her. We feel very strongly. We would do anything to ensure
that guns were not in the hands of 11 and 13 year olds.
We are completely in favour of responsible gun control. We
would fight along with the government to ensure that firearms are
not in the hands of children and to ensure that automatic weapons
are not in the hands of criminals. We want restrictive gun
control laws to ensure that guns and weapons which are not useful
to hunters and such would not be in their hands. We have fought
very hard for that. Unfortunately Bill C-68 would make our
streets less safe by taking money out of the judicial system to
put into gun registration.
We wanted to divide the bill into two sections. We supported
the good parts of the bill but wanted to get rid of the bad parts
that would make our streets less safe. We wanted to support the
government in its pursuit of a bill that would make our streets
safer. My colleagues and I would be very happy to speak to the
member about that issue.
1820
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like
other members of the Chamber I enjoy the opportunity to speak to
Bill C-37.
What does Bill C-37 basically boil down to? It means that
judges will receive a raise in a two year period of 8.3%. How
many other public servants or how many other people in the
country, period, can expect a raise of 8.3% in that short period
of time?
There is a comparison to make. The Royal Canadian Mounted
Police have gone five years with a wage freeze. Are judges
somehow more important? Do they have a higher priority with the
government than those who enforce the law, than the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police? It appears so. They are misplaced
Liberal priorities, things that both you and I have problems
with, Mr. Speaker.
How many other Canadian workers can count on a retroactive pay
raise like the one under Bill C-37 for judges? It just does not
exist for other people. It is not on the Liberal agenda for
other people and it is a crying shame.
As well there is nothing in Bill C-37 that addresses the
patronage process for appointing judges. It is a shame. I am
sure members know only too well that it is Liberal lawyers who go
on to become Liberal justices. That has to end.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rob Anders: I hear rumblings from members opposite
who think that should be the case. Good for them. I encourage
them to make amendments to Bill C-37 to make changes to the
patronage process that awards justiceships to Liberals.
Let us speak to the lack of priorities for a second if we may.
On the Young Offenders Act we have seen no substantive changes
coming out of the government since it was elected. We still have
serious repeat offenders who are being treated with kid gloves
under the Young Offenders Act. Yet the priority of the Liberals
is to raise the salaries of judges.
Surely taking care of serious repeat offenders, young offenders
who violate the act again, again and again, must take a higher
precedence not only in the eyes of the Canadian public but also
in the eyes of the technocrats here. That must be more important
than a raise in the salary of judges in this land.
Regarding section 745, I heard the Liberals claim that they have
made changes to it. Tinkering they must be, for otherwise I
would not have had to appear on the steps of some of the Alberta
courts in 1997 with Darlene Boyd, a mother who lost a child and
wanted to make sure the individuals who killed her child would
not be getting early parole under section 745. If there had been
substantive changes to section 745, mothers like Darlene Boyd
would not need to make appearances before courts hoping that the
killers of their children would not be set free.
I also speak to the lack of priorities in terms of the backlog
of the courts. Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we have an address of the
issue of the backlog in the courts. Surely this is something of
high priority and concern. Yet we see nothing to deal with the
backlog in the courts. Once again, they are fast to want to
raise the salaries of the judges under Bill C-37.
My fourth point in terms of lack of priorities is that we have
prison overcrowding. Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we see an address
of the issue of prison overcrowding. Yet they are quick to raise
the salaries of the judges in this land.
Maybe it is that Liberal politicians do not like to actually
make laws in the House. They would rather abdicate the supremacy
of parliament to the judiciary. As a result, they only see
fitting that taxpayer money and their salaries go toward paying
judges because they write more laws and make the laws, not the
Liberals who like to abdicate that ability.
My fifth point is that street gangs are becoming a problem.
Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we see an address of the issue of the
rise of street gangs, but it certainly speaks to the raise in
judges' salaries.
1825
My sixth point concerns lack of priorities and once again speaks
to the whole idea of judicial activism. I touched lightly on the
idea that the justices rewrite and write the law of the land. It
should be a supremacy of parliament that is respected. We as
members of the House of Commons should write the law, not the
justices. This does nothing to speak to the judicial activism
that goes on and what is happening now with the justices' writing
the law rather than elected members of the House of Commons.
The six reasons I listed are all perfectly justified. They give
a clear indication of the lack of priorities of the Liberals in
criminal justice. They would rather raise the salaries of judges
than deal with the six substantive points that should take
precedence over raising judges' salaries.
Now I will speak to the money. When the money trail is traced
that is usually when these matters get interesting. Let us take
a look at the lack of priorities in terms of money. A lot of
working poor do not have the luxury of colour cable TV but our
prisoners do. By committing a violent act they earn the right to
have colour cable TV but the working poor do not have that right.
It is a misappropriation of government resources to raise the
salaries of judges while it continues to give colour TV to our
prisoners. This money could be better allocated to hiring more
judges or RCMP officers to hopefully get rid of the backlog.
There is a lack of priorities when free condoms are handed out
to prisoners in jail. I do not see the purpose of handing free
condoms to sexual offenders in jail. They are not supposed to be
having sex in jail. That is not the whole point, yet money is
spent on handing out condoms to prisoners. It is a Liberal
priority to hand out condoms to prisoners.
Bleach is given to prisoners to sterilize their contaminated
needles. They should not be using needles in jail. Once again
that is a Liberal priority.
We have a situation where prisoners have the right to sue and
use public funds to initiate charter challenges. How is this
justified? How is a charter challenge on behalf of a prisoner
more justified than hiring an extra RCMP officer or an extra
judge to look after the backlog in the courts?
Money is spent to make sure that the prisoners have a right to
vote with all the logistical costs involved in that process. Paul
Bernardo had an opportunity if he so wished to cast a ballot in
the last election, which I believe was in your riding, Mr.
Speaker, if I remember correctly. How could anybody justify to a
constituent in Kingston that money should be spent to allow Paul
Bernardo to vote when there are other things that are much more
needed?
Money is spent on pool tables in our prisons to make sure that
our prisoners are entertained. There are many people in Kingston
or in my home town of Calgary who would love to have unending
amounts of time to play pool. They do not have that luxury
because they have to pay taxes to the government and they have to
work for a living. They cannot play pool as many hours as they
might like to while away the day. Certainly Canadian prisoners
have that ability because it is a Liberal priority.
Many other people would like to spend some more time on golf
courses but the Liberals are allocating money to make sure
prisoners have golf courses. I do not understand the logic in
providing pool tables or golf courses. Why not hire more police
officers?
The working poor would not be able to afford an exotic meal of
eel, but such foods are shipped in to make sure the requirements
are met for the Inuit serving time in our penitentiaries so that
they have access to foods that are part of their traditional
diets. We spend a lot of money on these types of perks and
privileges for our prisoners.
It does not speak to the real needs of the Canadian justice
system to hire more police officers or to hire more judges and
not give them raises. Certainly none of these things speak to
the priorities.
1830
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but it being 6.30 p.m. we will now proceed with the
adjournment motion.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
SIERRA LEONE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
not long ago I asked the Secretary of State for Africa and Latin
America a question concerning Sierra Leone, a small west African
country, arguably the poorest country in Africa.
The country's legitimate government was overthrown in May 1997
by a so-called armed forces ruling council which itself was
removed from power recently by a Nigerian led west African
peacemaking force. I was very pleased to learn that the
secretary of state will be visiting Sierra Leone tomorrow and
gathering information about the state of affairs in that country.
The news reports from Sierra Leone are very serious. There is a
crisis brought on by food shortages. Continued sporadic fighting
in certain areas has also contributed to a serious refugee
problem. Some reports put the number of people in need of food
as high as half a million. This situation is extremely volatile.
The west African force that I just mentioned which ousted the
military junta replaced it with the civilian government which had
previously been in power and which was led by former President
Afmed Tejan Kabbah.
Freetown right now and a number of the other major centres such
as Bo, Makeni and Kenema have been secured but there are still
areas where there is sporadic fighting.
There is a great deal of suspicion about the intentions of the
Nigerians in Sierra Leone. A recent article in The
Economist magazine suggested that Nigeria may be interested in
Sierra Leone's mineral wealth, which includes deposits of rutile,
bauxite and diamonds.
Sierra Leone's recent history is a continuing tragedy of
enormous proportions. Since independence in 1961 the country has
been on a downward spiral brought on by political instability,
greed, corruption and repression.
Within the last 30 years Sierra Leone has witnessed three
conspiracies to overthrow the government, six attempted and five
successful coups d'état. Over the last few years the political
problems in neighbouring Liberia and Sierra Leone have created
nearly one million refugees in the region.
My personal interest in Sierra Leone goes back about eight years
when I first visited the country as a member of a delegation
sponsored by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I was a
participant from the city of Nepean. At that time I was involved
in a municipal development project sponsored by CIDA involving
the town of Bo.
I made a total of three trips to Sierra Leone, in 1990, 1991 and
1993. I was very pleased and proud to be involved in several
projects including the construction of a new market building in
the town of Bo.
What is Canada's interest in Sierra Leone? Apart from the
Canadian aid and development agencies that have operated in the
country for many years, including CAUSE Canada, the Red Cross and
CUSO, there is a longstanding historical connection between
Canada and Sierra Leone.
Many freed slaves from Nova Scotia made their way back to
Freetown in the early decades of the last century. In this regard
I understand there still is a community to community link which
exists between Halifax and Freetown.
As an English speaking Commonwealth country, Canada shares many
of the same traditions and institutions as Sierra Leone. It is
interesting to note that as Commonwealth countries, Canada and
Sierra Leone are at the top and bottom respectively of the United
Nations human development index.
Although blessed with many mineral resources, Sierra Leone has
simply been incapable of exploiting these resources for the
benefit of its people who remain the poorest of the poor.
When the minister returns from his visit to west Africa I hope
he will provide this House with a report on what he discovered in
Sierra Leone, in Ghana and some of the surrounding countries.
Canada in relation to Sierra Leone has promised aid. I am sure
many members of this House will probably share the view that we
can and should do better in terms of food aid, medicine and
reconstruction assistance to a country that has been seriously
devastated.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this question to
the attention of the minister and members of the House.
The hon. member asked what help we are extending to Dr.
Tectonides. I am very happy to announce that Dr. Tectonides has
returned to safety and to his family in Canada.
1835
Throughout this crisis Dr. Tectonides' family was kept fully
informed of all developments in Sierra Leone and of those
concerning his whereabouts. On various occasions Dr. Tectonides'
family expressed sincere appreciation for the fact that the
Government of Canada and the international organization Médecins
sans frontières were working together to secure the release and
the return to safety of the doctor and the French logistician who
had been abducted with him.
At present Dr. Tectonides is looking forward to his next
assignment with the same organization, Médecins sans frontières.
On the issue of Canadian assistance to Sierra Leone, as the
secretary of state mentioned in the House, we have provided
$600,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross as an
initial grant to the ICRC humanitarian assistance aiming at
alleviating the suffering of the local population.
During his current visit to Sierra Leone in the context of the
Commonwealth ministerial action group, the secretary of state,
the hon. David Kilgour, will be in a better position to evaluate
the humanitarian and other assistance needs of the Sierra Leone
government.
The Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. member not to refer
to other colleagues in the House by their names. I am sure she
forgot.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this adjournment
motion in relation to a question I asked the minister on February
26, 1998 as to whether it was normal that employment insurance
now allows no more than 40% of unemployed workers to receive
benefits, compared to 83% in 1989.
This program is inappropriate, inefficient and unacceptable to
Quebeckers and Canadians because fewer than 50% of the
unemployed are entitled to benefits. This deprives the system of
all credibility and integrity.
A very clear political message was sent during last year's
federal election, and again just recently in the Nova Scotia
election. This totally contradicts what the minister said, and
I quote:
What would take real courage would be to put the reform back on
the table, to make it humane and acceptable, and to make sure
that the program is really one which will give people a decent
income when they are between jobs.
We have already managed to get the minister to admit that there
were not as many cheats as former minister Young claimed. Today,
the statistics indicate that no more than 3% are defrauding the
system, which is more or less the figure for all systems.
What we want is a system for the 21st century, a system that will
make people want to work, not one that leads systematically to
welfare. Between 1990 and 1998, 200 000 Quebeckers and 750 000
Canadians were forced onto welfare by employment insurance
reforms. That is not an incentive but a disincentive to work.
It is an encouragement to get out of the work force, and the
federal government has an important responsibility in the battle
against poverty. It is encouraging an increase in poverty,
rather than a decrease.
We want a 21st century system that will give people working for
themselves access. The minister said:
We have reached the point where it is urgent to take action. We
are heading into the period of the year called the spring gap, in
which people, with the new conditions of the system, lack an
income for six, eight or ten weeks. These are people in the
seasonal industries. These are people in fishing, agriculture
and tourism. For a period of six, eight or ten weeks, the very
survival of these people is threatened. They are penalized and
often do not even qualify for social assistance.
Can we expect a decision from the government, despite the
position taken last week in committee by the Liberals, who
refused to report to the House on the first evaluation of the
employment insurance reform? Is there no way to heighten their
sense of responsibility and to get the government to act and
change the employment insurance plan in keeping with the six
bills, the constructive proposals of the members of the Bloc with
the support of the NDP.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development has indicated on many occasions
that his department is conducting a review into why the
percentage of unemployed Canadians receiving benefits is
declining. We do not believe it is simply due to changes in the
EI system. We believe the problem is far more complex than the
hon. member is suggesting.
It may be that changes in the economy and labour market are
resulting in more self-employed workers who are not eligible for
EI.
It could also be discouraged workers returning to the labour
market as the economy improves. They have no recent work
experience and therefore are not eligible for EI. That is why we
are focusing on re-employment measures.
1840
In terms of making changes to the employment insurance system,
as the member knows, the former unemployment insurance program
was 25 years old and in need of a massive overhaul to meet
today's new demands. Canadians would not be satisfied with a
step backward to an obsolete system as recommended by the
opposition. Instead the federal government is working with the
provinces to provide real solutions for unemployed Canadians.
We will spend an additional $800 million per year on active
employment benefits under EI bringing federal funding to more
than $2.7 billion annually by the year 2000-01. These benefits
are about helping Canadians with the assistance they need to get
back into the workforce.
We are also creating more new durable jobs by using the three
year, $300 million transitional jobs fund that is now in place to
help high unemployment regions.
We are also co-operating with provincial and territorial
governments to deliver these benefits in the best possible way.
Labour market development agreements are now in place or under
discussion in all provinces and territories. Decisions on the
best way to help the unemployed get back to work must benefit
from the knowledge and insight of those most closely in touch
with local markets.
We have confidence that these measures will be successful in
helping the unemployed return to productive employment. As
employment growth continues and the number of unemployed falls,
the ratio of benefits to unemployed should also rise again.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to
have been adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)