37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 026
CONTENTS
Monday, March 12, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
| Bill C-233. Second reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1120
1125
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
1130
1135
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1140
1145
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1150
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1155
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-14. Second reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1225
1230
| Mr. Andy Burton |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1330
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1335
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1340
1345
1350
1355
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| JUNO AWARDS
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
1400
| MUSEUMS
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| COMMONWEALTH DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| KYLE CHALLENGE 2001
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| POTATO INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1405
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| CANADA DAY
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| CURLING
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1410
| THE FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| RICHARD LEGENDRE
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| SUPREME COURT
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| JURGEN SEEWALD
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1415
| MEMBERTOU
|
| Mr. Mark Eyking |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| LUMBER
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| MEDIA CONCENTRATION
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1440
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1445
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FUNDRAISING
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1450
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1455
| ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1500
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1505
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-293. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-294. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| PETITIONS
|
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1510
| Palliative Care
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| JUDGES ACT
|
| Bill C-12. Second reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1515
1520
1525
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1530
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1550
1555
1600
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1620
1625
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
1630
1635
| Mr. Randy White |
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. John Bryden |
1655
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1700
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1720
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1725
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1730
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1750
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1755
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1815
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
1820
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 026
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 12, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved
that Bill C-233, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act (withdrawal of applications for full parole by
offenders serving two or more years), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honour to have this
opportunity to debate a private member's initiative in this
place.
1105
Bill C-233 is neither extensive nor is it complicated. It is
another attempt to bring balance to our justice system. Having
been intimately involved with various aspects of our justice
system over the past number of years, I can fully appreciate its
complexities, its size, its drain on resources and the necessity
to balance the interests of the state, the offender and the
victim. Bill C-233 is merely an attempt to readjust one aspect
of what I perceive to be an injustice in the process.
Before I start to get into substantive issues about my proposed
legislation, I would first like to advise listeners that the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has decided to
make the bill not votable. I could question the rationale for
that decision and I could criticize the government members who
comprise the majority of that committee, but I will not. I was
not privy to their contemplations toward deciding what bills will
be deemed votable and what bills will be deemed not votable. I
fully understand that as backbenchers we are competing against
each other for a chance to bring our own interest to law.
Perhaps the next time my issue will be more successful. Perhaps
even some day I may have the opportunity to sit on that committee
and be forced to decide among many competing interests and
issues.
All I can say is that it is most unfortunate that Bill C-233 is
not a votable bill. It would dramatically lessen some of the
emotional damages inflicted on individuals who have already been
victimized by crime. Our justice process should not further
victimize these individuals. I will attempt to explain the
problem presented by the current process and how I am suggesting
that it be alleviated.
As we all know, the majority of incarcerated criminal offenders
will at some time have served their sentences and be released
back into the community. At some point during their sentences
they are permitted to apply for parole. If successful, they are
released back into the community under many forms of supervision.
As a society we need to ensure this gradual reintroduction and
reclamation to our streets is successfully accomplished without
threat to law-abiding citizens.
My proposal only deals with one minor aspect of this process.
Once the offender applies for consideration for parole, a number
of other people are affected. Correctional personnel may be
interviewed to provide impressions and reflections on the
character of the offender and whether that offender has made
steps towards rehabilitation and contrition. Parole personnel
will prepare a file on the history of that offender in order to
assist the hearing process to ensure adequate information is
available to aid and determine the suitability for release.
Victims may be interested in presenting their fears or opinions
respecting the release of someone who may still present a danger
of committing additional criminal activity.
The problem is that there is nothing to stop offenders from
withdrawing their applications for parole at any time during that
process. Some offenders make application only to withdraw at the
last moment before the parole board hearing actually takes place.
When this form of abuse occurs, time and money is expended to
obtain and prepare the corrections aspect for these hearings.
Some people might say the taxpayer is already paying the
correctional employees so there is really not additional cost
involved. In some cases that may be so, but we are all probably
aware that Canada does not have an overabundance of resources
within the corrections department.
We can also understand that because our corrections personnel
are stretched so thinly additional demands for their attention
often necessitates the working of overtime. It may also require
some travel as corrections personnel move from one location to
another for many reasons.
Similarly, parole board members have to prepare themselves to
learn the file for each specific offender applying for parole.
They must be able to adequately question witnesses who provide
information to form the basis of a decision on whether or not to
release an offender back into the community. This costs time and
money. More significant, we all know how important it is to have
these parole boards do their job properly and completely. It
does not help when time and effort is expended on a specific
hearing, only to have it wasted when the offender subsequently
withdraws that application. The time and effort wasted could
have been better spent on other applications.
When we are dealing with scarce resources it does not help when
the process permits waste to occur. We cannot afford the waste.
The parole board must expend limited resources on the cases that
are going to come to decision. We must ensure that the proper
decision to release or detain is made on the basis of all
available information, otherwise offenders may be released back
into our communities when they should not and others may be held
in custody when they should be released.
The victim is another important participant in the process. The
victim has the right to provide input into the granting of
parole. Victims often have to travel great distances to attend
hearings which are nearly always held in the institution in which
the offender is incarcerated. The institution may be miles from
the home of the victim.
1110
Frequently it may be in another province. I have a very
personal example. Members of my family wishing to attend such a
hearing for my son's killer would have had to travel from the
west coast to Quebec. When victims expend the time, money and
effort to attend a hearing, only to have it cancelled at the last
minute by the offender, I would suggest that the offender is
revictimizing those individuals once again, both financially and
emotionally. The offender can reapply almost immediately and the
roller coaster continues.
Hopefully I have sufficiently outlined the problem. It becomes
a question of control and balance. It is the offender who has
violated our laws but, as is so typical of our system, it is the
same offender who possesses almost complete control over the
parole process. That is not right.
As it has often been said, quite derogatorily, “the inmates are
running the asylum”. This is not a debate about the right to
parole. I am speaking only about improving our present system.
If we are to permit an offender to apply for parole there must be
some controls and consequences to that offender so that everyone
else is not disadvantaged. Offenders who play “silly-bugger”
with the process affect the stress and workload of corrections
and parole board personnel as well as the lives of their victims.
The whole parole process is needlessly skewed by legislation as
an attempt to make a minor adjustment to bring that process into
balance. Reforming a process is not rocket science. All I am
suggesting is that there be some form of a consequence to the
offender who initiates the process and then stops it without an
acceptable reason.
My amendment would permit withdrawal for “illness, mental or
physical capacity” and that is for causes beyond the offender's
control. All we are doing is holding the offender to account.
Withdrawal without proper excuse would have a consequence.
Reapplication would not be permitted for two years.
Some critics have looked at this legislation with a typical
jaundiced view just because a member of the Canadian Alliance is
proposing it. They have challenged the bill over who will decide
whether there is a valid excuse for the withdrawal of the
application. The legislation leaves that determination to the
parole board. They are the experts on parole hearings. They can
decide this simply aspect. The offender of course will have the
power to appeal any decision of the board.
The legislation is not a partisan attack on the parole process.
It is merely an attempt to bring some common sense to a problem.
We have offenders who apply for parole, withdraw the application
anywhere down the timeline up to the last moment without having
to give a reason, and then reapply almost immediately without any
consequence.
I will move to some real examples of what has been occurring
under the current provisions of this process.
Donald Alexander Hay kidnapped, raped and tortured 12 year old
Abby Drover and held her in an underground dungeon for six
months. In November 1997 he withdrew his parole application
after a public outcry over his possible release. In March 1998
he reapplied. It does not take much to appreciate how much he
has been able to further emotionally traumatize Abby Drover and
her family when this situation occurs every few months. There
must be something to cause such a situation to be decided one way
or the other or at least be put on hold for a set period of time.
It cannot be left entirely in his hands to decide when and how
often he can wreak emotional turmoil on others. It cannot remain
completely in his hands to cause needless work for the
authorities when he unilaterally and without consequence
withdraws from the process.
Ali Rasai, in Edmonton, sexually assaulted Holly Desimone. In
1998 she travelled to Winnipeg for his parole hearing with the
help of a stranger who donated enough air miles for the trip. In
August 1999 Holly once again had to travel for another scheduled
hearing. He was denied parole each time. Another hearing was to
take place in July 2000 and Holly was once again being forced to
make plans to attend to say her peace.
I know the government is most anxious to get offenders back on
the streets in order to reduce incarceration costs. However, not
only was Holly horrendously damaged by Rasai, she was being
forced to become inextricably intertwined with her abuser almost
constantly over the past few years. She became a puppet on a
string being held and controlled by someone as devious and unfit
to be a part of society as Ali Rasai. I should tell listeners
that Rasai is a former bodyguard for the shah of Iran and was
convicted of raping three Alberta women, including Holly. He is
a martial arts expert who entered Canada as a refugee and then
has treated his adopted home in this manner.
By the way, the July 2000 hearing was postponed to August and
then Rasai backed out once again. Surely there is something
desperately wrong with the process.
Then there is a much more public case of Robert Thompson. He
murdered Brenda Fitzgerald in 1983 while he was out of prison on
a work pass. Brenda's mother, Helen Leadley, has become another
puppet on a string.
She has been forced to spend time and money to travel from
Calgary to Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick to attend the
hearings that Thompson cancels at the last minute. Helen Leadley
has stated:
I've spent a lot of money going to these parole hearings, plus
sometimes as soon as you get there, they're cancelled.
1115
She estimates that she spent at least $3,000 attending
Thompson's parole hearings in the maritimes. She further states:
And it's not only the money, it's the emotional stress involved
around this in trying to fight to keep him in prison.
I do not wish to leave the wrong impression that Helen Leadley
voluntarily has taken on this grudge match against the interests
of Robert Thompson. There is a much more societal interest in
this case.
As I said, Thompson committed the murder while he was already
serving time for other offences. He has continued to issue
threats to the victim's family from the prison. He once took a
nurse hostage and stabbed two corrections officers during his
time behind bars. In short, he is not a nice guy but we still
permit him to exercise almost total control over the parole
process.
The Minister of Justice announced in August of last year that
the government would allocate $25 million to help victims of
crime. The vast majority of that money is targeted toward
research, consultation and public awareness of victims' rights.
Some will go to emergency and other programs to help victims over
the next years.
As we have seen from many government financed programs, $25
million sounds great when it is first announced but when we
consider $5 million per year will get divided among 10 provinces
and three territories, we soon realize that the money is not all
that significant. Then we have to fund the administration of the
programs with that money. It is difficult to see any funding
support being available to victims to travel to parole hearings.
Besides, as Helen Leadley has said, it is not just the money, it
is the emotional turmoil that is hard to overcome.
The bill is not votable. I would appreciate the support of all
members to pressure the government into bringing forth this
proposal as it is long overdue. The minister is often fond of
talking about balance within justice. My suggestions will bring
balance and accountability to the parole process. I am only
trying to bring fairness to all participants, including the
administration. These amendments to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act will improve the efficiency and the
effectiveness of a tiny but significant portion of the parole
process.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to
speak to the member's proposal contained in Bill C-233.
The bill is outlined and is put before us today to discourage an
offender from cancelling or postponing his or her parole hearing
within a certain period of time before it is scheduled to take
place. I understand that this proposal is being put forward to
stop the inconvenience that such a cancellation would cause.
I think it is fair to say that is a laudable goal. Last minute
postponements can be an inconvenience, especially for those who
have to travel great distances, as was pointed out by the speaker
prior to me, and also for the victims, media representatives and
other observers. Of most concern, obviously, is the situation
where a victim has planned to attend a hearing only to have the
offender then cancel the hearing after the travel arrangements
have been made. This can only add to the upset the victims feel
in that kind of situation and with the whole system.
Victims do not choose to be in the situation they are in. To
the extent that it is possible to make the process work better
for them of course we should do so.
However I fear that the hon. member has gone too far with this
bill. If an offender cancels for any reason not found acceptable
to the National Parole Board, he or she would not be eligible for
another hearing for two years. This is extreme punishment for an
offender for what may turn out to be a minor inconvenience. If an
offender cancels his or hearing a month or six weeks before it is
scheduled to take place, the bill would deny the offender another
chance for a parole hearing for two years.
I am afraid that this lengthy deprivation of access to
conditional release in cases where only a very minor
inconvenience was caused would not stand up to legal challenge.
The hon. member also referred to the need to protect the
taxpayer in the first reading presentation of the bill. Any
initiatives that would make our system of delivery of services to
Canadians more effective would certainly be welcome. That being
said, however, I am afraid that is not really an area where
substantial or even minimal savings can be made.
When the National Parole Board schedules hearings, it normally
schedules a number of hearings on the same day. If one such
hearing is cancelled it can still proceed with the other hearings
and no additional costs are incurred.
1120
If the case management work has already been done then it is not
lost if a hearing is not held. Case management is an ongoing
process and reports are continually updated to reflect the
current progress the offender is making. A report may need to be
updated for a future hearing but again the costs are minimal.
What we need to do in these cases is to ensure that the victims
and other observers are told as quickly as possible of the
cancellation or postponement. We need to ensure that they find
out when the hearing is rescheduled and we need to assist them in
participating in a way that is most meaningful to them.
I have to point out that the government continues to work hard
to understand the concerns of victims and supports the goal of
helping them. We have a track record in that area and will
continue it. That is why the government has taken a number of
initiatives that will help victims.
We have established the policy centre for victims issues in the
Department of Justice. The policy centre is mandated to develop
and co-ordinate federal initiatives to strengthen the voice of
victims in the criminal justice system.
Bill C-79 was brought into force December 1, 1999. It is
legislation to enhance the safety, security and privacy of
victims of crime in the criminal justice system. It is intended
to ensure that victims are informed about opportunities to
prepare victim impact statements and permits victims to read the
statements out loud if they so choose. It requires police and
judges to consider the safety of victims in all bail decisions.
It makes it easier for victims and witnesses to participate in
trials and permits a judge to ban the publication of the identity
of victims and witnesses in the appropriate circumstances.
Finally, it requires all offenders to pay an automatic victim
surcharge, an additional monetary penalty, which will increase
revenue for provinces and territories to expand and improve
victim services.
The victims policy centre will administer a $10 million victims'
fund which will help to ensure that the perspective of victims of
crime is considered in the development of all policies and
legislation that may affect them. These funds will support
innovative programs and services, public education initiatives,
conferences and research by non-governmental experts. It will
also be used to involve victim advocates and service providers,
in partnership with provincial and territorial authorities, to
identify key concerns and to develop options and strategies to
meet the needs of victims in their communities.
The funds will also assist provinces and territories to
implement the new criminal code provisions benefiting victims of
crime and the principles enunciated in the Canadian statement of
basic principles of justice for victims of crime agreed to by
provinces and territories.
In May 2000 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
tabled its report on the five year review of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act known as the CCRA. In that review it
made a number of additional recommendations that will assist
victims. In its response, the government has committed to take
action on those recommendations.
What victims have told us is that they want more information and
they want access to information earlier in the process. They
want more opportunities to be heard and more opportunities to
provide information. To that end, the government is committed to
build on those identified needs.
The government, for example, has agreed to expand the
information that will be provided to victims in the CCRA.
Currently, victims can attend National Parole Board hearings as
observers. They can submit an impact statement to the board for
consideration. New policies will allow victims to personally
read a victim impact statement during the conditional release
hearing.
For those victims who cannot attend the hearing, we will be
exploring how they can have an opportunity to listen to the tapes
of parole board hearings at local offices of the National Parole
Board or the Correctional Service Canada. This is an attempt
to bring the hearings closer to the victim, recognizing that not
all victims can or want to be at a hearing in person.
[Translation]
The government also made a commitment to setting up a national
office for the victims of crime to improve the links between the
federal correctional system and victims.
[English]
The office will work with the policy centre at the Department of
Justice. It will develop information for victims. It will
assist in preparing training materials to ensure that all victim
liaison staff are well trained to meet the needs of the victims.
That is important and Canadians will recognize that.
1125
The office will work with the Correctional Service Canada and
the National Parole Board to ensure that policies are sensitive
to victims' issues and needs.
Finally, it will be focused on solving problems that are
identified by victims who find themselves in the system.
To be sure that whatever measures are put in place meet the
needs of victims, consultations are taking place right now across
Canada to meet with victims and seek their input on what they
want from the system and how best to meet their needs. These are
the types of meaningful actions that will work to support victims
once they find themselves in our criminal justice system.
I respectfully suggest that the approaches taken by the
government and that are in the process of being taken by the
government go a long way to improving the lot of victims.
However, I cannot support the hon. member's bill. While the
inconvenience caused to other observers is regrettable, I think
we need to ensure that whatever approach we take balances the
rights of all participants, including the offender's right to
have a hearing.
The vast majority of offenders do not cancel their hearings to
cause inconvenience to either the National Parole Board members,
their case management staff or the people who attend. In a small
number of cases, unfortunately, this does happen. When it does,
it reflects an attitude on the part of the offender that I am
sure is taken into account by the parole board.
Having said that, I think it is important that we not support
this non-votable item.
[Translation]
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
chastise, punish, stigmatize: this would summarize the Alliance
philosophy, one from which the hon. member for Surrey North has
not deviated with his introduction of this bill. It is intended
as an extension of the repressive and punitive approach that is
characteristic of the Canadian Alliance. The same approach has
been used in connection with the newest young offenders bill,
Bill C-7, which that party does not feel is harsh enough.
Outside of its propensity for the rod, the Canadian Alliance has
nothing particularly tangible to propose. Its concept of
justice is way out of date, hearkening back to the days when the
law was enforced by threats and terror.
Studies have proven that extreme measures have never constituted
a remedy, so why does the Alliance persist in promoting this
outmoded model of justice? That party is limited by its
short term vision, which offers no concrete solutions.
The bill of the hon. member for Surrey North represents an
excessively punitive addition to the parole application process
for inmates eligible for this program.
The bill proposes the addition of two paragraphs to section 123
of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, pardon me, but there is someone
talking behind me, and I find it very distracting. Would it be
possible to ask that person to keep quiet?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member has just
indicated to me she is being bothered by the talking going on
behind her. If hon. members are having private conversations,
would they hold them behind the curtain or in the lobby, please.
Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This bill, which proposes to add two paragraphs to section 123
of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, creates
disproportionate penalties inappropriate to the logic of the
legislation.
According to the bill of the member for Surrey North, an
offender serving a sentence of two years or more, who withdraws
a application for parole at a late stage in the review, without
good reason, will not have a new application considered for two
years.
By contrast, in the case of an ordinary application for full
parole the board turns down, the period before a new application
may be submitted is only six months.
The excessive severity of the penalty proposed by the member for
Surrey North is apparent. Withdrawal results in the imposition
of a two year waiting period, while denial results in a six
month period. The difference between the two situations is
unjustifiable.
This bill, intended to limit a multiplicity of unwarranted
withdrawals once the review process has begun, would be more
relevant with an amendment to the penalty imposed for
withdrawal.
1130
Reference to subsection 123(6) of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, which states that, when the board decides
“not to grant full parole following a review pursuant to this
section, no further application for full parole may be made
until six months after the decision, reveals that the bill
introduced by my Canadian Alliance colleague would only introduce
a degree of discord in the system.
How can the member for Surrey North want to impose a harsher
penalty in the case of a late stage withdrawal than in the case
of a full parole request made at the end and rejected? Inmates
would be unduly penalized by such a measure. They might as well
not bother to withdraw an application for a review of their
case, at the risk of having that application denied and start
the process all over again six months later. Given this
situation, why not shorten the suggested period from two years
to six months?
Since this bill does not seem, on the face of it, to be a bad
piece of legislation, the only thing that should be changed is
the penalty, to make it more equitable.
By setting a period similar to the one prescribed in the case of
a new application for parole after a denial, namely six months,
we would not lose sight of the objective pursued, while also
establishing a fairer system. Inmates would not benefit from
withdrawing their application for futile motives. They would
have to take responsibility and face an appropriate penalty.
With its proposed two year period, the bill could create a
problem in that it could deter inmates from withdrawing their
application even though they no longer quite feel ready for
parole, this in spite of the motives that they might invoke.
In addition to the adjustment of the penalty, however, another
factor needs to be considered in connection with this bill. The
statistics in a document dated April 2000 produced by the
Correctional Service of Canada raise even more questions about
the wisdom of Bill C-233.
These statistics concern applications for parole from female
inmates. They reveal that none, 0%, of the 436 applications
submitted between April 1998 and March 1999 were withdrawn.
These results are very interesting and show how pointless it is
to regulate a practice that, among women anyway, is exceptional,
being quite simply non-existent. In these conditions, what
purpose is served by introducing a measure such as this?
In conclusion, we therefore see the addition proposed by the
member for Surrey North as a completely superfluous manoeuvre
that has unfortunately done nothing but take up an hour of the
House's time. It is superfluous because, on the one hand, it
would include in the bill a measure that is not absolutely
essential, as the figures tend to show and, on the other, it
would propose a penalty completely disproportionate to the
action it is intended to discourage. These are two reasons why
such a bill is not votable.
It would seem that the member has been carried away by the
vindictive approach typical of his party, which tends to favour
a heavy-handed approach to justice. Imposing overly repressive
measures is not the appropriate response to a situation that
does not really require any particular action.
Nothing is served by creating a threat-based justice system. In
fact, laying down the law is the only vision some political
systems have come up with.
Of course, there must be respect for the law, but prevention and
rehabilitation must also be considered. Above all, experience
has shown us that there must be a thoughtful, fair and equitable
approach, as this is the only way of ensuring that justice
becomes a tool for the evolution of society and not a mere
reflection of its instincts.
1135
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the Chamber to
participate in the debate today.
The bill as it has already been laid out is meant to address an
anomaly in the current Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Bill C-233 puts forward a specific change or amendment which
would bring about more accountability, it is suggested, in the
current method in which applications for full parole are put
forward and then drawn back on occasion for strategic reasons.
The hon. member for Surrey North has put forward this proposed
change to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in very
good faith. Knowing this individual and his work within the
system, one can only commend his efforts to bring this matter
forward. This particular member for Surrey North is all too
familiar with the current criminal justice system given the
tragic circumstances that befell him and his family when his son
Jesse was murdered. I have no doubt whatsoever that the member
is completely sincere in his efforts to have this anomaly
addressed.
Having said that, I will say that the purpose of this enactment
is quite clearly to restrict the ability of an individual
applying for parole to withdraw the parole request at the last
moment, at the 11th hour, thus causing the system, but more
important the victims and the victims' families, undue suffering,
frustration and often significant financial loss.
This amendment, as already discussed in the Chamber, does
propose that a penalty be imposed, that is, there would be a
two-year minimum before an individual could apply for parole once
again. My colleague from the Bloc suggests that this particular
time period might be amended. I would very much associate myself
with that remark as well. I think the hon. member for Surrey
North would also be amenable to looking at this possible
amendment to Bill C-233, because it is a discretionary act on the
part of the parole board in any event. Its ability to restrict
the time in which an individual could apply once again for parole
should also perhaps be discretionary. This is a useful amendment
and once again demonstrates the usefulness of this discussion.
At the very least, the response would be to caution or to send a
message of deterrence and denunciation when there is evidence
that a system is being abused or flouted. Clearly there may not
be a rampant number of instances where this has happened, but I
would humbly suggest to the House that if it happens at all it is
an abuse. If the system allows it to happen it is an anomaly
that should be addressed, which is the purpose of the proposed
bill.
The legislation in its current form has no recourse. Even in
instances where it has been demonstrated that there has been a
frivolous reason given for withdrawing application for parole,
there is no actual recourse available for the parole board. The
bill will prevent an application from being withdrawn without
good reason, after substantial preparation has been made, and
then renewed again shortly. There is a very common sense
approach in this legislation. There is a reason behind it that
one can quite clearly embrace.
The Conservative Party will support the bill for the simple
reason that the current practice allows offenders to waste
resources of the parole board but more important because it
allows mental anguish for the victims of the offender. Upon
examination of the facts, a determination of the reason for the
cancellation can be made quite easily. This would be weighed to
determine the validity, and if it is not valid then surely some
consequences should follow. This is consistent with all
principles of justice.
This is not to say that further punishment should be unfairly
meted out to individuals in addition to their sentences. It is
simply a response when it becomes clear that a potential parolee
has made a tactical decision to withdraw his or her application
for whatever reason.
One can only imagine the demented mind of a person who would do
this for the simple joy of causing anguish to victims, but sadly
there are those in the system who do just that.
1140
Similarly, it may be done for a tactical reason. It may be done
to throw off the efforts of the victims to attend the parole
board hearing, for example, where their comments might have some
impact on whether parole is granted.
The simple principle that there have to be consequences, as I
have stated, is very consistent with principles of justice and
deterrence. This would put in place some deterrents for the
parole board if it was proven on fact and on evidence that a
parolee had abused the system to his or her advantage.
The bill surely aims at subduing the antics of anyone who would
behave in this fashion. Without mentioning the names of some of
our more high profile heinous criminals in the country, we know
that there are those who have engaged in this type of activity.
The hon. member for Surrey North has recited some concrete
examples of what has happened in the past.
The financial implications are also a consideration when
examining the facts of the legislation. Costs for travel and
accommodation are most often borne by the victims. We have a
vast country and clearly we have institutions from coast to
coast. Through no fault of their own, victims very often feel it
incumbent upon themselves, as abhorrent as it seems to the
offender, to see that justice is being done, to attend parole
hearings and to have their say. They feel a personal attachment
to the file.
I hasten to add that there have been improvements in our justice
system. There have been efforts made to be more inclusive and to
ensure that victims are heard within our system. There have been
recent changes which I and our party applaud, but we are also
familiar with the fact that there remain a lot of areas for
improvement.
Often there is a lack of information. Lack of information plays
into the situation that is the subject of the bill. Often this
occurs when a victim is not given ample warning or advance notice
of when a parole hearing is going to be cancelled; the victim
therefore suffers all of the consequences of not having that
information in advance. Having a national victims ombudsman
office would address some of this lack of information which is
sometimes inherent in the justice system.
The bill is one that I feel is laudable. It is a concrete
effort by the member to close a loophole, which would very much
be to the advantage, not an unfair advantage but a fair
advantage, of victims who are striving to participate in our
justice system at whatever level they choose. That is often key
when dealing with victims. The key is to ensure that they have
the discretionary power to participate to whatever level they
choose within the current law and to ensure that they feel they
have a voice, that their opinions and their input matter.
I would suggest that the individual who put the bill forward has
personal knowledge and understanding from a victim's perspective
of how the system is currently working and, in some cases,
currently failing. He has identified quite clearly with Bill
C-233 a substantive change that could be made which would address
the current problem.
The Conservative Party has been a consistent supporter of
victims of crime and will continue to support efforts such as
this when they are brought forward with the best of intentions
and with great honesty and integrity, as is the case before us.
The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is also very
supportive, as are other victims who have faced this situation in
the past.
This is not in any way to undermine the laudable goals of
rehabilitation and reintegration within our current system.
However, support for victims is needed and enacting this
legislation would inject fairness and greater access.
I suggest as well that it is a bill which should be made
votable. We certainly would support the hon. member's motion to
make this matter votable. I would hope all members would do the
same.
1145
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when I came here today I thought this
subject would be something we could discuss calmly and
rationally. There would be some differences of opinion, but I did
not think it would evoke a tremendous amount of emotion. It
would be based on some facts.
Then I saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice rise to respond to my colleague. He is known to go off
like a Roman candle with very little requirement or cause
whatsoever. I was pleased he was relatively calm today. In fact
he was quite calm. I do not think his reasoning was very good,
but he was uncharacteristically calm.
Then we heard from the Bloc Quebecois member. I have never in my
life heard such garbage spewed forth in the House. The attack
made by that member, and I certainly will not expand on it—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but I would ask him to address his comments
through the Chair.
Mr. Jim Gouk: I believe I was, Mr. Speaker. I was
referring to a member. I certainly did not intend to speak
directly to her. In light of the comments she made, I really do
not want to speak to her. If I made that mistake, I apologize.
The member from the Bloc Quebecois rose in the House to question
the motives and the whole concept of how the hon. member for
Surrey North approaches this problem. If there is a member in
the House that has a right to be bitter and enraged about the way
the system works, it is he. I have never found a more reasoned
person trying to make honest changes. I am absolutely disgusted
that any member of the House would rise to put forth the
unmentionable types of statements she made.
I will look at some of them. She talked about how this would be
so unfair to these poor prisoners because it would give them
additional time in prison. May I remind her that when people are
sentenced to eight years in prison it is intended that they be in
prison for eight years. Parole is a privilege, not a right. They
should have to show they have earned parole. Manipulating the
system is certainly not a good way to earn parole.
I am absolutely shocked that someone from Quebec of all places
that has such a huge problem with organized crime would stand in
this place to start defending the rights of people in prisons who
further twist the system once they have been caught and
convicted. It is no wonder there are so many problems with
criminals in the province of Quebec when people like that
represent the criminals themselves. I think it is disgusting. As
far as the fact that she was bothered by other conversations, I
think it is pretty obvious I was bothered by hers.
I would also like to address a couple of comments that were made
by the parliamentary secretary. He talked about the wonderful
things the government was doing for victims. It has developed a
policy centre for victims of crime. What is the good of having a
policy centre if it does not listen to what those very people are
saying and does not provide the help that they plead for when
they come before the parliamentary committee of the House?
I heard these people and they did not ask for a lot. I was a
member of the committee that reviewed the CCRA. They did not
come in pounding on the table, frothing at the mouth and making
demands. They came in with quiet reasoning, with a great amount
of sadness and heaviness in their hearts. They said there were
problems in the system which they hoped the government would try
to address.
I had the privilege of sitting with the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I was happy to have his support
because there was scant support on that committee. The hon.
member from the Bloc Quebecois joined the committee later as a
replacement member. I do not know if her attitude would have
changed if she had seen the whole thing and had an opportunity to
see what we did while we studied the issue. I would like to
think it would have, that she had some misplaced ideas rather
than a strange point of view overall.
The parliamentary secretary said that they were striving for
more opportunities for victims to be heard. That is what this is
all about. We want more opportunities for these people to be
heard. The problem occurs when they come in, in keeping what the
government has said, to avail themselves of greater opportunities
to be heard, only to have someone who wants to manipulate the
system cancel the hearing at the last moment. That is not in
keeping with what the parliamentary secretary says the government
wishes to do.
Ironically all we are doing with the bill is trying to help him
keep his own word. We work very hard to try to keep them honest
over there.
1150
I think we need a much better look at the issue. One of the
points made today was that sometimes when good ideas come forth
in this place from the Canadian Alliance there is an automatic,
and I do mean automatic, rejection of those ideas.
We would be more than happy to have the government steal the
idea and bring it out as its own. We would be happy to applaud
it for doing so. We do not care how it gets out. We do not care
who gets the credit for it. We just want the system to work
better and to be fair.
As I mentioned earlier, these victims did not come forward with
great demands. They came forward very humbly and did not ask for
a lot. They came forward knowing that they would not be able to
make great changes but hoping the government was listening and
would address the serious problems.
The parliamentary secretary said that there would be minor
inconvenience for the parole board and really no cost. What
about the victims? Maybe it is not a great cost to him if he has
to travel across the country, only to have the plan cancelled at
the last minute, because he has more time for something else.
Victims do not look at it in that way. They plan leave from
their business, place of work or employment. They may use their
vacation time, not for a vacation or to do something that
relieves their lives and helps them to rejuvenate themselves but
to immerse themselves back in the horrors of the original crimes.
During that time they make a commitment and prepare themselves
mentally to undergo the ordeal. They commit time from their
employer. They may buy a ticket, a non-refundable ticket, to
travel. To have offenders cancel a hearing without good cause,
sometimes as victims are literally walking into the room, is not
a small hardship for victims. It is a massive one.
The government believes what it says. If the parliamentary
secretary believes in the things he said a few moments ago, that
he would like more opportunities for victims to be heard and the
system to be fairer, the bill must go ahead.
It should be amended to give more flexibility to the parole
board in terms of how much time or when exactly it should be
impacted, but government members should not turn their back on
it. They must do something with it. It is not a partisan issue.
The parliamentary secretary knows that if anyone is non-partisan
in trying to fix the problems of the parole system and the
justice system, it is the hon. member for Surrey North.
I ask those members to consider the matter, not as members of
government, not as members who are whipped into a particular
position by their party, but by their own conscience. I urge
them to try to place themselves in the shoes of victims and try
to imagine, even just for a moment, how they would feel if they
were in these circumstances.
There are few over there, if they honestly did this, who would
not support the bill or at least something very close to it.
Victims have rights. Those rights should far outweigh the rights
of the people who made them victims in the first place. It
should not even be a major consideration on the part of
government.
This is a good bill. It is a bill that has been brought forward
with honourable intentions by someone who has worked very hard to
see that the system is balanced and balanced fairly. I urge
members to consider allowing the bill to go ahead.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank all those who spoke to the bill. Even though
the bill is not votable, at least we have been provided with an
opportunity for debate.
In bringing the issue forward in this manner I hope it may cause
the government to think about the proposal. I respectfully ask
government members to use their influence to attempt to sway the
powers that be to consider this suggestion for change.
I also respectfully ask the parole authorities to think about
this and attempt to influence the government to act. It would
lessen their workload and enable them to more effectively
administer their program.
1155
I do not ask for this change for myself. I ask it on behalf of
victims of crime. I ask it on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer.
Yes, I even ask it on behalf of those offenders who are most
affected by the parole process.
Members may well ask where I am coming from when I suggest that
even the offenders could be helped by this proposal. As I stated
earlier, criminal offenders are classified as such because they
have been unable to follow the rules set out by society. We have
laws and they have offended those laws. They are being punished
and rehabilitated to convince them and others of the necessity
for all of us to follow the norm set out to enable all of us to
peacefully co-exist.
However, even after they are incarcerated and placed on the
so-called road to rehabilitation, it accomplishes nothing to just
forget about them. We have rules and laws to ensure that they
are properly considered and treated. One of the rights we
provide is the right to be heard and considered for parole at
some point during their sentence. The problem the bill attempts
to address is the abuse of that right. Because there is no
consequence for the abuse of that right, we are doing a rather
poor job of rehabilitation.
Part of rehabilitation is showing offenders the error of their
ways and assisting them to correct their behaviour and desist
from future criminal activity. If we set up a right to apply for
parole and then permit an offender to abuse that right, what are
we teaching that individual? Are we not permitting deviant
behaviour to continue? Would it not make more sense to provide
the right and include a consequence for abuse of that right? This
is what I am suggesting. It only makes sense. It may not be
that big a deal in the overall scheme of things but I really fail
to understand why something so elemental has been ignored and
allowed to continue.
Please do not get me wrong. I would be the last to ever suggest
that this issue is insignificant to victims of crime. I know how
important it is to them. I know how they have been messed around
because of the shenanigans perpetrated by some offenders. It is
time to stop this abuse.
I have been asked how prevalent this abuse may be. I do not
think I could come up with a better answer than that provided by
the chair of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. She stated “One case is one case
too many. We do not play number games here”.
To provide more information is difficult because we often do not
learn of abuses unless the victims go public with their
complaints. The parole authorities have been good soldiers for
the government and they merely carry on to administer the laws
they are presented.
The three cases I mentioned were easily found when I went
looking for examples. The Canadian resource centre for victims
of crime supports this initiative and considers the issue of
extreme importance. In fact, I have a letter from the centre's
president, Mr. Steve Sullivan, expressing his disappointment with
the fact that the bill was deemed to be non-votable. He has
personally attended a number of parole hearings with victims who
have been re-victimized in this way.
I appreciate the opportunity to debate this matter and, rest
assured, I do not intend to let it go. I will continue to do my
part to attempt to bring about the necessary change. I
respectfully request the unanimous consent of the House to make
the bill votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the House give its
consent to make Bill C-233 votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion was not selected as a votable item, this item is
dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Transport)
moved that Bill C-14, an act respecting shipping and navigation
and to amend the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and
other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that I will be splitting my time with the member for Malpeque who
will speak on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, the Canada Shipping Act,
2001.
1200
Transportation has always played a vital role in our history and
it continues to do so today. The means of travel have changed
from the days of the canoe, wagon and steam engine. Canoes are
still important today but much has changed in terms of modes of
transportation.
The facts of Canadian geography and economics remain much the
same. We are a country of distances and space, a comparatively
small population spread across a vast land mass, relying on trade
with other nations for our prosperity. Those are the facts of
Canadian life and they are the reasons transportation continues
to be so important.
Transportation remains essential to our lives and to our
economy. Transport Canada has examined every aspect of our
transportation system in recent years to determine what tools the
economy needs to thrive. In turn, the government has worked to
improve the legislative framework governing air transportation,
railways and ports. It is time to bring Canadian shipping into
the 21st century.
The Canada Shipping Act is the principal piece of legislation
governing personal safety and environmental protection in the
marine sector. No one can deny the pressing need to review and
overhaul the legislation. I say pressing need because the
legislation is sorely outdated and a successful marine industry,
essential to our prosperity, needs modern legislation.
We are a maritime nation with three coasts and vast interior
waterways. We are a trading nation and we depend on shipping to
move much of our trade. Transport Canada data indicates that in
1999 the civil marine industry directly employed approximately
31,000 people and shipped a total of 334 million tonnes of cargo.
The shipping industry moved imports and exports worth $83
billion in 1999. Over 90% of marine tonnage derives from bulk
commodities such as coal, ores, petroleum, grain and forest
products. International shipments comprise about 84% of total
traffic, a number expected to grow in the future.
Despite that impressive record, Canada's shipping industry will
find it increasingly difficult to compete internationally unless
we implement transportation policies that are based on sound,
modern legislation and consistent with those of our trading
partners. We can readily see that transportation is vital to
Canada, that the marine industry is important to our economy and
that the Canada Shipping Act is outdated and needs revision.
What about the proposed legislation before the House? How will
it answer the needs I have outlined?
The objectives of Bill C-14 are stated clearly in part 1 of the
bill. The objectives are threefold: First, to protect the
health, safety and well-being of individuals; second, to protect
the marine environment; and third, to encourage viable, effective
and economical marine transportation and commerce.
To support those objectives a complete reform of the Canada
Shipping Act was undertaken. The reform had three goals: First,
to simplify the legislation by replacing outdated terminology
with plainer language, harmonizing it with other regimes and
taking out excessively prescriptive details.
Second, to make it consistent with federal regulatory policies,
reducing reliance on regulations and permitting alternative
approaches, such as compliance agreements, performance standards
and voluntary industry codes which are much more consistent with
today's regulatory practices.
Third, to contribute to the economic performance of the marine
industry by reducing prescriptive elements and the administrative
burden imposed by the current legislation, and by giving the
industry the increased flexibility it needs to maintain safety
and to increase business.
The current act is, without exaggeration, antiquated. The act
came into law in 1936 and was based on the 1896 British merchant
shipping law. Many parts of the existing act are so out of date
they would be amusing if the act were not a crucial piece of
legislation.
The act is also supported by an extensive regulatory regime
composed of at least 90 separate regulations. The sheer size,
difficult language and vast coverage of the legislation make it
as difficult to enforce as to follow. Canada needs modern
legislation that will benefit, not hinder, the marine sector in
Canada.
Bill C-14 is the result of several years' work by the Department
of Transport in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, Industry and other affected parties and stakeholders.
It is not a mere retrofitting of the old act. It has been built,
much like a vessel, from the keel up. We call Bill C-14 the
Canada Shipping Act, 2001 because it reflects a complete break
with the past.
1205
The bill is a crucial step toward ensuring that the Canadian
shipping industry has legislation that reflects modern industry
practices and keeps up with technological advancements.
A joint effort by Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Bill C-14 was developed through unprecedented
consultations with stakeholders. This consultative process is an
excellent example of co-operation between the government and the
marine communities to achieve the shared objective of improving
our marine system.
On behalf of the government, I take the opportunity to thank the
interested parties that brought forward their views on the many
issues addressed in the legislation. The Department of Fisheries
and Oceans and Transport Canada crossed the country five
different times holding discussion groups and listening to the
ideas of individuals and industry. In June 1999 a draft bill was
shared with the industry.
The two departments listened carefully to stakeholders and,
wherever possible, accommodated their concerns. They drew the
line only where accepting a proposal would have undermined their
ability to protect the marine environment or the health and
well-being of those who work in the marine industry.
The legislation before the House is appropriate. It
incorporates most of the concerns presented to the government by
diverse groups with differing views from across the country. The
aim of the bill is to make Canada's marine legislation a tool
that benefits all Canadians, to enable industries to be more
competitive and to protect the marine environment.
Bill C-14 was drafted to be accessible and comprehensible to all
Canadians. In keeping with this goal, the language of the new
act is simpler. The legislation is more concise and logically
organized. The number of sections has been greatly reduced and,
as requested by the marine community, Bill C-14 contains a
preamble that states the overall objectives of the act and makes
it simpler and easier to understand.
The legislation also clearly delineates the areas of
responsibility between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
Transport Canada. For instance, the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans has responsibility for pleasure craft and Transport Canada
has responsibility for all non-pleasure craft.
Both industry and Transport Canada require a mechanism to
address rapid technological change. Unlike aircraft or
locomotives, ships are most often built one at a time. This
requires flexibility in how we administer regulations, a
flexibility that must be tempered within the bounds set by
parliament.
Bill C-14 clearly outlines the powers of a proposed marine
technical review panel which would replace the existing board of
steamship inspection. The panel would be empowered to grant an
exemption only if it were in the public interest and would not
jeopardize marine safety or the environment. Any exemption would
need to result in an equivalent or greater level of safety before
the panel could approve an application or an exemption.
Bill C-14 clarifies the shipmaster's responsibility to ensure
the vessel is adequately staffed with properly qualified and
trained personnel. Also clarified is the master's authority to
maintain good order and discipline on board a vessel. In response
to stakeholder concerns, the right of seafarers to place a lien
against a vessel for unpaid wages remains in the bill.
Labour provisions in the existing act, the Canada Labour Code
and provincial statutes, often overlap. To avoid this, the
department's ability to regulate in the area of occupational
health and safety is restricted to matters not identified in the
labour code.
Part 4 of the bill is primarily concerned with the safe design,
construction, inspection and operation of vessels. Detailed
provisions in the existing legislation have been moved to other
regulations or standards. Antiquated provisions were eliminated.
In consultation with stakeholders, industry supported Transport
Canada's retaining responsibility for setting minimum ship safety
standards. It was also agreed that the responsibility for safety
and compliance should be shared among those working on a vessel
and that these responsibilities, particularly those of the
master, should be defined in the act.
Bill C-14 allows Canada to fulfil its international obligations
respecting various international conventions, such as safety of
life at sea and the international safety management code, by
allowing the department to implement these instruments via
regulation.
1210
The legislation before us focuses on safety and covers all
Canadian waters and fishing zones. Provisions related to marine
liability have been transferred to the Marine Liability Act,
introduced as Bill S-2, which will hopefully soon be before
committee.
Commitment to marine safety and protection of the environment
has been reinforced by Canada's commitment to port state control.
As a port state, Canada is permitted to board foreign vessels to
inspect them regardless of the currency of their safety
certificates. That means that whoever comes into our ports will
be inspected, no matter what flag they fly. More than 25% of all
vessels that dock in Canadian ports are inspected, with the focus
being on ships with potential safety concerns.
In 1999 Canada inspected 1,076 vessels from 86 registered
countries. Of those, about half had deficiencies in such major
areas as lifesaving, navigation equipment and safety in general.
The greatest number of deficiencies was in the area of fire
safety measures. In 1999, 125 vessels were detained until
deficiencies were rectified. To ensure the safety of ports and
of vessels using Canadian waters, we must maintain vigilance.
One of the main objectives of the proposed legislation is to
protect the marine environment. Bill C-14 contains regulation
making authority regarding preventing and responding to pollution
of the marine environment. Transport Canada and Fisheries and
Oceans officials have worked closely with all interested parties
to ensure that the legislation's pollution preventing provisions
are modern and consistent with other domestic and international
standards. The departments have also worked together to ensure
that the penalties for non-compliance are competitive and
effective.
Transport Canada takes all pollution matters seriously. The
proposed legislation enhances the ability to protect the marine
environment. Measures to prevent marine pollution and improve
maritime safety are addressed by the International Maritime
Organization. The measures are implemented in Canada through the
Canada Shipping Act.
Most of the department's efforts focus on preventing pollution
by setting regulatory requirements for ship based equipment such
as oil-water separators, inspection and certification of Canadian
vessels, and inspection of foreign vessels calling at Canadian
ports.
When ship sourced pollution is detected in the marine
environment Transport Canada investigates in close co-operation
with Environment Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard. When
sufficient evidence is collected charges are laid using
regulations under the Canada Shipping Act or other Canadian
statutes depending on the source of the pollution incident.
The proposed legislation provides appropriate deterrents and an
effective enforcement scheme which includes penalties for minor
and serious offences relating to the environment. For major
pollution offences the penalty provisions contained in the
proposed act are modelled on the current Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, 1999.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is also a high priority for
the Canadian government. Marine transportation contributes only
about 3% of all transportation related emissions. That makes
marine transportation an important part of a sustainable
transportation system. We as members of parliament must
encourage its use wherever possible.
At the same time even those emissions can be further reduced.
Transport Canada will continue to have authority to regulate
emissions from large vessels and will continue to make that a
priority.
There is also a need to protect the marine environment from
harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens that enter our waters in
ship ballast water. Transport Canada continues to lead national
and regional working groups on ballast water. A commitment has
been made to have Canadian regulations on ballast water in place
by 2002. Having a Great Lakes riding, I can appreciate the
importance of regulating ballast water that comes from our oceans
through ships.
I now turn to an aspect of the economic regulations of shipping
and navigation, namely the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act.
For the purposes of this discussion I will say SCEA from here on
in. Amendments to SCEA are found in part 15 of Bill C-14.
Part 15 addresses an important aspect of transportation
supporting the Canadian economy: the movement by ship of Canada's
overseas containerized trade, as well as some general cargo. This
is specifically known in the industry as the liner trade.
International shipping lines offer regularly scheduled liner
services between ports around the globe. A shipping line has the
choice to join a shipping conference or to remain as an
independent operator.
1215
A shipping conference is a group of ocean shipping lines acting
collectively to set rates and offer services on specific trade
routes. Shipping conferences are recognized throughout the world
and they contribute to reliable service and stable rates.
Many of Canada's trading partners, such as the United States,
Europe, Australia and Japan, accommodate conferences through
special legislation. Recently they have reviewed their
conference legislation and concluded that, while it should be
retained, more competitive provisions can be accommodated.
The Shipping Conferences Exemption Act exempts shipping
conferences from certain provisions of the Competition Act and
sets the rules for their operations. Amendments to SCEA are now
required to keep Canada's shipping conferences legislation and
rules in balance with Canada's major trading partners. The
amendments encourage a more competitive climate within
conferences and also streamlines the administration of the act.
Canada enacted its first Shipping Conferences Exemption Act in
1971. SCEA was updated and replaced on two occasions, in 1979
and again in 1987. Both revisions added new competitive
provisions in the act. SCEA was last reviewed by the National
Transportation Act Review Commission and the Standing Committee
on Transport during the years 1992 and 1993. It was concluded
that, while conferences run counter to the general government
policy of encouraging competition, the act should be retained on
grounds that the economic uncertainty created by its elimination
would not be in Canada's best interests.
While liner shipping represents only 15% of Canada's
international marine tonnage, this figure does not adequately
reflect the importance of liner shipping to Canada as lower value
bulk commodities, like grain and coal, dominate the tonnage
statistics.
In general, commodities in the liner trades consist of higher
value products, such as electronic and telecommunications
equipment and automobile components.
The container business is also a major contributor to the
prosperity of ports, such as Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax,
Canada's three main container ports. It is therefore in Canada's
interest to continue to attract the shipping lines while at the
same time encouraging affordable ocean transportation and an
adequate and reliable level of service for Canadian industries.
It should be understood that even though a shipping conference
may be entitled to an exemption under SCEA, the act does not
suspend the application of the Competition Act for any conference
agreement if any party to the agreement conspires, agrees or
arranges to engage in predatory pricing or other anti-competitive
behaviour.
While anxious to protect the interests of Canadian industry, the
government must be mindful of the need for a balanced approach to
conference legislation. Radical anti-conference measures or a
departure from compatible international rules could result in
unfavourable repercussions for Canadian industry and Canadian
ports.
I mentioned that the amendments to SCEA, as contained in part
15, will encourage a more competitive operating climate within
shipping conferences and will provide added flexibility for
shippers in dealing with conferences. Shippers will have the
ability to more quickly access rates and services offered by
individual conference lines. Meanwhile each conference member
will be able to negotiate service contracts with shippers without
adhering to terms and conditions set by the conference.
The amendments are also designed to streamline the
administration of the act. Hence, tariff filing by conferences
with the Canadian Transportation Agency will be replaced with
public electronic access to conference tariffs and other
conference information.
By adopting these changes to SCEA, Canadian legislation
pertaining to shipping conferences will remain in balance with
our major trading partners. Shippers will benefit from the
injection of greater competition into the practices of
conferences while conferencing will continue to have a limited
exemption from the Competition Act.
In conclusion, the bill will help make Canada's waterways a
safer place for both seafarers and the public and will ensure a
competitive industry. It is a product of unprecedented
consultations with industry and other stakeholders, a process
that has helped us to craft legislation that will protect safety
and the environment through a graduated series of fair and
appropriate penalties retaining always prosecution for serious
offences.
Politics is the art of the possible. We have practised that art
balancing the needs and concerns of Canadians with different
interests and protecting the environment and those who work at
sea. The results are an effective piece of legislation that will
replace an act long overdue for renewal and give Canadians the
modern, efficient framework we need for the 21st century.
I urge the House to support the bill and speedily send it off to
committee.
1220
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-14, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
This is a major piece of legislation early in this new
parliament. We do not know if it will last a full millennium but
the contents of the bill will stand for decades. I say that
based partly on past experience.
The old act has been on the books and has received only minor
changes since 1936 and has served us reasonably well. However it
became apparent within Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, as well as to our marine industry and stakeholders, that
a newer, more comprehensive and modern version of the act was
needed to keep Canada's marine activities globally competitive
and environmentally sustainable.
As members have been hearing, the bill is a major overhaul of
the old legislation, almost from top to bottom. It clearly sets
out the roles of both the Minister of Transport and the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans. The thrust is to simplify the
legislation and clarify regulatory authorities which will
contribute to economic viability and environmental sustainability
in our marine industries.
From the standpoint of fisheries and oceans, the legislation
clarifies and strengthens important areas of responsibility, in
particular, ensuring the safety of navigation, including pleasure
boating, and the protection of the marine environment.
Arriving at this point took many years of work both within
government and with stakeholders across the country. Those
industries and individuals who must live under the law every day
had an unprecedented opportunity to improve the legislation
before this final version of the bill was written. From
commercial shipping and supertankers to the recreational boating
community, everyone had a chance to participate in the review of
this important legislation.
What we have before the House today is the government's tangible
proof of leadership and of commitment to the marine sector.
Today I want to urge all hon. members to assist us in proceeding
quickly with the final track of this much needed reform. When
passed by parliament, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 will be a
modernized act, one that will satisfy the regulatory needs of the
marine community and marine stakeholders for years to come. It
will enable government and stakeholders to work better together
to ensure a clean marine environment.
Three of the department's long term priorities and goals are
directly related to the bill. The legislation goes a long way
toward strengthening our ability to make these goals a reality.
First, there is the priority of maintaining marine safety. This
means safe practices on the water which is essential for saving
lives and preventing accidents. We are proud of what we have
accomplished in the past but we know that the tools in this bill
are essential for us to go even further toward ensuring safe,
clean waters to which we can all have access.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said
in his speech, marine activity is on the rise very dramatically.
We have to be able to respond so that we not only maintain but
also improve on past performance. The bill will contribute to
enhanced marine safety through new provisions covering vessel
traffic services, aids to navigation and clear definition of the
department's responsibilities for pleasure craft. It also sets
out the department's responsibilities for pollution prevention
and response and search and rescue.
1225
The second long term goal of the department relating to the bill
is to facilitate marine transportation, commerce and ocean
development. The bill is in large part a response to demands for
much needed clarification and modernization.
The government demonstrated leadership in undertaking this
massive task in consultation with many stakeholders. The result
before the House today is a document which, I am confident to
say, satisfies the regulatory needs of the marine community
within an environmentally sound framework.
Marine traffic is increasing at a tremendous rate, from huge
ocean going commercial vessels to the vast increase in the number
of recreational vessels on our waters. We need to be in a
position to handle these movements safely and efficiently. The
bill before the House provides us with the authority to do just
that.
Finally, there is the third priority of pollution prevention and
response. This means working closely and effectively with
industry in fulfilling our commitment to manage and protect the
marine and freshwater environment.
The bill will be an invaluable tool in helping us prevent oil
spills. It will also help us respond quickly and effectively in
case the unthinkable occurs despite all our best efforts. The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans will take the lead in this
part of the act. DFO is responsible for ensuring that oil
handling facilities have oil spill prevention plans in place in
an arrangement for response with a coast guard certified response
organization to control the consequences just in case. As
sometimes happens, the best laid plans go awry.
The bill maintains the legislative basis for an innovative
government industry partnership, which now enhances Canada's
national oil spill preparedness and response capacity. It also
allows Canada to fulfill its international commitments in
co-operating with other countries on measures to strengthen our
national oil spill preparedness and response system. It allows
for greater public scrutiny of the actions that government and
industry undertake to protect the environment.
I want to emphasize that when I talk about provisions concerning
response to pollution incidents, I do not mean to imply that
accidents are the norm in the marine environment. They are not.
Rather, my point is to show that this is a balanced and realistic
piece of legislation that focuses on safety by emphasizing
prevention first and foremost, while at the same time prudently
recognizing that one must always be prepared for accidents.
Marine safety relies upon wisdom which dictates that a combined
approach is best, an approach that focuses on both prevention and
response to save lives and protect the environment.
In closing, let me add a few more general observations on the
importance of the bill. The minister and the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans are guided by three key objectives: safety,
efficiency and environmental protection.
The Canadian coast guard plays a key role in ensuring that the
department meets these objectives in regard to activities in the
marine environment. The coast guard will be instrumental in
assisting the department to make sure the new act is implemented
smoothly and effectively.
What the bill really provides is an important piece of
regulatory framework that allows DFO to get on with doing its job
of providing key services that benefit Canadians. The Canadian
coast guard is guided by the motto “Safety first, service
always”. That is precisely what the bill is all about.
In 1999 the coast guard carried out nearly 6,500 search and
rescue operations and saved 3,500 lives at risk. That is an
impressive record but of course we want to improve by reducing
the need for this kind of performance.
1230
The aim of the bill before us today is to enhance our preventive
capacity so fewer lives are endangered in the future. In short,
the administrative efficiencies and increased safety aspects of
the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 will be a benefit for all who work
or play on the water.
I call on all members to do their part to make this proposed
legislation a reality. Those who come from maritime communities
know firsthand the importance of clear rules, safe waters and
shared responsibility. The Canada Shipping Act, 2001 covers all
of these aspects, strengthening the government's regulatory role
where needed while placing increased responsibility on industry
and on those who enjoy our waterways to plan for good practices
and safer environments.
As I said, the studying and planning that went into the bill
have taken many months. Now is the time for the House to take on
its responsibility, show leadership and pass the bill as quickly
as possible.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise this
afternoon to address Bill C-14, an act respecting shipping and
navigation and to amend the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act,
1987 and other acts on behalf of the official opposition.
It is indeed an honour to be standing before the House today
giving my maiden speech. Before I express my opinion on Bill
C-14, please allow me a moment to say a few words about my riding
of Skeena, my constituents and the people who have helped to get
me elected.
Let me say thanks to my wife Ann, who is in the gallery today to
support me. Without her love and understanding I would not be
here today. I want to thank our children, Bart, Joann, Lynne,
Joy and Gail and their families also.
My sincere thanks go out to the residents of Skeena in
northwestern British Columbia, the beautiful and vast area
encompassing almost 250,000 square kilometres stretching from
Bella Bella to Atlin, the Queen Charlotte Islands to Telkwa,
bordered by Alaska and the Yukon in the northern half. Skeena is
also the largest riding in British Columbia and one of the
largest in Canada.
I am indeed proud and honoured that the constituents of Skeena
chose me to be their representative in parliament. I pledge to
do my very best to represent them and their interests in Ottawa.
With regard to Bill C-14, the government's summary of the bill
states:
This enactment overhauls and replaces the Canada Shipping Act,
other than the portions that concern liability, with modernized
legislation that will promote the safety and economic performance
of the commercial marine industry as well as ensure the safety of
those who use pleasure craft. Key changes to the existing
legislation include improvements to provisions to protect and
support efficient crews, ensure passenger and vessel safety and
protect the environment. A new administrative penalties scheme
provides an alternative means for dealing with certain
contraventions.
The enactment clarifies the marine responsibilities between the
Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans.
The enactment organizes the contents, updates the terminology
and streamlines substantive requirements to make the law much
clearer and easier to understand.
The enactment amends the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act,
1987 to inject greater competition within shipping conferences,
to streamline the administration of the Act and to ensure that
Canadian legislation covering international liner shipping
conferences remains in harmony with that of Canada's major
trading partners.
I wonder if it would be possible for the government to be any
more vague when contemplating the title of such an important
piece of legislation. Who thought of the title, an act
respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the Shipping
Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other acts?
Bill C-14 is significant in that it represents a complete
overhaul of the updating of Bill C-35, which was first introduced
in the 36th parliament and died on the order paper when the
election was called. Bill C-35 was rightly entitled the Canada
Shipping Act, a bill that has served as a cornerstone for
shipping activity in Canadian waters.
1235
The Canada Shipping Act has been in dire need of review for many
years. I commend the government for undertaking such a
monumental task. Bill C-14 contains some 334 articles and is
just under 200 pages in length.
I imagine the introduction of this bill must have been a
gratifying moment for its authors. I can appreciate their
enthusiasm for getting the bill through the House and to
committee, with the hope of finally seeing the bill passed into
law. This is evident in that the bill was only introduced on
March 1, one day prior to the House rising for the break week and
here we are our first day back and Bill C-14 is already at second
reading. Enthusiasm I can appreciate. Attempting to railroad
the parliamentary process I do not.
The speed with which the government has moved from first to
second reading suggests to me one of two things. Either the
government does not have complete faith in the legislation that
it has introduced and is concerned about it getting a proper
review, or the government is so devoid of new legislation that
this is the only activity on the horizon so it had better run
with it.
I realize the government opposite has become so used to rushing
bills through the House that it has become second nature to it,
but I fail to see the national crisis that will be averted by the
lightning speed passage of this particular bill.
Being a maritime nation, I am confident that there are numerous
stakeholders that have been waiting patiently for the
introduction and passage of this bill. I say that they have been
waiting patiently because they already know what the bill
contains as a result of an uncharacteristic move by the
Department of Transport.
As a result of the bill's complex nature and the apparent
inability of Transport Canada officials to adequately prepare new
legislation, the bill was released in draft form to a limited
group of stakeholders for review and input, and before the final
version was prepared for introduction in the House. I support
and appreciate the need for public consultation when it comes to
revising and updating our nation's legislation but, as a member
of parliament, I take exception when the government deliberately
circumvents the parliamentary process by handing out copies of
the bill prior to members of parliament even being made aware of
its existence.
I am concerned that this has set an extremely dangerous
precedent. The continued disregard for parliamentary procedure
and attempts to reduce the power of the elected members of the
House should not be tolerated.
In yet another fine display of parliamentary disregard, the
government has chosen to incorporate changes to the Shipping
Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 or SCEA into a bill that when
introduced last session only dealt with shipping regulations. By
only the broadest stretch of the imagination do these two bills
have anything in common. It is very convenient for the
government however to attach such a contentious amendment to the
SCEA bill to Bill C-14, since Bill C-14 is a bill that shipping
interests have been calling for.
SCEA is contentious in that it allows ocean shipping lines to
collude and form cartels that determine the scheduling and
pricing for freight movements into and out of Canadian ports. By
its provisions, the shipping lines are exempt from the provisions
of the Competition Act, a move that was originally intended to
ensure that Canada was well serviced by the shipping lines.
Some groups have come forward and questioned the necessity for
the continuation of SCEA. I am confident we will be hearing from
those groups as the debate on the bill progresses.
Despite the concerns I have raised regarding the manner in which
the bill has been introduced, we will be supporting the referral
of the bill to committee where I am confident it will undergo a
very detailed paragraph by paragraph review to ensure that the
members of the House are satisfied with its contents.
With regard to shipping, I would like to make some comments
relating to my riding of Skeena. Skeena has a long history of
shipping, principally the ports of Prince Rupert, Kitimat and
Stewart. However, I will begin by painting a picture of my
riding for the benefit of those members who have not had the
pleasure to visit this vast and beautiful area of Canada.
The riding of Skeena is a wonderful area in which to live, rich
with fish and wildlife, rich in potential for new mineral
resource extraction and new opportunity in value added forestry
operations and oil and gas development. One of the best kept
Canadian trade secrets is a transportation corridor through
northwestern B.C. en route to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and
the eastern U.S.A. This port-road-rail link, which is underused
and is frankly not well known, has the potential to provide
tremendous opportunity to large areas of Canada.
The potential is there for shipping much more grain and coal
through the Ridley Island terminals of Prince Rupert, as these
facilities are vastly underutilized, as is the bulk loading
facility at the port of Stewart, Canada's most northerly ice free
port. Kitimat also has major dock and shipping facilities.
1240
Transportation is critical to the social and economic fabric of
the country, whether it be a seaport, an airport, a rail line or
a highway. Transportation infrastructure is an economic engine
that not only sustains growth but actually generates economic
prosperity.
My riding of Skeena is also home to many aboriginal communities
which face intense challenge, as do most other small resource
based communities such as Stewart, my home for many years.
Although Skeena riding offers a great lifestyle, the economy of
today is creating hardship for families. For many it is a
difficult place in which to earn a living.
The results from the recent election show very clearly that the
west and the north feel alienated and are not satisfied with the
treatment being received. Tough love does not cut it. We must
be recognized as a contributor to Canada's growth and economy,
which we truly are and can be in the future.
An issue of major concern to all northerners, and I suspect most
non-urban dwellers right across Canada, is the badly flawed Bill
C-68. Hunting is a way of life for most of rural Canada's
population. Putting people who have been around firearms all
their lives, responsible people, in the position of being
criminals is neither acceptable nor right. Changes to this
legislation are needed if Canadians are to respect and abide by
this law.
My riding of Skeena, in northwestern British Columbia, is
currently in the throes of a horrendous economic downturn due in
part to circumstances beyond anyone's control. However, the
recognition of the difficulties and possible steps toward some
solution is a federal government necessity and responsibility.
In today's world market economy, recognition of the impact of
pulp and paper prices, lumber prices, gas, oil and metal prices
on resource based economies is essential. There are
opportunities that must be recognized by government and the
federal government should not ignore them.
For instance, in co-operation with the province of B.C., the
current moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in B.C.
must be lifted. The potential oil reserves of that area alone
are 10 times Hibernia, at 9.8 billion barrels. Gas reserves
could exceed 25.9 trillion cubic feet. There is added potential
in both the Bowser and the Nechako basins. These options must be
pursued and the moratorium on exploration status quo position
taken by the government is not acceptable. Development on the
east coast was acceptable, why not on the west.
Steps must be taken to revive the mining industry in B.C. The
temporary exploration investment tax credit in October's teeny
budget provides some incentive for B.C. mining interests to
invest in the ailing mineral exploration sector. However
aboriginal land claims and permitting processes such as the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Department of Fisheries
and Oceans concerns have huge ramifications for the mining
industry. The government has a role in dealing with such issues.
Cutting red tape and turn around time lines for permit approval
would assist greatly.
The uncertainty of security of mineral tenure because of the
land claims issue creates a major detriment to investment in the
mining industry. Investor perceptions are that elected
governments, both federal and provincial, have lost control over
allocation and management of resources. The implied concept of
aboriginal veto power over development must be rejected. Let us
keep mining in Canada, not chase it away.
The March 31, 2001 expiry of the Canada-United States softwood
lumber agreement requires a strong position from the government.
The recent formation of the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance is a
significant move in dealing with a united approach to Canada's
position on free trade in softwood lumber with the U.S.A.
B.C. accounts for over 50% of Canada's softwood lumber exports
to the U.S. to a value of over $5 billion annually. Some of the
producers in my area had no U.S. quota due to Asia being their
principal market. That Asian market has collapsed, creating
layoffs and shutdowns. In the current agreement, access to a
U.S. market is based on historic shipping levels: no history, no
quota.
It must be recognized that policy changes are necessary to reach
free trade in softwood lumber between the U.S. and Canada. I ask
that the government work with the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance
to achieve that goal.
Last year, on the north coast of B.C., the federal Department of
Fisheries and Oceans weak stock management strategies of upper
Skeena coho, which represent only one-quarter of 1% of the total
Skeena River fishery, shut down a $30 million sockeye fishery, a
tremendous blow to the economy of Prince Rupert and area.
1245
DFO and the minister must be more cognizant of local situations
and of the difficulties being caused by allowing the Alaska coho
catch to affect access to Skeena River sockeye runs. An
agreement needs to be reached on a mutually acceptable reduction
of interceptions, that is, a reduction of Canadian interception
of Pacific northwest salmon stocks in return for reduced
interception of Canadian stocks in Alaska. Life is not easy on
the north coast these days and a more realistic implementation of
the Pacific Salmon Treaty would allow our people the opportunity
to earn a decent living.
Areas of western Canada have been sadly ignored by the
government, especially the northwest. Airports in Smithers,
Terrace and Prince Rupert are concerned over the proposed
reintroduction of an increased level of emergency response
services, whereas levels were reduced only a few years ago. This
highlights the concern that the federal government did not
bargain in good faith when downloading airports. Safety is
paramount, but a realistic approach to the operation of these
smaller, low traffic operations is needed to keep them
economically viable.
The airport at Terrace has been for some time attempting to have
an instrument landing system installed. Such a system would
allow 75% of the flights missed due to bad weather conditions to
actually be completed. The failure numbers exceed over 200 on an
annual basis, at huge cost to the carrier and excessive
inconvenience to the travelling public. For example, on my last
trip home, last week, after the long journey from Ottawa the
flight I was on from Vancouver to Terrace could not land. After
actually seeing the runway at Terrace we flew the 500 miles back
to Vancouver to stay overnight. Thankfully I was able to get
home the next morning but, as I explained, I actually had to fly
1,500 miles to make a 500 mile flight. It was very frustrating
for me and for the many other passengers and business people
trying to make their way to northwestern B.C.
On another topic, the number of business closures in
northwestern B.C. is another indicator of just how troubled the
economy is. Over 50 businesses have closed in the city of Prince
Rupert in the last few years. Regional rental vacancy rates
range from 20% to 75%. The cost to our employment insurance and
other social benefits is staggering, and a serious review of
programs and policies is badly needed in order to determine a
better way to meet the economic development needs and potential
of our northern communities.
Having spent most of my life in the north, I am fully aware of
the boom and bust cycles that have been so prevalent. Lately we
have seen much more of the latter, creating devastation in the
communities of the north. Recognition of the west, and
especially the northwest, must be a priority for parliament. We
want to be a part of Canada and recognized and rewarded as such,
not through handouts but through good sound decisions based on
common sense and sound economic principles.
The wealth of Canada has traditionally been generated in the
north. Government imposed restraints to developing opportunities
and creating economic well-being must end.
In closing I will get back to the legislation at hand, Bill
C-14, an act respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987, and other acts. I will
quickly summarize my comments on the bill. I recognize that the
Canada Shipping Act was in desperate need of updating and that
stakeholders as well as industry have been calling for such
amendments. However, I do not see the need to rush the
legislation through parliament. It is a large and detailed piece
of legislation needing much review and analysis, both in
committee and in the House.
I would expect that government backbench members would also want
sufficient time to review the bill's contents and consult
industry for its opinions. One sitting day between first and
second readings is absolutely insufficient time for review and
analysis of such an intricate piece of legislation.
In that regard, I lodge this complaint and send the following
message to the government: when it rushes legislation through
the House, as it has begun to do with Bill C-14, it sends the
wrong message to Canadians and to industry, a message of
arrogance and complete disregard for democratic parliamentary
procedure. It also makes one wonder what the government has to
hide and, frankly, what is wrong with the legislation that the
government needs to rush it through without proper analysis and
debate. As well, to tack on amendments to the Shipping
Conferences Exemption Act in this bill is completely
irresponsible, since the government well knows its amendments
spark much debate and controversy.
The official opposition looks forward to reviewing every detail
of this bill in committee. The government can certainly count on
that.
1250
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to
comment on Bill C-14, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
This bill modernizes the legislation that will improve the
safety and economic performance of the commercial marine
industry as well as ensure the safety of those who use pleasure
craft. Key changes to the existing legislation include
improvements to provisions to protect and support efficient
crews, ensure passenger and vessel safety and protect the
environment. A new administrative penalties scheme provides an
alternative means for dealing with certain contraventions.
The enactment clarifies the marine responsibilities of the
Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. The enactment organizes the contents, updates the
terminology and streamlines substantive requirements to make the
law much clearer and easier to understand.
The enactment amends the Shipping Conferences Act, 1987 to
inject greater competition within shipping conferences, to
streamline the administration of the act and to ensure that
Canadian legislation covering international liner shipping
conferences remains in harmony with that of Canada's major
trading partners.
There are 14 parts to this bill. The first defines certain
terms and provides details on its application.
Part 2 includes provisions with respect to the registration,
listing and recording of vessels. This part comes under the
responsibility of the Minister of Transport.
Part 3 includes provisions with respect to the qualifications
and conditions of employment of crew members. This part also
comes under the responsibility of the Department of Transport.
Part 4 includes provisions with respect to the safety of
passengers and crew members. This part also comes under the
responsibility of the Minister of Transport.
Part 5 includes provisions with respect to navigation services,
the creation of VTS zones and the obligations of vessels in
search and rescue operations. This part comes under the
responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Part 6 deals with incidents, accidents and casualties. It
determines the right to claim for salvage services, the
obligations of vessels in case of collisions and the authority
to inquire into causes of death. This part comes under the
responsibility of the Department of Transport.
Part 7 has to do with wrecks, specifically their ownership and
disposition. This part comes under the responsibility of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Part 8 determines the responsibilities of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans with respect to pollution and establishes
rules for prevention and intervention.
Part 9 determines the responsibilities of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans with respect to pollution prevention.
Part 10, which has to do with pleasure craft, comes under the
responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Part 11 concerns the application of the act and the
various powers given the Minister of Transport.
Part 12 includes a variety of provisions, including
provisions on proceedings initiated under the act.
Parts 13 and 14 contain transitional
provisions and amendments in co-ordination with other laws.
All that to say the this bill, which died on the order paper
at the last session, remains, in our opinion, a fine example of
the pointlessness of the latest federal elections. Good bills
were being studied, of course. This bill on shipping was one,
as was Bill S-2 on maritime liability.
Members have obviously understood that the government is
reintroducing, with great show, a bill that gathered dust on the
shelves of the last parliament and died on the order paper
because the federal government decided to call an election that
was too early, according to some, and unnecessary, according to
others.
I hope that the government is not waving the flags over these
bills that are bursting out in great pomp at the start of this
parliament. The work was already done. I know that my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues worked on the bill, which appears as C-14,
identical to what was introduced in the last parliament and
debated then.
1255
I must also point out the Minister of Transport said in a press
release on March 1, when this bill was introduced, that its
intent was to promote growth in the shipping industry.
Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois mentioned on a number of occasions
and reiterated its position that the only way to achieve this
objective of promoting economic growth in the shipping industry
was to establish a real federal shipbuilding policy and to act
in support of the shipbuilding industry.
There is nothing in this bill, which is a carbon copy of the
legislation introduced in the last parliament, to support the
shipbuilding industry. We, the members of the Bloc Quebecois,
have made numerous representations to indicate that the industry
is experiencing serious difficulties all across Canada.
Shipbuilding used to be a thriving industry. Today, it is only
operating at 25% of its capacity. This means that millions of
dollars are not being invested in the regions, and that has
significant impact, particularly where there is a shipyard, such
as in Lévis, on Île-aux-Coudres and in Les Méchins.
Shipbuilding has become a high tech sector that creates
thousands of well paid jobs. However, the number of these jobs
keeps decreasing. There are currently 2,750 people working in
the sector, compared to over 12,000 at one time.
Canada's shipbuilding industry urgently requires new support
measures. Canada must be able to face international competition
and better position itself in this respect.
The frequent media reports on the problems at the Lévis shipyard
may give the impression that this shipyard is the only one
experiencing difficulties. We can see, both in Vancouver and
in Halifax, the lack of federal involvement. The Lévis shipyard
is but one example of the federal government's laissez-faire
approach in the industry. The fact that all Canadian shipyards
are experiencing problems and are already operating below
capacity confirms the need for a true federal shipbuilding
policy.
Here are the elements that are to the advantage of Canada's
shipbuilding industry and that justify federal assistance to
that industry.
First, Canada's manpower is qualified and less costly than that
of most competing countries.
Second, the majority of Canadian shipyards use very modern
equipment and advanced technology: two of them meet the ISO-9001
standard, while four meet the ISO-9002 standard.
Third, shipyard managers and other stakeholders in the industry
have felt for at least ten years that the federal government has
abandoned them and they claim that they are penalized compared
to other sectors, including the aerospace industry.
Fourth, with direct access to three oceans and to the world's
longest inland waterway, shipbuilders and shipowners wonder why
Canada chose to let the industry down.
Fifth, marine transportation is the most economical and
environmentally friendly means of transportation.
Sixth, a number of shipyards are surviving at the present time
because of provincial government intervention, although this is
an area of federal jurisdiction. Quebec has tax measures,
including a tax credit; Nova Scotia has a specific program of
financial guarantees; and British Columbia has encouraged the
acceleration of its aluminum ferry program.
Seventh, Canada's shipbuilding industry is at a disadvantage
compared to its Asian competitors who receive government
subsidies of up to 30% of the amount of their contracts, the
Europeans who receive about 9%, and the Americans who benefit
from protectionist measures. Yet Canada has neither subsidies
nor protectionist measures; we have missed the boat.
On October 14, 1999, the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière introduced a private member's bill,
Bill C-213, on shipbuilding. His bill provided a clear
illustration of the framework required to assist the
shipbuilding industry, as indeed it must be assisted. It drew
upon the consensual demands from the various stakeholders in the
industry, from the unions to the Shipbuilding Association of
Canada.
1300
Believe it or not, the Liberal government succeeded in declaring
Bill C-213 non-votable. This bill, intended as it was to promote
shipbuilding in Canada and to enhance the competitive capacity
of Canadian shipyards, was deferred and struck from the order
paper by the government of the Liberal party.
Today, I would like to list the advantages that were offered by
Bill C-213 and continue to be concerns for the industry and the
major stakeholders.
First, Bill C-213 called for a loan and loan guarantee program,
something for which the Bloc Quebecois is still calling.
Canada's shipbuilding industry everywhere ought to be able to
benefit from loan guarantees.
More specifically, the bill called for the establishment of a
program whereby a maximum of 87.5% of the money borrowed by a
company from financial institutions to purchase a commercial
ship that would be built in a shipyard located in Canada would
be guaranteed by the federal government in the event of default
in the repayment of the loan, bear a rate of interest comparable
to that available for loans from financial institutions to large
and financially strong corporations, and be repayable on terms
comparable to those usually granted by financial institutions to
large and financially strong corporations for the repayment of
their loan. Therefore, nothing beyond what other major
industries in Canada could claim was asked.
Second, Bill C-213 sought to have new vessels excluded from the
lend-lease regulations.
Revenue Canada's lend-lease regulations eliminate lend-lease
purchase of ships in Canada. Revenue Canada significantly
reduces the amounts that may be deducted annually from taxable
revenue as depreciation in the case of lend-lease financing.
Under the terms of lend-lease, only the notional principal of the
loan may enter into the calculation of the depreciation.
As interest primarily is repaid in the first years of the lease,
the depreciation permitted is minimal. It is therefore carried
over from the first years to the final years of the useful life
of the ship, something that runs contrary to the economic
realities of the owner operator, whose major expenses come
primarily in the first years, with things improving in the final
years.
By increasing from the outset the tax burden of shipowners who
use the lend-lease option, Revenue Canada's lend-lease regulations
make it rather unappealing if not squarely uneconomic to use a
lend-lease option to buy and finance a ship built in Canada. More
specifically, the bill proposed to amend the provisions of the
Income Tax Act and of its regulations to make tax provisions on
lend-lease more beneficial when buying a ship built by a shipyard
located in Canada.
The third major component of Bill C-213 was the creation of a
refundable tax credit as asked, again, by stakeholders and the
industry.
In 1997, the government of Quebec announced tax incentives to
stimulate the shipping industry. These incentives are based on a
tax credit that the federal government should use as a model.
The Quebec government raised the refundable tax credit for
shipbuilding, around since 1996, from 40% to 50%. It also
introduced a tax credit for the conversion or major refitting of
ships, and it extended this measure to oil rigs, in addition to
making some adjustments to the measure to reduce capital taxes.
The Quebec tax policy is essentially based on a tax credit.
Eligible expenses include primarily salaries relating to the
building of a ship, drawings and specifications, and also half
of the costs of contracts relating to construction. This tax
credit amounts to 50% of eligible expenses, but it cannot exceed
by more than 20% the costs at the end of a taxation year that
have been incurred to build the ship.
A tax credit for similar eligible expenses is also provided for
the conversion or major refitting of ships.
The Liberal government refuses to harmonize federal tax measures
with those of Quebec, as it agreed to do, among others, for the
motion picture and television production industry. By taxing
provincial tax benefits granted to the shipbuilding industry,
Ottawa eliminates the positive effect of the deductions granted
by Quebec to stimulate the industry. Not only does Ottawa not
bother to come up with more beneficial measures, it also
adversely affects the policy put forward by the Quebec government.
People often say “If you are not able to help, quit always
making matters worse”. That is what the federal government is
doing right now: it is not helping the industry and it is
making matters worse for this industry where Quebec's tax credit
is concerned.
1305
Bill C-213 specifically suggested amending the provisions of the
Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations in order to allow
owners of vessels and shipyards a refundable tax credit for a
portion of the costs relating to the construction or refit of a
commercial ship in a shipyard located in Canada or the
conversion of a ship in such a shipyard. Under Bill C-213,
these people could have obtained tax credits.
Once again, I repeat, the Liberal government decided to reject
this bill. It will not debate it and there will not be a vote.
This wonderful initiative by the brilliant Bloc Quebecois member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has therefore been put off
indefinitely. It will not be used by the government. Once
again, the Government of Canada is passing up a wonderful
opportunity to breathe new life into the shipbuilding industry,
which was the pride of Canada and which is now operating at only
25% of its capacity.
Although the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the reference of Bill
C-14 to committee for discussion, we regret that the government
did not take the opportunity to re-examine this text which had
already been considered in the last parliament and which
involved no work on the government's part. It could at least
have used the opportunity to add a complete chapter on
assistance for shipbuilding, which would have eased the plight
of this industry in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me a great deal of pleasure to say a few words today about
Bill C-14, the Canada Shipping Act.
The minister's press release when he introduced the bill stated
that the bill would update, modernize and streamline Canada's
marine law, and that it would clarify the roles of the Department
of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister indicated that the bill would allow the entire
marine community to operate in a manner that is safer, more
efficient, environmentally sound and responsive to the needs of
Canadians in a global community and in a global economy. Those
are aims that we in this party can support.
The Canada Shipping Act also promotes the safety and economic
performance of the marine industry and ensures the safety of
those who use pleasure craft. Key changes include improvements
to provisions that protect and support crews, ensure passenger
and vessel safety, and protect the marine environment from damage
due to navigation and shipping activities. We support all those
aims and objectives as well. We hope the bill will be able to
fulfil what it maintains it will.
The government claims it has consulted widely with all the
stakeholders in the development of the Canada Shipping Act.
Generally speaking that is very good since often we see
legislation come before the House and pass without consultation
with the people most directly affected by it.
The bill amends the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987.
Shipping conferences, as we are all aware, are composed of groups
of shipping lines operating collectively under an agreement to
provide scheduled service on specific trade routes based on
agreed rates and services.
Conferences play an important role in Canada's foreign trade by
providing stability and reliability in shipping services for
Canadian shippers, importers and exporters.
1310
The proposed amendments to the Shipping Conferences Exemption
Act, 1987 are designed to encourage greater competition and
generally streamline the administration of the act. The
amendments are to be supported because they bring the legislation
more in line with that of our major shipping partners.
As I stated earlier, the Canada Shipping Act clarifies the roles
of Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
That is very important and should not be lost on the maritime
community. From now on the Department of Transport will be
responsible for all commercial vessels regardless of size.
Previously, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans handled
matters with regard to small commercial vessels.
The Department of Transport will now create an automated small
vessel registry tailored to the needs of small commercial
vessels, that is vessels under 12 metres in length which will not
require a tonnage measurement certificate.
That will be a change for many fishermen in Newfoundland and
Labrador because many of our commercial fishing vessels are under
35 feet in length. While most people consider vessels of that
size to be inshore fishing vessels, the reality in Newfoundland
waters is that many of these vessels fish, especially for crab,
in waters that are more than 100 miles offshore.
The current rules of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will
not allow fishermen with certain types of fishing licences to
lengthen or build larger boats. Given the fierce competition for
very limited fish and crab resources, that has meant that many
small inshore vessels operate in waters far offshore at
considerable risk to life and limb.
I would be curious to know if the transport department is aware
of these facts and if it intends to make any changes. I realize
that vessel size restrictions have to do with the control of
fishing licences and the conservation of fish stocks, but reality
has outstripped theory in that area. Simply put, we have too
many vessels under 35 feet in length fishing in waters too far
offshore. I would contend that safety, in addition to fisheries
conservation, must be a major consideration here.
I also hope the new vessel registry will not become a
bureaucratic nightmare for fishermen and small tour boat
operators who must comply with the requirements of the act. We
are all too familiar with the long gun registry system which was
supposed to be simple and efficient in its operation. We all
know what can occur on the journey between theory and reality.
Bill C-14 introduces new enforcement tools of an administrative
nature, monetary penalties and assurances of compliance with
Transport Canada retaining the right to prosecute if necessary.
The theory is that enforcement practice will eliminate the need
to go to court in all but the most critical of cases. Central to
the enforcement approach will be the appointment of an
adjudicator who will have the power to review administrative
decisions by the minister that impose penalties or affect the
status of documents issued by the minister.
In this case I hope the appointment of an adjudicator will not
be done in any sort of partisan way. It is essential that people
holding these offices be seen as experts in the field. To date,
the record of the government in making appointments has been very
partisan. I hope that will not be the case here.
1315
Under Bill C-14, the department of fisheries, through the
Canadian Coast Guard, will continue its responsibility for marine
communication and tracking services, marine navigational aids,
search and rescue, shipwreck, and pollution prevention and
response. DFO will derive powers from the act to protect
shipwrecks of historical significance in Canadian waters. The
department of fisheries will also maintain its current
responsibility for all aspects of pleasure craft, including
construction standards, safety equipment, licensing and the
discharge of sewage.
I assume that the splitting of jurisdictions between the
transport department and DFO meets with the approval of all
stakeholders involved. If not, I am sure I will be informed by
the fishermen's union and other representatives of the
Newfoundland fishing industry. If they have major concerns there
will be further opportunity in committee to seek clarification or
amendments to the bill.
The bottom line on Bill C-14 is that it is to modernize Canada's
shipping legislation and make its shipping conference legislation
more compatible with that of our major trading partners. I have
no problem with that and I generally support the thrust of the
legislation.
Earlier when I referenced Transport Canada's new small vessel
registry, I pointed out my concern about the size and safety of
Newfoundland's small fishing vessels which operate long distances
offshore. I have another couple of concerns.
As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Coast Guard will have
jurisdiction over marine traffic and pollution. To help with
that, the armed forces maritime patrol aircraft have been used
extensively to patrol waters inside our 200 mile limit. The
recent news from the defence department that the number of
flights will be reduced was not well received in Atlantic Canada.
I would ask the parliamentary assistant to take that concern to
the Minister of Transport. Having jurisdiction over pollution is
one thing; being informed of high seas polluters in a timely
manner is another. There are rules in the bill about the
discharge of waste at sea, but all the rules in the world will
not help if we lose the ability to keep track of polluters.
The federal government's recent cutting back of the number of
Aurora aircraft doing patrolled surveillance, especially around
the Atlantic Canada area, did nothing to help what the Minister
of Transport is trying to do in the bill. As I said earlier, we
can have all the fancy rules and regulations we want contained in
a bill, but if we do not have enforcement backup and enforcement
potential then everything we say in a bill like this is all for
naught.
We have to keep track of these high seas polluters. Every year
thousands if not tens of thousands of seabirds wash ashore.
Invariably they are covered in oil. However, most of the
casualties among our fish and waterfowl populations do not come
from the dramatic breakup of an oil tanker at sea, although we
see that reported a lot in the news. An oil tanker breaks up at
sea and then for days and days the media will cover how
waterfowl, seals and birds of all kinds are being washed ashore
covered in oil.
1320
However, most of the casualties among our fish and waterfowl do
not occur because oil tankers happen to break up at sea. Most of
the damage is done quietly at sea by these unscrupulous sea
captains, these bandits, these pirates, flushing their bilges at
sea in contravention of the act. We need more surveillance
flights around the Grand Banks area, not less. The Grand Banks
happens to be the most environmentally sensitive area in the
world for fish spawning.
However, here we have the federal government coming in with a
bill that talks about polluters and pollution at sea when two
weeks ago we had an announcement by the minister of defence in
which he said the government was cutting back on patrols in these
very areas, that it was cutting back on Aurora aircraft. What
kind of scam and sham is that? We can have all kinds of fancy
bills coming into the House, but if we have one department
working against the other department they serve no purpose
whatsoever.
These unscrupulous sea captains have to be caught and dealt with
in regard to all the damage they have done. They have to be
brought into the courts and fines have to be doubled and tripled.
The penalties have to be doubled and tripled for people who do
that kind of thing. We are needing more surveillance, not less,
as the minister of defence is cutting back on the number of
aircraft patrolling the waters.
The Canada Shipping Act can contain all the best intentions in
the world and can promote modern enforcement methods, but if we
cannot in a timely manner catch these people in the act, it has
no effect at all. After all, these people are out there in
ships, not rockets. We should be able to catch a big oil tanker
that is plying the waters around the Grand Banks in Newfoundland
and blowing its bilges at sea. We should be able to catch these
people in a timely manner by using aircraft, but how can we do it
when the minister of defence has cut back on the number of
patrols?
As I said a moment ago, we can have all kinds of well meaning
legislation but if it is ineffective then there is not much point
in bringing it in here.
Another concern I have is that although we are busy updating and
modernizing our shipping legislation, most of the ships doing the
shipping are built elsewhere in the world. After World War II, I
believe Canada had the third largest navy in the world after the
United States and Great Britain. During those years we were
heavily involved in supplying Britain and Europe with war
supplies by sea. We had a lot of ships and we built a lot of
ships, but not any more. Canada's shipbuilding policy is
virtually non-existent.
I am saddened that as a trading nation we are not maximizing our
shipbuilding potential. That is too bad because we have a lot of
potential in the country with which to develop a great
shipbuilding nation. The current Minister of Industry has
undertaken to do a review of this. I sincerely hope he comes up
with something practical, something quick, and something soon as
many of our shipyards are pretty well on their last legs.
It is a disgrace that a trading nation like Canada, with all of
its ports and its endless coastlines, does not have a modern,
competitive shipbuilding industry.
1325
I support this legislation the minister has brought in today. I
hope the minister will pay some attention to some of the concerns
I have raised, especially as they pertain to the enforcement of
the act, to polluters at sea and to the unscrupulous seagoing
captains who blow their bilges at sea. I sincerely hope that the
Minister of Transport, with the Minister of National Defence, can
develop some kind of enforcement policy to make sure that these
people are held accountable for the deeds they become involved
in.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I was very impressed with the detailed knowledge the
hon. member demonstrated in his remarks with respect to the bill
before the House, Bill C-14. The demonstration of his knowledge
of the shipping industry, shipbuilding and marine life on the
east coast was beneficial for all of us, particularly his advice
for the Minister of Transport. I congratulate him for that.
I would like to ask him about a particular part of the bill
which apparently now includes an amendment that was not there
when the bill was presented sometime last year, I believe. I am
referring to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act. I notice
that this particular addition to the bill is really an add-on. It
looks almost as if it is sort of tacked on, as if somebody had a
bright idea and thought that maybe the government had better put
this in there because it wanted to get this thing done.
I would like to ask him if he could address some remarks to that
particular part of the bill, which really suggests that some of
the amendments do not in fact meet the concerns and wishes of the
stakeholders involved in the shipping industry. In fact, some of
them are suggesting that many of those controls now being
suggested in that particular part of the bill should in fact be
reviewed so that they could have greater freedom to enter into
contracts directly with shipping companies and also with
shipping.
Could the hon. member refer to that part of the bill and give us
some advice?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question and sincerely wish I could give him some advice
in that area. I myself have been waiting to get the bill before
committee in order to delve into a number of these areas. A
number of people in the shipbuilding industry have contacted me
recently with respect to some of these exemptions the hon. member
is talking about.
Shipping conferences, as we are all aware, are composed of
groups of shipping lines which operate collectively under an
agreement to provide scheduled services on these trade routes
based on agreed rates. I understand that some of the people
involved in the shipping industry are very concerned about that
and want to talk about it. I would have been a little more
detailed in my remarks in that area if I knew anything more that
I could impart to the hon. gentleman. However, I do not and I am
waiting to get before committee myself to have a go at this with
the minister and to satisfy the concerns of the people who have
contacted me in regard to this.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to get the hon. member to expand a little
on one of the things he alluded to, which was the environment and
how this bill would help protect our marine environment. This
bill was designed to come into line with what the Americans are
doing.
1330
Would the member comment on whether he thinks it brings us up to
par or is better than what they are doing and indeed deals with
the issue of protecting our marine environment?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I have been reading over
the bill and I think the minister has good intentions in trying
to protect the environment. I sincerely hope the parliamentary
secretary will bring the minister up to speed on some of the
things I have said here today.
We can have all the good intentions we want with respect to the
bill, but if we do not have the enforcement capability to protect
the environment in the way it should be protected the bill is
simply of no use whatsoever.
I am glad the hon. member has given me the opportunity to hammer
home the point. Prior to the minister introducing the bill in
the House of Commons, the Minister of National Defence, only a
few weeks ago, cut back on Aurora aircraft surveillance in
Atlantic Canada.
We have many instances where ocean going tankers are blowing
their bilges at sea. We do not have the ability to catch them in
the act. Therefore it is very difficult to convict them in a
court of law.
We should have that ability. It should be a fairly easy thing
for us to do. I know we have hundreds of thousands of miles of
coastline. If we cut back on our ability to catch polluters that
are blowing their bilges at sea and are causing all kinds of
difficulties for seabirds and water fowl of every kind, we would
essentially have an act that does not have the necessary teeth to
enforce these laws.
I sincerely hope the Minister of Transport and the Minister of
National Defence will be able to come together and get some kind
of co-operation going between the two departments to allow us to
catch these people. What is a good act if it cannot be enforced?
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the detail
and passion with which the hon. member spoke. Coming from
Atlantic Canada, he is very concerned about marine environment,
and rightly so.
The member continually referred to the Grand Banks. Could he
tell us if he feels this is a concern of equal weight in all
parts of the country? He mentioned the overblowing of problems
with the breakup of oil tankers at sea as compared to other
problems he outlined in some detail.
On the west coast we have shipping lines that take tankers
fairly close to our shore. I am not sure they have the same
problem on the east coast. Does he think the bill gives equal
consideration to both shores? Should there be some differential
to deal with differing problems on the east coast versus the west
coast?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I think the member makes a
very good point. Canadians from all parts of the country are
very concerned when it comes to pollution and to protecting our
environment. There is no less concern in the west than there
would be in the east for this kind of thing.
I mentioned the Grand Banks in particular because it is a world
fishing resource. That area off the coast of Newfoundland has
some of the most sensitive spawning areas in the world.
Tankers are passing that way almost on a daily basis and are
doing damage. They have very little concern for the environment
when they blow their bilges at sea, to which I have referred on a
couple of occasions in debate.
1335
All Canadians are concerned about that kind of activity. They
want the minister to put teeth in the bill to ensure that the
people who are responsible are brought to justice.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity
to speak to Bill C-14, the Canada Shipping Act.
I would have liked to have been able to put some questions to
the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke earlier on the
bill. I thank him for restoring my faith a little in the Bloc
Quebecois after that diatribe from his colleague this morning on
Bill C-233. I was shocked and I thought surely those members do
not do this on everything. I felt that perhaps they were
slipping away. He has partially restored my faith by sticking to
the subject and speaking with great passion and interest on
something that has certainly a big impact on his province.
The bill is really two bills in one. It sounds like one of
those old Doublemint chewing gum TV commercials. We get two for
our money. First, there is the Canada Shipping Act which is an
old bill. Like many things the government has done in the past,
it brings forward legislation and tells us when it is introduced
that it is so important that the House must get going. It is so
concerned about its legislation and feels it is so urgent to get
it through that it has brought in closure 70 times since I have
been in the House.
In the past the government brought forward a lot of legislation
like the Canada Shipping Act. It has come forward with
legislation and then diddle around with it until the clock ran
out. It would either prorogue the House to get rid of
legislation it knew was bad and was embarrassed by or, as it has
done twice since I have been here, prematurely call an election
which also torpedoed its own bills.
I cannot say I blame the government. Some of its bills are
pretty bad and should be torpedoed. If I may use an analogy, it
is interesting to use torpedo when we are talking about a
shipping act. I have to be careful because we have enough
problems with our shipping act right now without starting to talk
about things of that nature.
As I have mentioned, the bill has two parts. One is the Canada
Shipping Act which is regulatory in nature. The other one is the
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act which is primarily a financial
consideration. This was what the hon. member spoke to at some
length. Coming from Quebec he mentioned his concern about
shipbuilding, about trying to get more ships built in Canada or
at least in his province, and having better tax flows in Quebec
and from the federal government toward the shipbuilding industry.
Certainly we want to see it preserved in British Columbia. He
did make one particular reference to shipbuilding in British
Columbia that I will come back to in a couple of minutes.
The Shipping Conferences Exemption Act is primarily financial in
nature. It is something we should look at, particularly with
regard to Quebec and funding for shipbuilding there. Part of the
problem of getting funding is the collection of taxes and since
this is the shipping act we should be looking at the shipping
industry.
In Quebec there is a company known as Canada Steamship Lines
which ironically is owned by our own Minister of Finance. He is
one of the principals in this company. It is a very big company,
a huge company with tremendous assets.
1340
I would imagine that taxation on those assets would provide
tremendous revenues for the federal government. Hopefully in its
compassion it would provide some to Quebec and other regions to
help with the shipbuilding industry. Canadians should be very
proud of our shipbuilding industry, which is slowly slipping away
from us.
As the hon. member stated, Quebec is putting quite a bit of
money into this area already. There are many demands on tax
dollars as we all know. Whenever Quebec does that, it is
draining it from other areas where it perhaps would like to use
it. Is it not ironic that the man in charge of raising taxes,
who has such a wonderful asset located in the province of Quebec,
has all those ships registered in other countries so that no
taxes are paid on them in Quebec and in Canada? I was hoping to
have the opportunity to ask the hon. member if he felt that was
fair.
Before we start talking about the Shipping Conferences Exemption
Act, we should examine some of the exemptions that we already
have. We have a Canadian based company that has all its ships
registered in foreign ports to specifically avoid paying fair
taxes in Canada toward the very industry that spawned those ships
that are hidden away in foreign ports. I would love to hear the
hon. member's comments on that. Perhaps under questions and
comments he may be able to shed some light on his feelings in
that regard.
The hon. member also mentioned British Columbia when talking
about shipbuilding which has a great shipbuilding industry as
well. We are very proud of it. Some tremendous ships have been
built and there is the capacity to continue doing so long into
the future. Certainly we like to be diversified in British
Columbia. We have some problems out there right now, aside from
government, in terms of employment, our industry and our economy.
If one flies over the province of British Columbia one may
wonder if there are any towns, particularly in the interior. All
one sees are forests. We are a province covered in great stands
of timber. My region particularly has a very forestry dependent
economy. We have had a great deal of trouble in our province
because of the softwood lumber quota system. It has been
absolutely devastating.
As we come to the end of the five year term we are now looking
at the possibility of trade wars. The Americans have basically
put us on notice that they intend to put countervailing duties in
place, tariffs, to devastate an industry upon which British
Columbia depends.
It would be excellent to get our shipbuilding industry and many
other things going to diversify the economy in British
Columbia and to soften at least some of the impact we will likely
look at because of future problems with softwood lumber.
Notwithstanding that we have gone through the World Trade
Organization's dispute settlement mechanisms three times to deal
with the fact that Americans are making false claims against our
product in British Columbia, they still end up threatening to do
it yet again. It is very expensive for both the government and
the industry to deal with these charges. I would like to see the
shipbuilding industry flourish in British Columbia.
When the hon. member mentioned shipbuilding in British Columbia
he made specific reference to ongoing aluminum shipbuilding,
which is a bit of a sore point to British Columbians right now.
The notorious aluminum shipbuilding involved the provincial
government building three aluminum fast ferries to serve as a
link between the mainland and Vancouver Island. Notwithstanding
the incredible abilities and dedication of the shipbuilding
industry in British Columbia, they were a tremendous anomaly.
These things were an unmitigated disaster.
I spoke earlier about the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act
being financial in nature. We will probably never know the final
figure, but the aluminum ferries the government saw fit to build
have blown somewhere between half a billion and a billion
dollars.
1345
Do we know where the ferries are? They are tied up. The
government is trying to sell them. The last I heard, it was
trying to get $35 million for them. There are a lot of people in
British Columbia who feel so incensed about this that they came
to me with an idea as to how we can deal with it. They suggested
that rather than trying to sell the ferries, even for $35
million, we should donate them to the government of British
Columbia because it is about to be outgoing. As it has its final
caucus meeting it might consider getting on board one of the
ferries and heading west at a high rate of speed. We will see
how sound they are once they get out on the open ocean.
I apologize to the hon. member from the Conservative Party. I
realize it is a different type of pollution that we would be
sending into the marine environment, but I hope he would agree
that it might be a worthy exemption for this and perhaps we can
let it go. Maybe it would not be quite as bilious as an oil
slick. If it is we will need to boom it up, chain it up, take it
away and hope that it never comes back again.
Another thing I am concerned about is that the bill is being
rammed through in such a hurry. The government, as I mentioned
earlier, has used closure so many times to rush forward bills and
here is yet another one it is rushing forward. As the hon.
member from the Conservative Party said, there are so many other
things that need to be done, both in conjunction with this and
with other issues entirely.
In terms of defence, at a time when we are talking about marine
safety and the environment and doing a better job of looking
after our oceans and our coastlines, the government is cutting
down on patrols by the military off our coasts to ensure there is
enforcement of our regulations and that the coastline is properly
protected.
It is a little hard to do some of the things that are necessary
in the marine environment with some of the equipment we have
provided to our military. Sea King helicopters are a prime
example. It would be appropriate if perhaps the Liberal caucus
one day arranged for a little tour over the ocean, in rough
weather, ideally, so it could get a sense of what it is really
like in a Sea King helicopter. I think that would be good for a
variety of reasons. I will let your imagination decide what the
possible advantages might be.
There are so many other things that are such a priority to
Canadians that one must wonder why the government is rushing
forth with a bill like this. The bill failed before because the
government let it sit there. It had the opportunity to bring it
forward but obviously it was not a priority for it. It did the
same thing with the Young Offenders Act.
From 1997 right up until the election call the Minister of
Justice said that the Young Offenders Act was her highest
priority. My God, if that is her highest priority I would hate
to think what her low priorities are. Somehow this bill is a
priority for the Liberal government when there are still things
like the Young Offenders Act to be dealt with.
There are things like the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. This morning we talked about a simple amendment that could
make it much better but the government has absolutely no patience
for a good amendment that was put forward by my colleague from
Surrey North. It just wants to rush forward with something like
this, which it obviously thinks has a much higher priority than
the basic rights of victims. I think that is rather shameful.
We have organized crime in the country, particularly in Quebec.
We talked about it this morning. The hon. member from Quebec,
who talked about the Canada Shipping Act, is, I am sure, also
concerned about organized crime. It is a problem in the province
of Quebec and all across the country. Why is the government not
bringing forward legislation that deals with organized crime as a
priority instead of Bill C-14? It is sometimes very confusing as
to what the government is really concerned about.
When we start talking about the marine system, the ports
themselves are very much affected by federal legislation dealing
with labour. We have had ports shut down on both our coasts. We
have had them in labour strikes in Quebec. What does the
government do about labour strikes? It waits until the whole
thing shuts down. As if our poor farmers on the prairies do not
have enough problems, if a port on either the east coast or west
coast is closed down they are devastated. As bad off as they are
now, they are 100 times worse off after a port gets shut down.
1350
The government has done absolutely nothing to introduce
legislation that would put into place some form of dispute
settlement mechanism to ensure a fair settlement for workers in
the ports and other places without having a labour disruption
that is devastating to people all across the country. It is
absolutely shameful. It is puzzling why the government is in
such a rush with this bill when it is passing up on many other
areas as well.
This bill is a transport issue put out by the Minister of
Transport. What about the other things in transport that need to
be dealt with? We are talking about regulations to make the
marine environment a lot safer.
The hon. member from the Conservative Party talked about
environmental issues. He specifically mentioned the freighters
that flush their tanks out in the ocean and what a despicable
thing that is. However VIA Rail, the government owned passenger
rail system, has no holding tanks in any of its passenger rail
cars. As they travel down the track, everything goes straight out
onto the tracks.
There have been a lot of complaints already from workers from
both CN and CP who work on the rails. They are very concerned
about their safety because of what they must in some cases work
in on the rails, which is quite disgusting, and the environmental
problems that it brings forth. Never mind the poor fishermen on
the river underneath a train trestle as a VIA Rail passenger
train happens to go over it. That makes quite a statement. It
is almost applicable coming from the Liberal government. I hear
them firing up now. It is a kind of statement on that poor
fisherman, “You-know-what on you”. There are so many things
the minister could be working on instead of this bill.
Air Canada is an irony for both the east and west coast. We
have regulatory agencies right now telling Air Canada it cannot
cut its fares as much as it has done to certain parts of Atlantic
Canada because it is anti-competitive. Ironically, at the same
time they are telling Air Canada it must stop gouging British
Columbians so much and that it must cut fares on some of its
routes because it is overpricing and gouging Canadians.
Where is the regulation to deal with that? That is much more
harmful to Canadians right across the country at this time. We
need a general overhaul of the air regulatory system. Much of
this bill is regulatory in nature. When there are so many things
of a regulatory nature that need to done, why are we focusing so
much time on this one while disregarding all the other things
that need to be done?
The bill certainly deals with some issues that have worth. We
think there could be a lot of improvements. As we have pointed
out to many people, we do not write the legislation. Any
legislation we ever get, good or bad, must come from the
government. There is no other way. Sure, we can try a private
member's bill, but we saw what happened this morning on that. The
hon. member for Surrey North came out with a very good piece of
potential legislation that was slapped down and made non-votable.
Therefore, it automatically dies no matter how good the arguments
that are brought forward.
We must live with legislation brought forward by the government
any time something needs to be changed. If we need a change to
the Young Offenders Act we need a piece of legislation from the
government, even if it is bad. We need that to be the impetus to
get us to start. We can then try two things, as we will do with
this bill. We can first bring the attention of the public to the
shortcomings of the bill. We can consult with the public, find
out their concerns and listen to the changes they think are
necessary. Once the bill gets to committee we can ensure
that a consultative process goes on and that, ideally, the
government listens to what comes in.
I have always found this an irony in the past. I remember one
transport bill where over 100 witnesses appeared before the
committee. There was a clause dealing with the dispute
settlement mechanism that most witnesses found offensive. It
happened on the Canada Transportation Act. I do not know the
exact number, but over 90% of the witnesses who came forward were
very clear that they did not want that clause in the agreement
and he government ignored them. This begs me to ask why it
bothered to consult. Why did it spend all the money and waste
the time of this parliament consulting if it does not listen to
what Canadians say?
1355
We will support getting the bill through second reading so it
gets to committee, where we hope the government will do the
consultative process. We hope this time it will also listen to
people who come forward to point out things that need to be
changed in the bill, and that it will support the amendments no
matter where they come from.
The government can bring in its own amendments or accept our
amendments, but it should recognize that we are not here for
partisan purposes. Once bills get back to the House they are
here to serve Canadians, and we need to do that together. I hope
government members will work with us in committee to ensure that
the bills and the legislation reflect the needs and wishes of
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in response to my representations and speech earlier,
my Alliance colleague asked me a question on guidelines and on
all that does not appear in the bill and, among other things,
with regard to shipbuilding, why the government has not analyzed
the tax havens available to shipowners in all this concept. I
think this is a very interesting idea.
According to what my Alliance colleague told me, we must
understand that, concerning the industry of the shipowners, the
Minister of Finance apparently has investments in the business.
I hope it is not embarrassment that is preventing him from
investing and having the Government of Canada give tax credits
to shipbuilding.
As I was saying earlier, shipbuilding in Canada is operating at
25% capacity. The Canadian economy is doing without millions
and millions of dollars because the Government of Canada has
decided not to support this industry. The governments of
Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia decided to support the
shipbuilding industry in Canada by giving it tax or other forms
of credit.
My colleague from the Alliance is exactly right. The shipowners
should, through taxes due the provinces and the Government of
Canada, do their part in the revival of shipbuilding.
I hope that, if our research went deeper, we would not realize
that companies belonging to Canadian shipowners are having ships
built in Asia, for example, where they are getting investment
credits of 30% more than what they would get in Canada. In
Europe, the industry gets 9% in government support.
I hope that we would not discover that Canadian shipowners are
having ships built outside the country, where the industry is
subsidized, because—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, but it is time now to proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
JUNO AWARDS
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on March 4, the 30th annual Canadian Juno Awards were presented.
The Juno Awards showcase Canada's musical talent and the cultural
diversity and linguistic duality which is Canada's cultural
hallmark.
Canada has a rich chorus of musical voices across all genres and
from all regions of the country. Critically acclaimed artists,
such as Bruce Cockburn, The Guess Who, Nelly Furtado, Lara
Fabian, Jann Arden, Wide Mouth Mason, The Barenaked Ladies,
Ginette Reno, Terri Clark, Paul Brandt, The Wilkinsons, Joni
Mitchell, The Tragically Hip, Florant Vollant and Sue Foley, are
a testament to Canada's rich talent base which is known the world
over.
CARAS has just issued a four CD collection of Canadian music,
Oh What A Feeling 2, in commemoration of the 30th
anniversary of the Juno Awards. Proceeds from this collection
will go to charity. I encourage all Canadians to purchase a set.
* * *
1400
MUSEUMS
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, over the past few years veteran groups and private
donors have been raising money for a new war museum to be built
at the former Rockcliffe air station. Right beside the aviation
museum and the national military cemetery, this site is a perfect
location. At 35 acres it would have ample space to store and
display the museum's vast collection of tanks, artillery and even
a submarine.
However, just three years before its scheduled completion, the
government has now unexpectedly decided to switch locations to
LeBreton Flats, which is half the size. This change in plans
will not only delay the opening by years but will also
significantly reduce the outdoor display area and likely double
the original $80 million price tag.
Would it not be wiser to stick with the original plan, which
would give us a bigger and better space sooner and without
wastefully spending another $80 million? Perhaps the heritage
minister could explain this persistent Liberal habit of spending
more to get less.
* * *
COMMONWEALTH DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I invite Canadians to celebrate Commonwealth Day.
This year marks the 52nd year of the creation of the
Commonwealth, an association built upon common traditions, a
shared language and, most important, a shared commitment to
fundamental principles of human rights and democracy.
The theme for this year's celebration is “A New Generation”.
The theme was chosen to cast the spotlight on the youth of the
Commonwealth and on the challenges and unprecedented
opportunities that our rapidly changing world offers them.
The combined population of the Commonwealth is about 1.7
billion, half of whom are under the age of 30. Our challenge
will be to ensure that these young people benefit not only from
this period of tremendous growth and change but also from
strengthened links across the Commonwealth and strengthened
democratic institutions at home.
Let us celebrate Commonwealth Day as a symbol of this diverse
yet close knit community of which Canada is a strong and
committed member.
* * *
KYLE CHALLENGE 2001
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to recognize a special 12 year old in Kitchener
Centre. Kyle Stevens has never been afraid of a challenge. On a
skateboard, a snowboard or a mountain bike, Kyle is ready for
anything.
This past December Kyle faced what may be the challenge of his
life. He was diagnosed with leukemia and has since embarked on a
three year treatment of blood transfusions, chemotherapy and
radiation.
However, true to his upbeat spirit, Kyle has launched the Kyle
Challenge 2001, which is a three part community campaign. First,
Kyle is on his way to recruiting 2,001 blood donors. Second, he
is fundraising to collect donations to benefit Camp Trillium, a
summer camp for young cancer patients. To date over $3,000 have
been collected. Third, Kyle is hoping his fighting spirit is
contagious and is inviting Canadians to embark on personal
challenges in his name.
Kyle will not be out there pushing the limits this year, so we
can do it on his behalf. Whether it is shooting goals for Kyle
or volunteering at a soup kitchen, I encourage everyone to share
in the Kyle 2001 Challenge. Check out his website at
www.kyle2001challenge.com.
* * *
POTATO INDUSTRY
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is now
day 152 since potato wart was discovered in the corner of one
field on Prince Edward Island. CFIA and the industry immediately
established proof that this was an isolated case and that our
potatoes meet all the requirements for movement.
However, since that time potato producers have seen their
product illegally kept out of the United States market and have
had very little in the way of a firm indication of federal
financial support. Retaliatory action at the border by Canada
has not occurred.
The question Islanders want answered is why. On softwood lumber
the federal government is quite prepared to take the fight to the
U.S. We as a country are right on that issue and the United
States is wrong. The same standards should apply to potatoes.
It is time for aggressive trade action and far past time that an
assistance package was put in place for the P.E.I. potato
industry. Would Agriculture Canada please get the job done?
* * *
HOCKEY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 40th anniversary of
Canada's last world hockey championship win in Geneva,
Switzerland.
The winning team was not made up of disguised professionals. Nor
was it from a major population centre. It was the Trail Smoke
Eaters from the small smelter town of Trail, British Columbia.
Much of the team was made up of local residents who learned to
play along the banks of the Columbia River. Although the
community and the Cominco smelter helped with their expenses,
many players went deep into debt to pay for the honour of playing
and representing our country.
1405
The team was given little chance of winning but its plays
defined the very word teamwork. I believe its winning spirit
came from its small town environment. It caused a bonding that
could only come from such a close knit community. The team proved
it did belong in a world championship and demonstrated its pride
in being Canadian.
Although some team members did go on to play in the NHL, most
returned to their homes and families in Trail and the surrounding
area. They are the ones who helped make Trail the true home of
champions.
I am sure all hon. members would join with me on this special
anniversary in saluting those champions who brought this honour
home to Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR INNOVATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March
6, the Government of Canada announced a new investment of
$750 million in the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which was a
major commitment in the last throne speech.
This new investment will extend the CFI's various research
infrastructure funding programs to 2010. With it, the
Government of Canada has now raised its total investment to the
CFI since its inception in 1997 to $3.15 billion.
To date, grants by the Canada Foundation for Innovation have
totalled over $850 million. This funding has helped train our
brightest minds and keep them in Canada.
Thanks to the bold and forward looking initiatives we have taken
during our time in government, we have built the foundations for
a modern and international calibre research structure for Canada
and created a business climate that fosters innovation.
* * *
CANADA DAY
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, true to its
objective of creating and promoting Canadian identity, Heritage
Canada has recently released a primary and secondary teachers'
guide for celebrating Canada Day.
Obviously, this candy pink guide contains no reference whatsoever
to the key role played by Quebec in the history of Canada.
Moreover, it might have been worthwhile to remind students of
certain facts, such as the fact that during the last century
all provinces with an anglophone majority passed legislation
which in some cases did away with French language schools in
order to assimilate their francophone populations; the
francophones of Canada have never obtained any reparation for
these discriminatory laws.
In 1982 the federal government repatriated the Canadian
constitution, thereby reducing the powers of Quebec, contrary to
the wishes of Quebec.
By trying to convince the youth of Quebec and of Canada that
Canada is a wonderful country where freedom and diversity
reigns, once again the Liberals have concealed whole chunks of
history that were not to their liking.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
the United Nations have declared 2001 the International Year of
Volunteers.
[English]
The commemoration of the International Year of Volunteers is
being co-ordinated by Volunteer Canada in collaboration with
government and business as well as national and local volunteer
organizations.
The federal government is supporting the International Year of
Volunteers through activities which recognize both the
contributions volunteers make to our organizations and the
contributions public servants who volunteer make to their
communities.
[Translation]
Volunteers are a pillar of Canada's economic and social life.
The International Year of Volunteers is an opportunity to pay
tribute to the 7.5 million volunteers in the country and to
point to their contribution.
I urge Canadians to find ways to do volunteer work in their
communities.
* * *
[English]
CURLING
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, over the past week a great Canadian tradition took place
right here in Ottawa, the Canadian men's curling championship,
the Brier.
Provincial and territorial champions came together to compete
for this coveted prize now known as the Nokia Cup. The host
committee composed of 1,100 volunteers did a wonderful job and
the 150,000 or so spectators were treated to some great
hospitality. Canadians were treated to tremendous shot making by
all teams. Their skill and sportsmanship were something to
behold.
When the dust and ice chips settled—and oh yes, a few
feathers—the champions were the boys from Alberta, curling out
of the Ottewell Curling Club in Edmonton. Skip Randy Ferbey,
third David Nedohin, second Scott Pfeifer, lead Marcel Rocque,
fifth Dan Holowaychuk and coach Brian Moore left no doubt that
they were the Canadian champions.
Besides winning the Brier, they also qualified for the Olympic
trials, and now, as Team Canada, they go to the world
championship representing all of us. They did a good job and I
wish them good luck.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
THE FRANCOPHONIE
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many
activities relating to the Francophonie are taking place this
week.
First, there is the Semaine nationale de la Francophonie and the
Rendez-vous de la Francophonie. The major event will be the
Journée internationale de la Francophonie, on March 20.
This great celebration will be an opportunity to express our
appreciation for a wonderful language that reflects such a rich
culture.
Over 9 million Canadians speak French, including 6.6 million for
whom French is their mother tongue. The Rendez-vous de la
Francophonie are an opportunity for all of us francophones to
show our cultural diversity and our contribution to the Canadian
society.
The activities relating to the Francophonie will undoubtedly
strengthen the ties between Canada's francophones and
anglophones.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Russia's president has said that if the U.S. goes ahead with a
missile defence shield Russia will consider it a violation of the
1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. If this treaty falls apart,
the entire international system of nuclear arms control will be
jeopardized.
Our NATO allies in Europe are pressuring President Bush to turn
away from this dangerous course. NATO's relationship with Russia
is too high a price to pay; but where is Canada? The Liberal
government is sitting on the fence. The Prime Minister cannot
say this is none of our business. As U.S. allies, a breakdown of
relations with Russia will affect us as well.
The Liberal government is asleep at the wheel, just like it was
with everything from Burnt Church to skyrocketing energy prices.
The government ignores issues until they turn into crises.
It is time for the Liberal government to take a stand. The
Prime Minister has to tell President Bush now that Canada does
not support this defence shield. Unless the U.S. is isolated in
the world community, it will not alter its plans.
I call on the Prime Minister to get off the fence and join the
rest of the world community in opposing President Bush's reckless
plan.
* * *
[Translation]
RICHARD LEGENDRE
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois congratulates Richard Legendre, the former director of
Tennis Canada in Montreal and of the Montreal international
tennis championships, on his appointment as minister for tourism,
recreation and sport.
As an outstanding organizer and key player in Quebec's amateur
and professional sports scene, his appointment will be a big plus
for Quebec. All sports stakeholders in Quebec will be fortunate
to have at the helm a man of action and ideas whose reputation is
well known.
The Bloc Quebecois was delighted by Mr. Legendre's statement
that sport was of the utmost importance to him, that “Sport
brings together families, parents and children. It is a uniting
force for all of us in our daily lives”.
Instead of getting upset at seeing Mr. Legendre go over to the
sovereignist forces, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport
should be glad to be able to work with an energetic man whose
track record is solid and who wants to devote his energy to
sports in Quebec.
For its part, the Bloc Quebecois is anxious to start working
with Mr. Legendre.
* * *
SUPREME COURT
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Supreme Court of Canada is setting an example internationally.
Many of the decisions handed down by our supreme court are
influencing cases in other countries, such as England, the United
States, India and Israel.
Our criminal law is being held up as an example in such
important areas as presumption of innocence, administrative law,
native law and civil responsibility. Even more important in
my view is the impact of our jurisprudence on rights and
freedoms.
The Canadian values of freedom, responsibility, transparency and
equality are transmitted through our institutions. This is one
more reason why I am proud to be a Canadian.
* * *
[English]
JURGEN SEEWALD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday hundreds lined the streets of
Antigonish to say goodbye to RCMP Constable Jurgen Ziggy Seewald.
A sea of red serge marched to the sounds of pipes and bells to a
service at St. Francis Xavier chapel, where over 600 RCMP and
peace officers from across the country gathered with friends and
colleagues to support the Seewald family in an emotional
farewell.
Forty-seven year old Constable Seewald, a 26 year veteran, was
gunned down last Monday in Cape Dorset, Nunavut, while responding
to a domestic dispute. Serving 22 years in Nova Scotia, he was
described as a gentle giant, quick with a joke, a grin and a
helping hand.
He received the duty service award for peacekeeping in Bosnia.
His brother Horst said Ziggy believed that through conversation
one could overcome confrontation, and he pleaded for an end to
the violence in communities.
Nunavut government Commissioner Peter Irniq similarly echoed
those sentiments, calling for solidarity and reflection across
Canada to heal this wound.
Constable Seewald was a caring, compassionate man of great
bravery, humility and honour. He left behind a wife, Tanis,
children, Carla and Aron, parents, a brother, and a remarkable
legacy that will live in the hearts and minds of many for years
to come.
* * *
1415
MEMBERTOU
Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure today to tell the House about an exciting
initiative in the community of Membertou, Cape Breton.
The Membertou Band Council will research and develop a learner
booklet on the history of Membertou. Out of school youth aged 16
to 24 will be recruited to engage in this unique and historical
project. While participating in the development of the learner
booklet, they will not only be learning more about their history
by interviewing elders, visiting museums and archives, but they
will also be improving their own reading, writing and oral
skills, as well as learning to edit and produce a booklet. The
learner booklet will be used as a learning resource for the
Mi'kmaq and to educate the Mi'kmaq community about its history.
Creative projects like this one sponsored by the Membertou Band
Council are helping to unite this community by sharing history
and encouraging reading and writing skills.
This knowledge and these skills will enable them to chart their
own course in the future.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Gaetano Amodeo has been a fugitive
living in Canada on and off since 1996. Among his accused crimes
is the murder of an Italian police officer who was shot in the
face at point blank range.
Two weeks ago, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told
the House that her department recently moved to deport Mr. Amodeo
shortly after learning there was a warrant for his arrest. Now
we discover that the Italian government informed the RCMP over
two years ago that Mr. Amodeo lived here.
Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please tell us
when she really learned that the RCMP knew Mr. Amodeo was wanted?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian officials have been co-operating and sharing
information with Italian officials since 1999. When there was
sufficient information, including a positive identification and
knowledge of Mr. Amodeo's whereabouts, the RCMP engaged the
assistance of immigration officials. As stated previously by the
minister, her department took appropriate steps to initiate
deportation proceedings after receiving this information.
Within three weeks of the proceedings beginning, Mr. Amodeo was
arrested. He is now in custody and is awaiting the appropriate
legal proceedings.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's supposed facts are
all out of line. Just two weeks ago, the minister of
education-immigration stood in the House and refused to
acknowledge these very important details. For two years the RCMP
apparently knew about this information. The solicitor general
was also in the House and he refused to inform the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration and he refused to inform the House.
I ask him: When did he really know about this file? When did
he find out the RCMP had the information? When did he inform the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or did he at all?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when, I repeat, there was sufficient information such
that the RCMP felt that it could be brought to the attention of
the immigration people, this was done. It included a positive
identification and knowledge of Mr. Amodeo's whereabouts.
As a result, as the ministers have said, the immigration
department receiving this information issued the appropriate
warrants and within three weeks Mr. Amodeo was arrested. He
remains in custody right now.
I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to
that. I thought he would be happy that Mr. Amodeo is in custody.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will try one more time. The
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and apparently the
solicitor general said that they knew nothing, or they kept the
information from the House. It was the Italian government that
told us that it had informed the RCMP over two years ago, not
just recently.
Now I will ask the Prime Minister, which of the two ministers,
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the solicitor
general, will he ask to resign over this scandal?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is the last person who
should be talking about somebody else resigning after the
problems he has had the past several years over his lawsuit and
the donation. Speaking of resigning, he should start any parade
on his side of the House.
The fact of the matter is that Canadian officials have been
co-operating and sharing information with their Italian
counterparts since 1999.
I have said that and I repeat that. The hon. member is not
providing anything new to the House. I repeat the answer I have
given and I stand by that answer.
1420
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister's answers are a little bit
misleading. A fugitive, described by Interpol as being armed and
dangerous and wanted for murdering a police officer, lived in
Canada for two years. The RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration
Canada both knew he was here for two years. Both ministers knew
he was here.
Is it not really time that the minister of education-immigration
was held responsible and accountable for this and resigned for
leaving the Canadian public open to this kind of risk?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. I
do not see what basis he has for alleging that both ministers
knew for two years. That is not the fact of the situation as
far as I am aware.
The two Alliance members keep saying that they want to ask
questions about education. They should have gone back to Alberta
and ran in the election that is taking place now. I am trying to
educate the hon. members and they are not capable of learning.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we will get to the facts. The Deputy Prime Minister
can attempt to avoid this but it will not work.
The moment Gaetano Amodeo's name appeared on an application for
permanent residency back in June 1999, the department of
immigration should have run his name through both Interpol and
the database of the RCMP, especially since it was advised by the
Italian police that he was wanted.
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain why her
department did not check RCMP and Interpol in 1999 to see if
there were any outstanding—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to get further information but I want to add
that the application was not granted. Landed immigrant status
was not granted to this individual and that is the important
fact.
* * *
[Translation]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is still not able to shake off the serious
appearance of a conflict of interest hovering over him in the
matter of the Auberge Grand-Mère. In fact, the Prime Minister is
counting on others to do the job for him.
After the ethics counsellor, who took his boss' side,
David Asper, a senior executive with CanWest Global, is now
coming to the Prime Minister's defence.
When will the Prime Minister realize that the only way to remove
the doubt about his actions is to make public all the documents
linking him to the Auberge Grand-Mère file and prove himself that
he is beyond reproach?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
ethics counsellor testified before the parliamentary committee
and answered questions on the documents. I wonder why the
member is not prepared to accept the words of the ethics
counsellor and of the Prime Minister in this House?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
ethics counsellor is a past master at camouflage, nothing more.
He was hired by the Prime Minister, reports to the Prime
Minister and is paid by the Prime Minister. There is nothing
credible about this man.
For his part, David Asper is not a neutral observer in the
Auberge Grand-Mère matter. He hopes that the government will
soon pass regulations favourable to this business.
When will the Prime Minister realize that David Asper is in a
very poor position to exonerate him and that only one person can
shed light on the matter? That person is the Prime Minister
himself, the only one who can shed light on his behaviour.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member keeps bringing up
names and names. If any credibility can be applied it is to the
RCMP which came out and unequivocally clarified its position in
answer to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. The
leader of the Progressive Conservative Party said that it
appeared the decision was acceptable and that there was no
wrongdoing. He said that he accepted the decision by the RCMP
based on the facts.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, do
the Prime Minister and the government not agree that the sudden
and new defender in the matter of the Auberge Grand-Mère gives
himself the appearance of being in conflict of interest, since
his company, CanWest Global, is expecting the favour to be
returned by the CRTC, which is soon to renew its licenses? Is
this another coincidence?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
communications authority, the CRTC, is an independent body
working at arm's length from the government. I wonder therefore
why the member is raising such a question. He knows just as
well as anyone that this authority is independent and works at
arm's length.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
will talk about something closer to hand, David Asper, who
contributed $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada in 1999
alone.
Should the government not admit that the defence provided by an
executive of CanWest Global is in no way objective and that
David Asper not only expects the favour returned by the CRTC but
a return on his investment?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again let us not
forget that the CRTC is an independent organization.
As the hon. leader of the Bloc knows, the CRTC is currently
stimulating a public debate on the importance of Canadian content
and the broadcaster's role in the dissemination of that content.
The CRTC is welcoming any member of the public to supply
submissions by March 23.
* * *
LUMBER
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on trade
matters the U.S. plays by the rules when it suits it. When it
does not it plays power politics. Softwood lumber is a perfect
example: When we win we lose because the government sells us
out.
The current softwood lumber deal is about to expire. Will the
government assure Canadians that it will not capitulate yet again
to American bullying? Will it finally stand up for Canada's
interests in softwood lumber?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very
pertinent question. Softwood lumber is a very important file. It
is a file that took up much of our discussions when I met with
Ambassador Zoellick in Washington a few weeks ago.
The member is absolutely right when she says that our Canadian
practices respect our international trade obligations. Every
time the Americans have gone through their own national legislation
or to international panels we have won.
What is very important is that our industry is better prepared
than ever to meet the challenges of American producers. The
government will side with its industries. We will continue to
work very closely with the provinces and with industries.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
Canadians know what is important. What is important is that the
government finally stands up for Canada's lumber interests.
Time and again, Canada has won on softwood lumber. Time and
again, the government has capitulated to American pressures. The
beginning of the Canadian cave-in was when President Reagan was
looking for fast tracking authority on the free trade deal. Now
President Bush wants fast tracking on the FTAA.
What price will Canadians pay to capitulate to those demands for
fast tracking? Will the government finally stand up for Canada's
softwood lumber interests?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a large consensus in the country
that we do not go back to the sort of agreement that we had in
1996. We have been consulting with the industry and the
provinces. We all want to go to free trade. We have the right
tools and the right ways of dealing with it.
I commend our industry for being well prepared to meet the
challenges the American producers might pose to us after the
termination of the agreement. However, we will stand united as a
country. We will not pitch one region against the other. We
will fight for our rights on the American market.
* * *
NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to come back to the extraordinary defence of the Prime
Minister by David Asper, a senior executive of CanWest Global and
Southam newspapers which his family controls.
1430
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the Prime
Minister or anyone on his behalf made official or unofficial
representations to Izzy Asper, to Leonard Asper, to David Asper
or to any of their representatives urging publication of this
article whose intent was to limit comment on and investigation of
the Auberge Grand-Mère file?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not aware of any such action on the part of the
Prime Minister or anyone on his behalf, but the hon. member might
want to tell us why he wants to limit Mr. Asper's right of free
speech.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): That is at
$120,000 a pop, Mr. Speaker. CanWest Global, as we know, has
published guidelines which seek to limit and control the
editorials published by the National Post. This is a
company that believes in intervention. That is exactly why there
is a worry about arm's length representation.
CanWest Global's broadcast licence is up before the CRTC. Will
the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if the CRTC renewal
application has been discussed with CanWest Global by anyone in
cabinet or in the Prime Minister's Office?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not aware of any such discussions and I am
surprised that, someone with the distinction that he claims, the
leader of the Conservative Party would try to tarnish in an
unwarranted way an arm's length quasi-judicial body.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in 1999 the RCMP was already aware that Gaetano Amodeo
was a wanted criminal.
Nevertheless, two weeks ago the minister of immigration tried to
convince this House that the government's reaction was immediate,
while we now know it took two years.
How can the minister explain this huge contradiction?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no contradiction here.
What I said was that, as soon as the RCMP provided the
department of immigration with the necessary information, the
department issued the appropriate notice and Mr. Amodeo was
arrested within three weeks; he is in prison at this time.
[English]
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, for two years the RCMP knew Gaetano Amodeo was a
convicted murdered and for two years Mr. Gaetano Amodeo had
several contacts with the department of immigration.
The department of immigration claimed it did not know. The RCMP
says it did know. Either way the government has failed
Canadians. Which of these two ministers will the Prime Minister
ask to resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the two ministers have been carrying out their work as
ministers in a way that indicates the highest of integrity and
the highest of ideals. I think the hon. member should recognize
that, instead of making these unwarranted innuendos, assertions
and slurs.
* * *
[Translation]
MEDIA CONCENTRATION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary to
what the Deputy Prime Minister would have us believe, it is a
cause of considerable concern that the owner of a major newspaper
chain, and one that wants to concentrate the media still
further, would impose his opinion on journalists and influence
editorial policies in order to come to the rescue of the Prime
Minister, who is in a predicament.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the example of Mr.
Asper, who is highly placed at CanWest Global Communications, is
not eloquent proof that the concentration of Canada's press
constitutes a very grave danger, the danger that political
reporting will reflect the views of the Prime Minister and his
government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe Mr. Asper enjoys the same freedom of speech as Conrad
Black.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister's reply is not very reassuring.
I would remind him that, given the fact that Mr. Asper controls
the majority of Canada's newspapers, it is of considerable
concern to the members of this House, the reporters in the
gallery and the people listening to us that the government
attaches so little importance to a situation of information
control such as we have here, which serves this government's
purposes and shows just how arrogant it is.
1435
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member is serious, he can file a complaint with the
Competition Bureau. I note that he had nothing to say when
Conrad Black controlled those same newspapers. I wonder why that
is.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is very serious. We have a
situation where one minister tells us one thing. The solicitor
general appears to withhold information. It is all related to
the security of our citizens and an accused murderer, and the
Deputy Prime Minister stands up, laughs and makes a joke about
it.
The principle of ministerial responsibility is a foundation of
our democracy. Will the Prime Minister ask one or both of these
ministers to resign over this irresponsible action?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not making a joke about the matter. I treat it
very seriously and I have given serious answers.
The joke is to be found in the words of the Leader of the
Opposition in not looking at what I have to say and treating it
with the same seriousness as I am willing to treat a serious
question from him.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is a living demonstration. Five
minutes ago he was joking about this matter and now he says he
was not.
The Prime Minister has rejected the principle of ministerial
accountability with regard to the HRDC file. He has rejected the
principle of ministerial accountability with regard to the
Shawinigate mess, and now he is rejecting ministerial
responsibility and accountability related to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General.
When will the Prime Minister live up to at least one of his red
book promises, the one of ministerial accountability, hold one of
these ministers to account and ask for their resignation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if I did not want to be accused by the Leader of the
Opposition of making jokes about him, I would say that his
followers just got up to give him a standing ovation for his
comedy routine.
If what he said were serious, he would recognize that the
ministers have acted with the utmost integrity and that there is
no basis for calling on either of them to resign. They are
carrying out their jobs in a very efficient and effective manner.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
for International Trade has just told us that everyone in Canada
wanted to see a return to free trade in the softwood lumber
industry, which is true.
How does this square with his statement in the House a few weeks
ago to the effect that he was contemplating transitional measures
before the application of free trade, before the end of the
agreement on March 31?
How does this square with the parliamentary secretary's
statement about a long term objective in connection with free
trade? Are all these muddled statements not just a way of
getting Canadians ready for the idea of throwing in the towel?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear. I think that after
consultation with industries across Canada, after very close
consultation with provincial governments, we are absolutely
determined to head in the direction of free trade.
Obviously, if the agreement ends on March 31, this means we
will be in a free trade situation on April 1. It is my hope
that, for the good of every one of our industries throughout the
country, we will get through this transition to free trade as
flexibly as possible.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, April 1 will
see either a transition to free trade or free trade. The
government must tell us what its intentions are.
What is very worrisome is that just today, the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade issued a communiqué
saying that the government is still evaluating a broad range of
solutions and ideas in connection with the softwood lumber
dispute.
With just three weeks to go until the agreement terminates, how
does the government propose to avoid a trade war with the
Americans over softwood lumber?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Joliette knows full well that
if we have free trade, we face the possibility of trade
conflicts.
Since we will no longer have an agreement, which is what his
party seems to want, this means that the United States may resort
to their national laws and free trade panels.
Do not therefore ask me, on the one hand, to guarantee trade
peace and, on the other, to negotiate nothing and head in the
direction of free trade. The Bloc Quebecois' position is
completely contradictory.
* * *
1440
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government is not just rolling out the red
carpet for mafiosi but for international terrorists too.
Today in Los Angeles, Ahmed Ressam will be on trial for
smuggling explosives into that country from Canada. He was here
since 1994. He missed his refugee hearings. He was arrested for
stealing computers but he still was not extradited from Canada.
We now know that Mr. Ressam was operating a terrorist
headquarters out of his Montreal apartment for the world's most
dangerous terrorist, Usama bin Ladin. Why did the Minister of
Immigration and Citizenship not enforce the law of the land and
extradite this dangerous terrorist when she knew that he was
breaking Canadian law?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that a deportation order had been made
against this individual but the country of which he was a
citizen, Algeria, was unwilling to take him back. There was no
third country willing to take him. An immigration adjudicator
ordered that he be released and report, and of course we know
what happened after that.
The department and the government were not lax. They were
working to get him out of the country and they were unable to
find a country willing to take him.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the cavalier attitude the government has toward
enforcing the laws of the land, protecting our borders and
protecting Canadians from terrorists is really quite disturbing.
This man was detained by immigration but let go. He was
arrested by the police after that for stealing. How is it that
we could have allowed this man, who is known to our officials to
be dangerous, to operate a terrorist cell for Usama bin Ladin,
together with Fateh Kamel and Said Atmani, both of whom are now
on the most wanted international list of terrorists? Why were
they allowed to operate a terrorist cell in Montreal under the
nose of the government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. They
were not allowing him to do what he is alleging.
Mr. Ressam is on trial now in the United States. I hope the
hon. member was not trying to say things that will prejudice the
successful outcome of the trial. It sounds like it.
I want to say that Canadian authorities have co-operated fully
with the American authorities. They are assisting in the
prosecution. I think the hon. member should give recognition to
that fact.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, road salt has been in the news a great deal lately both
because of concern over its use and its impact on the
environment.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House what he is
doing to protect the safety of Canadians on our nation's roadways
while furthering the protection of the environment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our purpose on this file is to make sure that we
protect the safety of Canadians, particularly in the winter
months, and at the same time attempt to protect the environment
from the adverse effects of the chemicals that are used.
As a result, starting last year we have had consultations with
Canadians which continue at this time so that we can resolve the
issue of the protection of Canadians, which seems of little
interest to the opposition but is important to the government.
* * *
NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime
Minister will know that the NDP has raised concerns about
concentration of ownership in the newspaper industry in a
previous parliament. The Prime Minister even seemed concerned
about it at one time.
Given the obvious politicization of newspaper ownership
represented by the recent letter by Mr. Asper, I wonder whether
the government would be prepared to revisit the possibility of
bringing in measures to deal with concentration of ownership in
the media, now that it could do it without looking like it was
responding to criticism but rather to praise.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister
of Canadian Heritage looked at this issue very seriously and is
in the process right now of actually announcing a red or a blue
ribbon panel of experts who will look into this issue.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thought she almost said
red book panel, mixing her metaphors.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of trade once made a commitment to me in
committee that he would sign no more free trade agreements that
included investor state dispute settlement mechanisms like we
find in chapter 11 of NAFTA.
Could he tell us whether the government is committed to not
signing any free trade agreement, or even negotiating one in
Quebec City, that includes any kind of investor state dispute
settlement mechanism pursuant to the commitment that he made to
me on the record in committee last year?
1445
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear on that issue.
Canada has offered leadership to our NAFTA partners. We need
clarification to make sure that chapter 11 really respects the
intentions of the drafters of that agreement.
I made the commitment that we would of course not sign another
agreement that would have the kind of clauses that we are seeking
to clarify right now.
Obviously there are important elements related to investment
because we have a lot of Canadian investments abroad and we have
a responsibility vis-à-vis them as well, but we will not go to
the sort of things we are seeking to clarify in chapter 11 and on
which we are making good progress.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the finance minister. The Department of Finance
did not require any of the participants of a pre-mini budget
focus group examining specific tax changes to sign
confidentiality agreements.
Given the importance of budget secrecy and the potential for
personal gain, why were basic measures such as confidentiality
agreements not enforced and insisted on by the Minister of
Finance?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we were in the middle of extensive consultations on the
budget. The hon. member knows full well that all the items
discussed there were items that I had raised in speeches, items
that had been raised in front of the finance committee, and were
all part of the extensive consultation process which continued, I
must say, after this meeting with meetings of economists.
The hon. member knows full well that the focus groups are
randomly chosen. If he does not understand that, I would suggest
he might want to read the letter to the Globe and Mail in
which the head of the polling association said that what was
recommended by the Conservative Party would have amounted to a
serious breach of polling ethics.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
focus group's materials were very specific in detailing the tax
changes the government was to put in place. I quote “Our new
package will cut the capital gains inclusion rate further to
50%”.
What steps did the minister take to ensure that no participants
of the focus group benefited financially from their access to
this privileged information? Will he table those measures in the
House?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that no final decisions
were communicated. In fact, among the various tax issues that we
consulted on was the flat tax. I can assure the hon. member we
had no intention of introducing that particular measure.
What is really at issue here is the issue of openness and
transparency in budget making. If the hon. member disagrees with
the government and thinks that public policy arrived at openly
and in full consultation with Canadians is not a good idea, then
quite simply we disagree.
* * *
FUNDRAISING
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let us talk about openness. Last May the Minister of
Finance attended a fundraising event sponsored by FACT which the
government admits is a terrorist front.
On Canada AM this morning former CSIS director, Mr. Reid
Morden, expressed his disappointment that two ministers,
including the Minister of Finance, attended that dinner despite
their knowledge that it was a terrorist front.
Now that the public knows what the Minister of Finance knew a
year ago, could he explain to the public his support of this
terrorist organization?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not supported any terrorist
organization. He and another minister attended what they
considered to be a cultural event celebrating a Sri Lankan
holiday.
They were there with a provincial Conservative cabinet minister.
They were there with the editor of the Toronto Sun. They
were there with a number of other civic and municipal
politicians. I do not see how the hon. member could validly
attack the Minister of Finance for doing the same thing that a
number of other civic and provincial politicians did.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, when the Minister of Finance attended the FACT dinner
for this terrorist front in his hunt for Liberal leadership
delegates, why did he ignore the advice of knowledgeable
government officials and jeopardize the safety of Canadians? He
should answer, not the Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is customary, and the hon. member should know this
because it was the same case in the house he came from, that
ministers generally answer matters under their administrative
responsibility, except for the person acting as prime minister.
1450
The hon. member is wrong. The Minister of Finance did not
imperil the safety of the country in attending this dinner. He
is very conscious of the safety of the country. That is why he
has worked so hard to put it on sound economic footing, unlike
what would have happened in the unlikely event that the official
opposition of that gentleman had ever attained office.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in reply to
one of our questions about allowing members of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs to have access to the texts of the
nine sectoral negotiating groups on the free trade area of the
Americas, the Prime Minister said he would think about it.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the Prime
Minister has come to a decision and plans to let members of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs have access to these
documents, as is the case for politicians in the United States
and in Quebec?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed, I did note the statement made by
Mrs. Beaudoin to the national assembly's committee the other day
and I understand that our officials will soon meet. We will
assess the situation and see what should be done.
I personally had the opportunity to ask Mrs. Beaudoin to clarify
her government's intention, since she made a formal request last
week, asking me to release the texts.
To ensure proper consultation with the government of Quebec, I
asked her to clarify her government's intention, by telling me
whether she intended to make these texts public, even
unilaterally, without the consent of our partners. I believe it
is very important to work with—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister for International Trade, this supposedly great champion
of transparency, pledge to present a proposal at the next meeting
of the task force, in Buenos Aires, to seek the authorization of
the 34 participating states to make the texts of the nine
negotiating tables public?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out the
efforts made by our government to ensure transparency. We are the
first government to make its position publicly known.
Now, I wish to reassure the opposition by saying that not only
we did not wait until Buenos Aires, but already last week I
travelled to Guatemala, where I met with ministers from Central
America and the Caribbean. I raised this issue with Mexico's
Secretario de la economía on Friday, during a telephone
conversation.
Our government's position is that we hope these texts will be
released with the authorization of our partners.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week the minister of agriculture
met with his provincial counterparts and was told emphatically
that his announcement of $500 million in aid was totally
inadequate. Indeed the minister of agriculture walked out of the
meeting saying that the government, the federal government,
clearly did not care about farmers.
Will the minister commit to give farmers the $1 billion in new
aid that the provinces and farmers are looking for?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the announcement of $500 million
that this government put toward the safety net last week, that
brings the total to $1.6 billion in aid to Canadian farmers.
That is the highest level since 1995.
I correct the hon. member. It was the minister of agriculture
for the province of Saskatchewan who left the meeting and had a
press conference before the meeting was over. I stayed until the
end.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the whole agricultural community
not a single agriculture minister, not a single agricultural
organization and not a single producer agrees with what this
minister has done.
When will the agriculture minister quit apologizing to Canadian
farm families? Will he commit to get back to his cabinet
colleagues and get the amount of money necessary for Canadian
agriculture to survive?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member should check the
platform of her party. Also I remind her that with the $1.6
billion that the government has put forward and with the
provincial contribution to that, it makes $2.66 billion available
to Canadian farmers.
1455
As well, last week I announced that farmers could borrow
interest free up to $50,000 on an individual basis, which would
make up the $700 million available interest free to help farmers
this spring.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week, the Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State
responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec announced the renewal for five years of the
partnership agreement between the Government of Canada and the
community futures development corporations of Quebec, the CFDCs.
Could the minister provide us with a little more detail on the
consequences for the regions of Quebec of the renewal of this
agreement?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for her question.
This is indeed a matter of very great importance and one which
demonstrates the good will of the Government of Canada to develop
all regions of Canada, and of course of Quebec as far as I am
concerned, my mandate being for Quebec.
Last week was a time of celebration for the CFDCs. We announced
the 20th anniversary of the network as well as the renewal of the
agreement for five years. We will be injecting $103 million in
additional funding over the next five years. This amount is for
the 56 CFDCs which have had a hand in the past three years in
maintaining or creating over 19,000 jobs. Our aim for the
regions is to continue to build.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the airport at Terrace, B.C., is dealing with NavCan regarding an
instrument landing system for the airport.
The approach to Terrace takes the aircraft through the narrow
Kitimat Valley with high mountains on either side. This approach
is interesting in good weather and difficult to impossible in bad
weather. The ILS is a necessary safety feature that is long
overdue.
In the interest of safety, is the Minister of Transport aware of
these concerns and will he ensure the installation of this much
needed ILS?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware of the particular problems at that airport.
The hon. member should realize that NavCanada now is an arm's
length agency that makes decisions on the operation of a
navigation system but is overseen from a security point of view
by Transport Canada.
Whenever a security problem is recognized then obviously
NavCanada has to take that into account in its operations.
However I will take a personal look at the matter and get back to
the hon. member.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. Regulation and
safety issues are a federal matter. They are not under
NavCanada. This issue is of paramount importance to my
constituents and travellers in the northwest.
When will the government and the minister do the right thing:
put safety first and ensure NavCan installs this much needed ILS?
I need an answer as soon as possible.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we always put safety first. The hon. member and I do
not have any disagreement. Of course Transport Canada is
responsible for safety and security.
I will take a personal look at this to see what his concerns are
and to see if there needs to be any remedy from Transport Canada
on this issue.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
February 28 issue of Le Canada français, the member for
Brome—Missisquoi is quoted as saying that the Liberal members
and ministers from Quebec were calling on the Minister of
National Defence to reconsider his decision not to offer the
enhanced leadership model program at the former military college.
Could the minister tell us why, despite the promises made by three
federal ministers during the last election campaign, he has
broken his promises? Does he intend to reconsider his decision
under pressure from his Liberal colleagues from Quebec who, for
the record, are in full agreement with the Bloc Quebecois'
position?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the understanding is that the commitment stands.
Last August I was there. We put a 25 year agreement into effect
with respect to the property. We indicated that we would have
expanded military use of the property, and we will.
We are going into negotiations, substantially adding to the
economic value of what we invested in the Saint-Jean area.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
have witnessed the increase in the activities of biker gangs
across the country on a daily basis. They hear police calling
for better tools to fight this problem.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General tell
the House what the government plans to do to make Canadians feel
safer?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1997 we brought forward
anti-gang legislation that has proved quite effective over the
last little while, but we can do better and we are.
As we said in the throne speech, we will bring in anti-gang
legislation that is tougher. We will also ensure that justice
officials are not intimidated. We will also provide the tools
necessary to do an effective job.
1500
Instead of the noise opposite and the brouhahas that they
create, we are operating in the best interests of all Canadians.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in my riding of Fraser Valley the popular recreational
area known as Island 22 is threatened by an accumulation of
hundreds of thousands of tonnes of gravel, gravel that has
significantly raised the level of the Fraser River bed.
The gravel must be excavated before March 15. Assurances are
needed that permission will be given by the federal departments
to remove the gravel before the fishery starts.
Can the minister give assurances that this gravel will be
allowed to be excavated and the city of Chilliwack and Island 22
protected from the spring floods?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not state which
minister, but I will certainly note it and get back to the hon.
member.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
should be celebrating International Women's Day, which passed a
few days ago, but an alarming new study published today shows
that female drug users are twice as likely to be infected with
HIV-AIDS as men. This is the first time this has happened in the
developed world. More alarming, they are two and a half times
less likely to be accessing effective drug cocktails.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, after all the studies, all the
research and all the money, why is it that women are still dying
from AIDS and HIV in Vancouver and that resources have not been
applied? Why is this still happening?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the
health of women, like the health of all Canadians, is a priority
for this government.
We will take every measure to ensure that the problems mentioned
by the member are studied and that appropriate responses are soon
found.
* * *
LUMBER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister for International Trade tells us that, when it comes
to lumber, free trade is the only solution, and we fully agree.
There are no subsidies in Quebec. Therefore, there should not be
any quotas. The minister also tells us that we must prepare for
the transition to free trade.
My question is very simple. Given that the agreement ends on
March 31, could the minister tell us if, on April 1, free trade
will be in effect and nothing else, not even some April Fool's
joke in the form of quotas?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier the Bloc Quebecois asked us to move
toward free trade, but to also preserve trade peace.
We cannot guarantee trade peace outside the negotiation process
that the Bloc Quebecois is urging us not to have and that we do
not have.
The agreement ends on March 31. Therefore, on April 1, NAFTA's
trade rules will apply in the same way that they do in other
areas. This means that the Americans may resort to some national
laws and certain panels, and our industry must prepare for that
possibility.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Ian Waddell, British
Columbia Minister of the Environment, Lands and Parks and
Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Relations and a former
member of this House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also draw the attention of hon.
members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Tony Whitford,
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to provide a clarification of something I
said in answer to a question in today's question period.
Mr. Ressam was arrested and detained on August 24, 1995, for
deportation proceedings. Travel documents were not available for
his removal. As a result, he was, as I have said, conditionally
released from detention and was required to report monthly to CIC
officials. However, in March 1997 a temporary stay of removal
was imposed for deportation to Algeria.
1505
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would table the
document from which he was reading. In addition, would he
consider tabling other departmental information about this case,
such as the exact details of who knew what and when?
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice to
table briefing notes. I will take his other suggestion under
advisement.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-293, an act to
amend the Parliament of Canada Act (constituency allowances).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private
member's bill entitled an act to amend the Parliament of Canada
Act (constituency allowances). The bill is meant to acknowledge
my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast as a schedule 3
riding.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-294, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (wearing of war decorations).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reintroduce my
private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code of
Canada (wearing of war decorations). The bill would allow a
family member or relative of a deceased veteran to wear any
decoration or medal awarded to such veteran without facing
criminal sanctions. The decoration would be worn on the right
side of the chest and only on Remembrance Day.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CANADA POST
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first
petition has been before the House several times. It asks that
private sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas have
collective bargaining rights, as do public sector workers who
deliver mail for Canada Post in rural areas.
This is not a new petition and I humbly submit it at this time.
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I also have a huge petition from my
constituents. It deals with a problem the farmers and ranchers
are having on the prairies. They cannot purchase sufficient
poison to get rid of the Richardson's ground squirrel which has
cost them thousands and thousands of dollars in crops and
machinery.
Because they cannot purchase poisons to kill the squirrels, the
petitioners ask parliament to amend the present regulations so as
to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine to
registered farmers until such time as an effective alternative
can be found.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker,
I received in my riding office in Berthierville a petition from
Claire Beaulieu, the director general of the Lanaudière branch of
the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec. The petition is signed
by more than 1,100 members from 23 seniors' clubs in the riding
of Berthier—Montcalm.
The petitioners are calling on the government to move quickly to
pass anti-gang legislation so that our streets and public places
will again be safe.
1510
I must tell the House immediately that this petition is not in
the usual form. It is, however, very well written and very well
prepared, and that is why I am seeking the unanimous consent of
the House to present it.
I am sure that many other members from Quebec will be receiving
such petitions, which are being circulated throughout Quebec.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to
present the petition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
PALLIATIVE CARE
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to once again
present a petition on behalf of constituents not only in my
riding but right across Canada, who are concerned about the lack
of a quality end of life care policy. They point out that less
than 5% of dying Canadians currently receive hospice palliative
care.
The petitioners call on parliament to collaborate with the
provinces to provide funding for home care and pharmacare for the
dying, with provinces to provide for the appropriate education
and training to all members of end of life teams, and for
provision of financial assistance and job protection for family
members who provide care for the dying, as recommended in the
Carstairs report. This is yet another couple of thousand names
to add to the thousands I have presented already.
CANADA POST
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present to the House a petition from constituents in the Ontario
riding of Huron—Bruce who are concerned about rural route mail
couriers in their district.
Rural route couriers do not have the opportunity to have
collective bargaining rights as do other employees under the
Canada Post Corporation Act. The petitioners are asking
parliament to repeal section 13 of the Canada Post Corporation
Act to allow these workers to have the same basic rights and to
perhaps be able to have a better wage.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present to the House today,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition on behalf of the
organization of rural route postal providers and service
contractors in regard to the matter that two of my colleagues
have also presented petitions on today, that is, postal services
and postal service providers in rural areas.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
JUDGES ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges
Act and to amend another act in consequence, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin second reading
debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act.
[English]
The bill would make certain amendments to the Judges Act to
ensure appropriate compensation for the federally appointed
judiciary in Canada. It is intended to implement the commitments
made by the government in its response to the report of the 1999
Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.
The strength of Canada's judiciary is a key factor in our
prosperity and health as a nation. As the guardians of the
constitutional right of Canadians to have peace, order and good
government, judges form an important pillar in our democratic
society.
As Peter Russell, a respected constitutional expert, has
observed, following John Locke some two centuries before him:
If government is to be based on the rational consent of human
beings, adjudication by impartial and independent judges must be
regarded as an inherent requirement of political society.
1515
An independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law. Judges
must be free from undue influence of any kind, be it from those
with money or power. There is a growing recognition that
stability, human security and the rule of law are necessary to
economic growth. There is a growing appreciation that an
independent judiciary with the proper resources is the first step
down this path.
[Translation]
Canadians are envied around the world for the quality,
commitment and independence of our judiciary. Increasingly our
court system and our judges are looked to as models of integrity
and impartiality by developing democratic nations as they strive
to implement fair and effective systems of their own.
[English]
We need only open the papers or listen to the international news
to be reminded of the importance of a courageous, independent and
impartial judiciary in ensuring the basic elements of a free and
civil society. Like so many of the rights and advantages enjoyed
by all Canadians, the importance of an independent judiciary
cannot be underestimated or taken for granted. Without it our
country would be a very different place.
It is with real pride that I note that Canada's experience and
expertise has been sought in the development of judicial and
court systems in such diverse countries and regions as the former
Soviet Union, including the Ukraine and Kosovo, as well as South
Africa and China.
In fact, during a recent visit to China the Prime Minister
commented on the five year co-operation project on the training
of judges which has been successfully undertaken by our two
nations. Canada's contribution toward the training of the
Chinese judiciary on issues such as ethics and independence of
the judiciary will be integrated into ongoing judicial teaching.
The importance of an independent judiciary was succinctly
captured by our Prime Minister when he stated:
For no matter how well the laws are written, there can be no
justice without a fair trial overseen by a competent,
independent, impartial and effective judiciary. A judiciary that
applies the law equally for all citizens, regardless of gender,
social status, religious belief, or political opinion.
The Government of Canada is committed to the principle of
judicial independence as it is a fundamental precondition to
ensuring the vitality of the rule of law in our democratic system
of government.
The three constitutionally required elements of judicial
independence are security of tenure, independence of
administration of matters relating to the judicial function and
financial security. In his seminal study on judicial
independence and accountability, Professor Martin Friedland
observed:
If a judge's salary is dependent on the whim of the government,
the judge will not have the independence we desire in our
judiciary. If salaries could be arbitrarily raised or lowered in
individual cases, or even collectively, the government would have
a strong measure of control over the judiciary.
It is in direct support of the principle of judicial
independence that section 100 of the Constitution has conferred
on parliament the important task of establishing financial
security of the federally appointed judiciary. It is the
responsibility of parliamentarians, all of us, to ensure that our
judges are compensated fairly and appropriately in order to
maintain the quality and independence of our benches.
In 1981 parliament established an independent judicial
compensation and benefits commission to assist in its task under
section 100 of the Constitution.
1520
The Supreme Court of Canada explained the purpose of the
independent commission process in the following words:
—financial security for the courts, as an institution, has three
components which all flow from the constitutional imperative
that, to the extent possible, the relationship between the
judiciary and the other branches of government be
depoliticized—this imperative demands that the courts both be
free and appear to be free from political interference through
economic manipulation by the other branches of government, and
that they not become entangled in the politics of remuneration
from the public purse.
In 1998 parliament amended the Judges Act in order to further
enhance the commission's independence, objectivity and overall
effectiveness in support of the principle of judicial
independence.
The new commission process builds on the strength of the former
commission. The independence of the new commission has been
enhanced through the nomination process and the tenure of its
members. In terms of their selection the judiciary and the
government each nominated one member of the commission. Those
two members nominated a third member to served as chair of the
commission.
The commission is required to conduct an inquiry every four
years and to make recommendations as to the adequacy of judicial
compensation. Parliament further reinforced the commission's
objectivity by establishing criteria which guide the assessment
of what constitutes adequate judicial salaries, benefits and
allowances.
These objective criteria include: the prevailing economic
conditions in Canada, including the cost of living and the
overall economic and financial position of the federal
government; the role of financial security of the judiciary in
ensuring judicial independence; the need to attract outstanding
candidates to the judiciary; and any other objective criteria
that the commission considers relevant.
The care with which the commission undertook its preparations
and deliberations is evident in the quality and thoroughness of
its report. While the government may not share all the
commission's conclusions, it is clear that the commission made a
great effort to offer reasons that are carefully explained and
supported by evidence to the extent that evidence was available.
I recommend that all members take the opportunity to read both
the commission report and the government's response to it.
It must be remembered that the commission's recommendations are
not binding. It is on parliament that the constitution has
conferred the exclusive authority and responsibility for
establishing judicial compensation. However, where parliament
decides to reject or modify the commission's recommendations, it
is legally and constitutionally required to explain publicly a
reasonable justification for this decision.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Canada is fortunate to have a judiciary renowned
internationally for its competence, commitment, independence and
impartiality.
[English]
We are confident that all members will appreciate the particular
importance of this first formal response to the new commission
process in ensuring public confidence in the legitimacy of this
process.
Through Bill C-12 the government is proposing implementation of
most of the recommendations of the judicial compensation and
benefits commission, including proposed salary increases and some
modest improvements to pensions and allowances. In light of all
the factors considered by this independent commission, including
trends in both the public and the private sectors, the government
is of the view that the proposals in Bill C-12 are within the
range of what is reasonable and adequate to meet the
constitutional principle of financial security.
That said, the government is not prepared to implement all the
commission's recommendations. Specifically we will defer a
proposal that would increase numbers of supernumerary or part
time judges pending the outcome of important consultations with
my colleagues in the provinces and the territories.
1525
In addition, the government has not accepted the commission's
recommendation with respect to legal fees. In our view the
commission's proposal does not establish reasonable limits to
these expenditures. Instead we are proposing a statutory formula
designed to provide for a reasonable contribution to the costs of
the participation of the judiciary while at the same time limit
their scope.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Canada is fortunate to have a judiciary renowned
internationally for its competence, commitment, independence and
impartiality.
[English]
The constitution has entrusted parliament with a duty to fix
judicial salaries, pensions and allowances at a level sufficient
to support judicial independence. We will act to fulfil our
obligation. Again, as the Prime Minister noted during his visit
to China:
No one can be above the law. And no one can be forgotten by the
law or denied its protection. And to be implied impartially, the
rule of law means that there should be a clear separation of the
prosecutor from the person who will ultimately pass judgment.
It is precisely to safeguard the principle of judicial
independence, reflected in this statement, that the government
has brought forward Bill C-12. I commend it to parliament for
consideration.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and have the
opportunity to speak to Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act
and to amend another act in consequence. I would like to mention
that I will be splitting my time with the Canadian Alliance
justice critic from Provencher.
The Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous consent to
permit the hon. member to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, in December of last
year, shortly after the federal election, I was going through an
Ottawa Citizen article which mentioned that Canadian judges
would be receiving a $19 million pay raise that would boost their
income 11.2% on average to more than $205,000.
The 11.2% awarded on December 13, 2000, was according to that
news article quoting a justice department lawyer a compromise
between the 26.3% that the judges were asking for and the demands
of taxpayers to keep costs down. Government justice lawyer
Judith Bellis had taken the view that the 11.2% was in the range
of reasonable.
Bill C-12, the subject of today's debate, enacts that 11.2% pay
raise, thereby raising the salaries of approximately 1,013
federally appointed judges who sit on provincial superior courts
and courts of appeal, as well as the tax courts and the Supreme
Court of Canada.
The increase, retroactive to April 1, 2000, will raise the base
salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal
courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the
chief justices in those courts will rise to $217,000 from
$196,500. The same rates will also apply to federal court
judges.
The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada will remain the
highest paid. The eight regular judges will see an increase to
$235,700 from $213,000, while Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's
salary will jump to $254,000 from $230,200.
It is important to note that while the government considers this
raise reasonable, the official opposition views it as extremely
generous considering senior public servants have received raises
of no more than 5.7%. As well, the pay of public servants is not
indexed, while the pay and salaries of judges are. We on this
side of the House, therefore, are opposed to Bill C-12.
For the information of other new members of the House, I would
like to point out this is not the first time the Liberal
government has tried to amend the Judges Act. In fact, this is
the fourth time the Liberals have come forward and made changes
to the act.
1530
Originally in 1996, Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, both if I may
paraphrase a former member of the House, were described as being
nebulous, inconsequential pieces of legislation with little
significance to Canadians who were genuinely concerned about
their safety, as opposed to the simple administrative matters
that these bills brought forward.
In April 1998 Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the judicial
compensation and benefits commission. The compensation
commission was set up as an independent advisory body after the
supreme court ruled that judges' salaries were constitutionally
protected and the previous system of setting pay was inadequate.
Bill C-37, increasing judges' salaries retroactively, provided
them with an 8.3% pay increase over those two years. Translated
into dollars, this meant an average $13,000 pay increase for
federal judges with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over
$172,000.
I do not know of any other federal public servant, or any
hard-working Canadian citizen, who received a $13,000 pay
increase in 1998. While the Liberal government and the Tories
were voting in favour of the huge pay increase, Canadians'
incomes were on a steady decline.
Members on this side of the House, with the exception of the
Progressive Conservative Party, opposed the bill. Members on the
other side of the House wrongfully insisted that our opposition
to the bill was “the ravings of ill-informed and ill-prepared
men of parliament who contributed to the ill-repute of the
justice system”. The truth is that my party holds the judiciary
in high esteem. We were opposed to Bill C-37 and we are opposed
to Bill C-12, based on the fact that other senior public
servants, lower level public employees and other Canadian workers
had not and will not be awarded such generous increases.
In the same year that federal judges were being awarded these
huge salary increases, comparatively Royal Canadian Mounted
Police officers, who had had their salaries and wages frozen for
five years, were granted an increase of 2% in March 1998,
retroactive to January. A second pay increase was given to them
in April 1998 and toward the end of that year they received
another three-quarter per cent increase. Over the five years
that they had been frozen, and in the next year of 1998, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police saw an increase of three and
three-quarter per cent. They are on the front lines putting
their lives in jeopardy. The average three year constable
received less than $2,000 over those years.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that the former member of
Crowfoot put forward an amendment to Bill C-37 that was supported
and passed in the House during report stage. That amendment
ensured that every four years the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights had the opportunity to review the report of the
commission on judges' salaries and benefits. The task would not
be left solely to the Minister of Justice as was originally
contemplated by the Liberal government.
It would be negligent of me if I also did not recognize the
thorough job the Senate did in reviewing Bill C-37, the
pre-emptive bill to Bill C-12, and the substantive amendments
that it brought forward at the upper house.
In particular, I would like to single out the efforts of Senator
Anne Cools for her diligent efforts in revealing the many
inadequacies of Bill C-37. Senator Cools apparently exposed the
fact that Bill C-37 would effectively allow judges to set their
own wages, salaries and benefits and in so doing would set up the
possibility of there being a show down between parliament and the
judiciary. It would allow judges to appeal parliament's decision
regarding a recommendation of the salary increase put forward in
the courts. Essentially the judges would have the final say over
whether or not parliamentarians were giving them a sufficient
raise.
1535
Although former judicial pay commissioner David Scott said it
was unlikely that judges would ever be setting their own
salaries, he would not rule out the possibility of the judiciary
challenging parliament's response to the commission's
recommendations for a pay increase or for reducing pay.
The judiciary would have to prove, however, in a court that the
refusal to increase salaries or a decision to lower them was
motivated by a wish to diminish the independence of judges. Mr.
Scott said that even if the judges won in such a case, the court
could only declare parliament's motion on the issue void and that
would result in a stalemate. As pointed out by the Liberal
senator, this would “deprive Canadians of their undoubted
constitutional right to parliament's control over the public
purse in respect to the judiciary”.
Clearly, the control of the public purse rests with the elected
members of parliament and not with the unelected members of the
judiciary.
Section 100 of the 1867, Constitution Act, states in part that the
salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges shall be fixed
and provided by the Parliament of Canada. Clause 6 of Bill C-37
potentially abolished parliament's role in fixing judges'
salaries.
Obviously we must question why the Minister of Justice at that
time was so willing to bestow such potentially wielding powers on
the judiciary through Bill C-37. One can only surmise, and again
I use the words of Senator Cools when she said:
The real intent (of Bill C-37) is to remove parliament from the
process.... There is a problem in that certain particular judges
seem to crave a closeness to certain individuals in the
Department of Justice and are trying to cling, closer and closer,
to the executive rather than to parliament.
She went on to say to the Senate:
In other words, honourable senators, what is happening here is
that 200 years of history are being turned on their head, and we
are being told in this judgment that, quite frankly, judges
prefer their fate to be in the hands of the executive rather than
in the hands of parliament. It is a most curious and interesting
subject matter.
It is more than curious and interesting, it is fearful.
Bill C-37, which was also an act to amend the Judges Act as it
was originally drafted by the Department of Justice, had another
problem. It created a legal right for a judge to have two
spouses. The two spouses clause was meant to deal with
circumstances in which a married judge, who was separated from
his or her wife or husband and was living common law with another
person, died. It would have allowed a judge to have both
spouses, married and common law, to be eligible for the lucrative
pension. In addition, the common law spouse would collect a one
time payout of one-sixth of the judge's annual salary at the time
of his or her passing.
Former supreme court Justice William Estey said that this
particular section of Bill C-37 would “give his former
colleagues on the bench the right to a kind of homemade harem. It
would effectively create two separate sets of family law, one for
the judges and one for everyone else”.
During debate on this legislation it was noted that the
situations such as the contemplated one in Bill C-37 were rare.
Therefore, questions arose as to why such a clause was put into
Bill C-37. Critics suggested that this particular clause was
tailor made for Chief Justice LeSage who was separated from his
wife and had resided for about a year with Judge Lang. If Chief
Justice LeSage were to die, the new amendment would have allowed
both Judge Lang and Mrs. LeSage to qualify as his surviving
spouse and share his pension.
As pointed out by Senator Cools during the debate, Bill C-37
appeared tailor fit to particular individuals. Senator Cools
said “We have a situation in this country where individuals have
access to the legislative writing machine”. Senator Cools said
that it was very bothersome. Again, that is more than
bothersome. That is a huge concern.
1540
I understand that Bill C-37 was not the first time that the
government has tailor made legislation to amend the Judges Act.
Bill C-42, as mentioned earlier, also amended the Judges Act. It
changed the pension scheme and working conditions of the
federally appointed judiciary. In particular, it set out the
terms on which Canadian judges could participate in international
activities.
Although it was never explicitly admitted by the House or by the
government, it was no secret that these amendments to the Judges
Act arose due to the 1996 appointment of then Madam Justice
Louise Arbour to the United Nations as a prosecutor for its
special war crimes division.
Apparently opposition members naively agreed in June of that
year, just before the House recessed for the summer, without any
debate in the House, without any debate at committee, to pass
Bill C-42 after being assured by the former justice minister that
it was a simple innocuous housekeeping bill. It was not until
the amended bill was returned from the Senate and the testimony
of witnesses that appeared before the Senate committee were made
known that my colleagues realized that Bill C-42, as claimed by
legal experts, had “the appearance of transgressing the vital
principle of judicial impartiality”, the very principle that our
Minister of Justice has just spoken on.
In particular, I refer to the testimony of Professor Morton:
The government is concerned, as well it should be, with the
current status of Justice Arbour and the implications of her
status for those responsible at justice. The government seems to
hope that by passing Bill C-42 as quickly as possible it can
retroactively legitimate apparent indiscretions by Justice Arbour
and possibly others—
It would appear that Justice Arbour agreed to the appointment
before it had been approved by the Minister of Justice (or any
other officials), thereby forcing the minister to react to a fait
accompli. Furthermore, it then appears that the minister, rather
than recommending to Justice Arbour that she postpone her new
activities (at the Hague) pending necessary amendments to the
Judges Act, sought to temporarily legitimate her actions by an
order in council; and then (because the order in council is
conceded to be insufficient) sought to retroactively legitimate
Justice Arbour's new employment with general amendments to the
Judges Act, Bill C-42, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament.
Professor Morton added:
No doubt some will say that this is nit-picking. My response is
simple. If the justice minister and appeal court judges cannot
be expected to comply with the letter of the law, then who
can?...Indeed within the last month the justice minister himself
pronounced on the meaning and the importance of the rule of the
law. The rule of the law is “a living” principle that is
fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance it means
that everyone in our society, including ministers of government,
premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike,
is governed by the same law of the land.
While one section of Bill C-42 at that point in time appeared
tailor made for Arbour, another section of that very same bill
was apparently designed for the then chief justice of the supreme
court in that it offered an unprecedented pension benefit to the
chief justice and his wife at the very time when the top court
was considering the most politically sensitive case of the
decade, perhaps of confederation, whether Quebec had a
constitutional right to secede from Canada.
The proposed changes did away with the prohibition on judicial
double-dipping. Previously a retired judge received a pension
equal to two-thirds of his annual salary; on average, about
$104,000. When he died, his spouse collected a survivor's
pension worth one-third of his salary or $52,000, provided that
she was not a retired judge.
Under the new law retired judge spouses will collect both, thus
receiving a total pension equivalent to their salary before
retirement. The most obvious beneficiary of the change was Chief
Justice Lamer and his wife, Federal Court of Canada Justice
Danièle Tremblay-Lamer.
1545
With regard to this section of Bill C-42, Professor Morton said:
Without imputing any illicit motive to anyone involved—the
timing of this proposed change could not be worse.
Morton also said that sceptics would claim:
It is unacceptable that a chief justice who is about to benefit
from the minister's proposed pension policy change now sits in
judgment of the minister's Quebec reference—the most politically
sensitive constitutional case of the decade.
In closing, I would assure the House and Canadians in general
that the official opposition will closely scrutinize Bill C-12.
In particular, we will review the provision of the bill that
changes the annuities scheme.
I am not a financial expert. I am not an expert on annuities or
the pay schedules that are put forward in the bill. Without the
advantage of expert advice at this stage, what appears to happen
is that the changes being made to the Judges Act allow a judge
who is married for the second time to another judge after the
death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect both
or two survivor benefits upon the death of the second spouse. One
could only guess why the government is contemplating such a rare
and highly unlikely situation.
As we have already mentioned, four times the Liberal government
has come to make amendments to the Judges Act. We have seen time
and time again where the government has tailor made legislation
to fit certain individuals and certain situations. We will also
assure the House and Canadians in general that Bill C-12 is not
tailor made to any individuals. If it were, it would definitely
compromise the impartiality of our judiciary.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-12,
an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in
consequence.
The bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's
response to the recommendations made by the 1999 judicial
compensation and benefits commission. Among those
recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for
1,013 federally appointed judges. The bill is purely
administrative in nature, but that is the problem.
This is the fourth time the Liberal government has sought to
amend the act. During the 35th parliament the government
introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 and during the 36th parliament,
Bill C-37, all of which were minor pieces of legislation or of
little significance to Canadians.
While we all recognize the need for housekeeping bills, there
have been no significant initiatives by the current Liberal
government to address the serious concerns of many Canadians with
our judiciary. It appears more and more that the issues
parliament may address when it comes to the judiciary are merely
administrative in nature.
Under the guise of the charter the courts have appropriated for
themselves the right to deal with substantive policy matters. The
courts have in addition appropriated for themselves the right to
effectively control the ability to set their salaries, a matter
which the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically left to
parliament.
The decision of the courts purported to find a new
constitutional obligation to require the legislatures to set up a
commission to establish the salaries for provincially appointed
judges. The supreme court, which was called upon to confirm this
process, not only did so but included a newfound constitutional
obligation requiring parliament to follow a similar process when
it came to setting salaries for federally appointed judges.
1550
Although the fiction is that parliament can exercise its own
judgment in respect to the salaries recommended by the
committees, in reality the judges simply overturn those
legislated decisions where they disagree with them. One need
look no further than the Alberta legislature for a very practical
demonstration of the court's powers.
This is simply a case of judges discovering new constitutional
principles that benefit themselves financially without political
accountability or, as one of my constituents observed in
describing the case, “the judges paying the judge's case”.
This newfound constitutional process that the judges discovered
further decreased parliamentary responsibility for the
expenditure of public funds and moves toward the creation of an
economically independent judiciary with its own political agenda.
A recent letter to Maclean's magazine by a Mr. W. J. Jack
of Innisfil, Ontario, noted:
It seems to me that members of Parliament no longer want to or
can't make laws that work, so they let appointed judges do that
job. If the Supreme Court is going to legislate, we won't need
elections, except to vote for one person who would then appoint
the members of the court. This would save taxpayers a lot of
money, and we'd still have the one-man-rule system that we have
today.
Coupled with the self-granting powers under the charter and an
executive appointed judiciary as we now have, I would argue the
courts can be and often are used to advance the political agenda
of a government in a particular direction without consultation
with the members of parliament who are accountable to the people
of Canada and who represent their interests.
Judicial activism is all too common in our courts. Many if not
most Canadians would agree that it must remain the responsibility
of parliament to debate and ultimately resolve the political,
economic and social issues that govern all our lives.
However over the past two decades judges supreme court justices
in particular have to varying degrees engaged in a frenzy of
constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary
substituting its legal and social preferences for those of the
elected representatives of the people in parliament and the
legislatures.
A leader in this judicial activism was the former Chief Justice
of Canada, Antonio Lamer. Although he is now retired, the
decisions he wrote or participated in will continue to impact on
the principles and institutions of our democracy. Unfortunately
that impact has been at an alarming cost to our democracy and to
the public safety and security of our citizens.
Another member of the court has recently added his concern to
the direction of the supreme court and the judicial activism of
the former chief justice. Mr. Justice Bastarache has warned the
nation of the dangers of the judicial government favoured by the
former chief justice. In contrast to the former chief justice,
Justice Bastarache has committed himself to an interpretation of
the charter of rights and freedoms that pays respect to
democratic principles and institutions.
The House and the people of Canada should commend Mr. Justice
Bastarache and other jurists who recognize the dangers of the
legal and constitutional anarchy reflected in the judgments of
the former chief justice. Our democratic principles and
institutions are too important to be hijacked by a non-elected
political judiciary.
Let us consider for a moment a recent high profile supreme court
decision that typifies the issue. In Minister of Justice v Burns
and Rafay the supreme court in effect removed the justice
minister's parliamentary prerogative of choosing whether or not
to seek assurances before extraditing alleged criminals facing
the death penalty in another country, the United States or
otherwise.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of capital
punishment, the court has attempted to deprive parliament of
debating the issue further.
The court has overridden Canada's law as written by parliament
and has chosen to push its political agenda to the forefront by
opening Canada's borders to violent criminals.
1555
That is not just my characterization. The day after the Rafay
and Burns decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada
the lawyers for the Minister of Justice, in another related case,
stood before the court and said that the impact of the decisions
was to create safe havens for criminals.
According to the precedent set in previous supreme court
rulings, the minister had only been required to seek guarantees
when the possibility of the death penalty would shock the
conscience or otherwise outrage standards of decency.
In this decision, the supreme court has attempted to reconcile
its new position with its 1991 precedent. However, in actual
fact it has rewritten the law. The recent ruling stipulated that
the Minister of Justice was required to seek guarantees prior to
the extradition of Rafay and Burns and in the future on all
accused of such crimes.
Our extradition treaty with the United States has also been
effectively rewritten. One might think that the practical effect
of extraditing these individuals, if they are convicted in the
state of Washington, is that they would face life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole. That is only technically
true. If they are convicted and all appeals are exhausted, they
become automatically eligible for the prisoner exchange program.
They then come back to Canada where the maximum sentence is 25
years before eligibility for parole and, with the faint hope
clause, they can apply for parole after 15 years.
Taking into account that these individuals have already been
held for six or seven years, if they were successful under the
faint hope clause they would be on the streets after eight years.
If in fact they are the people who brutally killed three American
citizens for insurance money, the practical consequence of their
crime would be eight years.
This is not an issue about the death penalty. This is the
circumvention of parliament by refusing to allow parliament to
have a say in the laws that govern crime in Canada. This is an
abdication of our responsibility. Our responsibility has been
taken away by the Supreme Court of Canada which has its own
political agenda when it comes to criminal law.
In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court has
prevented any legislative attempt to reintroduce capital
punishment in Canada. This is regardless of where one stands on
the issue. Our party does not have a position on capital
punishment. The court's decision effectively says that the
elected people of Canada can never make the decision because it
is constitutionally prohibited. The political reason given was
that the practice is unjust and should be stopped. That is not a
legal judgment. That is a political decision.
Again, regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is a
decision for parliament and its elected representatives to make.
Regardless of the convictions of the court, amending Canada's
laws and treaties for policy reasons should be the responsibility
of parliament and not the courts.
Former Chief Justice Lamer's judicial activism is not in harmony
with the democratic principles of Canada, regardless of whether
we oppose or defend the cause that the court may support. People
might say that it is a good decision regardless of it being a
political one.
1600
The decisions of the court on political matters short-circuit
the process, undermine the authority of parliament and bring the
institution of parliament into disrepute. It is not that it
insults parliamentarians, it insults the people who elected
parliamentarians to make these decisions on their behalf.
While this issue is a major concern, it is far from being the
only problem in our judicial system that requires the attention
of parliament. Another such issue is related to the appointment
process.
It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges
Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial
Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal
government with yet another opportunity to make patronage
appointments. The commission consists of three members appointed
by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates
these three: One is nominated by the judiciary; one is nominated
by the Minister of Justice; and one, who acts as a chair, is
nominated by the first two persons nominated.
The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the
appointment process means that important and high paying
positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the
patronage system.
The Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage
appointment process overhauled to make it more transparent and
publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee
that would review and interview candidates whose names would be
put forward to the Prime Minister. The input of the provinces,
which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of
Canada, is required in these matters.
Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay
for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal
government is prepared to grant the much lower paid civil
service. It lately has been the practice of the government to
grant raises to senior officers in the military, senior
bureaucrats and now judges while dragging its feet on a general
salary increase for staff.
While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed judges and
others should generally be in line with the private sector, it is
apparent that the foot soldiers of our justice system are being
ignored.
What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable
judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from
the arbitrary power of the state. However it must remain the
responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and
assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy
development.
This bill, like its predecessors, deals solely with the
administrative aspects of the courts and does not address the
multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial
system. Therefore, my colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my remarks on this bill will be brief.
In past parliaments I had the opportunity to comment on
raises to our high court judges. What I said at that time was
that, given the financial situation in Canada and the cuts that
were being made all over the map, there should not be any
increase, or at least not to the extent being proposed.
Today, I announce a change in tune. On the one hand, there are
far more means available to us now for paying our judges. We
have far more financial leeway than we did then.
I have listened carefully to the previous speakers, the Minister
of Justice and certain members of the Canadian Alliance. I have
to say that there comes a time when there must be some straight
dealing in such a matter, as in any other. No more hiding one's
head in the sand or talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
1605
In this House we have already heard certain parties claiming
they wanted no pensions, felt MPs were overpaid, did not want any
limousines, did not want to live in the residence of the leader
of the official opposition, and then a few years later here they
are accepting these benefits, and rightly so. I feel they
go with the territory, but there must be no doublespeak here.
The public wants to see us with the best judges, the most
competent people. We want our MPs to be highly competent, to be
available around the clock if possible. In the workings of
government the best people are needed.
People expect those who manage billions of dollars to be very
good managers. They are entitled to demand that, but we cannot
say that we want the best ones and not pay them.
I will give an example. I am digressing a bit, but this will
illustrate my point of view on this issue. Let us take
Hydro-Quebec. This has little to do with judges, I know, but I
simply want to give an example. The president of Hydro-Quebec may
earn $300,000. If he worked in the private sector, he would make
two, three or even four times that salary.
Getting back to the issue, I know judges who earn a lot less
than they did when they practised law. They agreed to become
judges for all sorts of reasons. In some cases, it was because
they had a very demanding practice as lawyers. Others, given
their experience and expertise, wanted to give something back to
society. These are not bad people who only think about
themselves, on the contrary. We have very good judges in Canada.
We have a system that works well. There is always room for
improvement.
We must not antagonize them the way some parties are trying to
do today. Rather, we must ask ourselves why we now have before us
a bill to increase the salaries of higher court judges, of
federally appointed judges. Let us not make this too complicated.
On the contrary, we must make it simple, so that people will
understand why we are faced with this issue.
On November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the
whole issue of salaries for the judges of one province, namely
Prince Edward Island.
In this reference, the justices of the supreme court in their
ruling established new constitutional requirements for setting
the salaries of judges.
In a country justice has to start from some point. It happened
that it was the justices of the supreme court, Canada's highest
court, that ruled on this matter. Yes, at first glance, we might
say there was a conflict of interest, since judges handed down a
ruling concerning other judges. Who should do the judging? Who
decides? Parliament?
We have an institution, the Supreme Court of Canada. We have the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think that, since the
charter was passed, since the Constitution was patriated, some of
the powers of the House of Commons have been taken over by
others, including the Canadian charter. In my opinion,
parliamentarians have lost some of their jurisdiction under the
umbrella of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada is rendering decisions with
all of its powers. It handed down a decision on November 18,
1997. I know, I was here in the House. This decision led the
House of Commons to introduce an amendment to the Judges Act in
order to establish an independent, and in my opinion, effective
review board, the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission,
far more capable than I to consider the salaries judges might
earn, whether they were at the Supreme Court of Canada, the
Federal Court, a trial court or an appeal court, in Quebec or in
the other provinces, or the judges of the higher courts of each
of the provinces.
1610
This commission looked at what went on in the private sector and
where judges came from. It concluded that their salary should be
increased by 26%, according to my notes here. I think 26% is a
bit much, and this is where the minister has the discretion to
justify not giving 26%, and this is what she has done today.
The increase is 11.2% which I do not consider unreasonable,
instead of the 26.3% proposed by the commission.
The commission's mandate was to consider what would be the best
remuneration for these judges, as well as to look into whether
salaries and benefits for judges were adequate, with regard to
three points: existing economic conditions in Canada, including
the cost of living and the economic position of the federal
government as a whole; the role of the financial security of
judges in maintaining the independence of the judiciary; and the
need to attract top notch candidates.
I mentioned that, when we do a comparison and look at where
judges come from, we see that 73% are from the private sector,
11% are from lower courts and 16% are from government or other
fields of legal practice and from universities.
When we look at the remuneration of 73% of appointees from the
private sector, we see that the average pre-appointment salary of
those from Quebec was $209,000 a year. We certainly cannot
appoint people without the required training or specialization.
In any event, as everyone knows, there are appointment criteria,
such as years of practice and so forth.
As for benefits, a pension and the level of remuneration, this
committee looked into the matter and decided to recommend a 26%
increase.
Bill C-12 before us today sets the increase at 11.2%. Compared
to earlier bills, I do not consider this unreasonable.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-12. I
am sure the minister is paying careful attention and will come to
the realization that the Bloc Quebecois supports the government
when it presents bills that are reasonable and in line with the
interests of the people of Quebec.
As much as I have an attentive ear for this bill, I would like
to see the minister lend an equally attentive one to the demands
from Quebec, including those relating to the young offender
legislation. I cannot help commenting that I hope the minister
will also listen to what Quebec is calling for in this
connection.
As for Bill C-12, this is a bill we are going to support. I
have two comments, however, that are a little more on the
negative side, although not jeopardizing our support for Bill
C-12.
The first relates to retroactivity. I realize that the
commission's report was tabled on May 31, 2000, and we are now in
March 2001. When this bill is passed, however, there will be
nearly a year's retroactivity. I have trouble accepting that.
1615
This being said, I understand the issue of retroactivity,
and this is my second criticism is, but why did it take so long
for the government to introduce this bill?
I read the commission's report, which is very well made and very
well detailed. I did not take a whole year to read it. That
report was tabled on May 31, 2000. What has the minister been
doing since? She could have introduced a bill, long before the
government called the election in October 2000, to follow up on
the commission's report. Had the minister done so, we would not
be stuck with retroactive payments of this magnitude.
My two negative comments, therefore, have to do with
retroactivity and the government's slowness to act regarding an
issue like this one. I do hope there were reasons other than an
election call for the minister to postpone the introduction of
this bill. I do hope the minister cares enough about the justice
system to not have unduly waited until after the election to
introduce a bill that provides an 11% increase for our judges.
These are my only two negative comments at this point. The Bloc
Quebecois will definitely support the bill. We will keep track of
it. We will follow all the debates on Bill C-12. We will
certainly be there to ask questions to the witnesses appearing
before the committee to express their views on this bill. If
people submit briefs, I will take the time to read them.
That is about it at this stage. Bill C-12 will get the support
of the Bloc Quebecois and it should get the support of all
parliamentarians. I agree with the minister, and I will conclude
on this note, that in Canada and in Quebec we have extremely
qualified and competent judges. I have no problems backing the
judges by supporting this bill, so that they can get fair
compensation and remain totally independent from the political
system.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I am pleased to join in the debate
on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend other
acts in consequence. I find the bill to be an interesting one,
especially in the light of some of the contradictions I see
between the bill and other similar issues over which the
government has jurisdiction.
It is my understanding that the purpose of the bill is to
implement the federal government's response to the report of the
1999 judicial compensation and benefits commission regarding
compensation and benefits for judges. Implementing the
commission's report seems reasonable enough, but let us not
forget that the creation of the judicial compensation and
benefits commission provides the federal government with yet
another opportunity to make patronage appointments.
The government's response to this issue is to introduce this
bill to amend the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and
allowances, modify the current judicial annuities scheme, and put
into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed
judges.
1620
It is imperative that the independence of judges be maintained.
The independence of the judiciary cannot be called into question.
What is important is to determine the fairness of the
commission's report. With this bill the government has accepted
the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2% for
1,013 federally appointed judges, retroactive to April 1, 2000.
The implementation of this increase would cost Canadian taxpayers
alone approximately $19 million.
It is my understanding that during this process the judiciary
had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%. Their
rationale for the increase was that the federal government must
compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates
to the bench. While I believe that a competitive salary is
required to ensure good candidates, I fail to see any great
shortage of candidates for the bench.
Over the past decade there has been an average of eight
candidates for each opening on the bench. I can just envision
the application office for judges absolutely crowded with
prospective candidates, waiting in line, filling out all the
applications, and in the back of their minds there is this
wonderful salary and compensation package. Surely out of every
eight candidates for the bench there must be at least one well
qualified applicant.
The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998 when they
received 4.1%. The previous year they also received 4.1%. In
other words, over a two year period federal judges had received
an 8.2% increase. According to Statistics Canada, the consumer
price index from 1996 to 1998 rose 2.55%. Mr. Speaker, I presume
that your salary, my salary and indeed the salaries of most
Canadians across the country would be somewhat governed by that
statistic. However let us remember that these are judges we are
talking about and that the salaries of judges are already
indexed. They receive annual cost of living increases as well as
particular salary increases.
To be fair, I must say that I favour competitive salaries. If
there is a major disparity when comparing a peer position in the
private sector, either the quality of candidates or the number of
qualified candidates will diminish. I do not believe that this
is in anyone's best interest. Yet to date I do not see that the
bench is short of applicants.
While we have the bill before us I would also like to draw
attention to one of my major concerns regarding the judiciary. I
would like to see an overhaul of the process of patronage
appointments in the judiciary to make it more transparent and
publicly accountable. The Alliance policy by which I am guided
states:
We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent
judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards
and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore
ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open
and accountable process based on merit.
The key words are based on merit: who will do the best job and
who is the most qualified to do the best job.
While there has been much talk of late regarding parliamentary
reform, I believe that by extension the reform should also
include the public service. This is an opportunity to show the
government's sincerity for true reform. The process should be
completely open and accountable, and accountable in this case
includes fairness.
I am somewhat alarmed that the proposed increase in pay is
higher, for instance, than the federal government is reportedly
prepared to grant the much lower paid civil servants in general.
It has been the practice of the government to grant raises to
senior officers in the military, senior bureaucrats and now
judges, while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for
staff.
I think one of the most appalling situations in this regard is
the amount of wages paid to entry level members of our armed
forces. Privates, corporals and others often have to moonlight
at jobs to make ends meet. This is simply not acceptable.
There is no way that the people involved in our military who
stand on guard for us should have to go to food banks. There
needs to be a requirement of fairness in the whole issue.
1625
The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the
appointment process means that these very important and high
paying positions will essentially remain part of the patronage
system. Members only need to look around for a moment to see the
level of patronage that already emanates from the Prime
Minister's Office itself. The Liberal Party has floated a few
trial balloons about parliamentary change and reform, but it is
time to walk the talk. It is easy to talk about change but it
takes real courage and true leadership to implement it.
Change is never easy for any of us. We are getting older and we
know that in old age it is harder to change. However, if the
government introduced real change, real parliamentary reform and
real accountability, I believe it would have the support of many
members on this side of the House and of all Canadians. Perhaps
it should try it. The bill provides a golden opportunity to
begin the process.
I am also reminded about the way that salaries, expense accounts
and pensions are set for members of parliament. I do not believe
that members of the public would deny parliamentarians a
reasonable salary and pension. What the public begrudges is the
current manner in which MPs' salaries are adjusted by the MPs
themselves. Again there would be an opportunity for change as
submitted by members of the opposition, namely an independent
body outside the House made up of qualified members of the public
would bring in recommendations that would be binding upon members
of the House.
The public is simply not willing to continue to have a
government act unaccountably. As a critic for Indian affairs I
constantly hear from grassroot band members who are literally
crying out for accountability from either their own chiefs and
councils, the department or both. What hope could the government
offer grassroots aboriginal people, or any Canadian for that
matter, that accountability is important if it will not live by
the same set of rules itself?
We can do better and we should do better. We as members of the
House have the opportunity to do it even in this parliament, but
too often Liberals opposite take the easier road. For instance,
they occupy the justice committee with administrative matters at
the expense of more important issues. The country is
experiencing a high degree of backlog in the courts and many
criminal trials must be put on hold in the meantime.
Let us take the time to make positive change. There is a
general feeling in Canada that this Chamber has virtually no real
power, but Canadians could be told by parliament, by the House,
that we are interested in real reform if we really want it. Let
us start it by making the necessary changes to Bill C-12.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House
today to address Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to
amend another act in consequence.
Before I begin this opportunity to address government
legislation for the first time, I should like to thank my
constituents in the riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for
having granted me the opportunity and honour of representing them
in this notable House.
Bill C-12 proposes an 11.2% salary increase for 1,013 federally
appointed judges retroactive to April 2000. No one can be
faulted for requesting a pay raise. Let us be honest. Who would
not like a pay raise? What bothers me is our federal
government's willingness to grant substantial pay increases to
individuals who are already making what most Canadians would see
as a very good living.
In the meantime, one of the mainstays of our Canadian economy,
Canadian farmers, including many in my own riding, time and again
have to come to the federal government for the funds needed
simply to stay alive.
1630
Back in my home province of Saskatchewan, the 2000 net farm
income is projected to be 35% of the five year average taken from
1995 to 1999, and that was a bad five years. That is a 65%
decrease. For 2001, total net income is projected to drop
further, from $251 million to $141 million. This is only 20% of
the 1995 to 1999 average, or an 80% decrease in income. The five
year average, as I mentioned, already has two bad years of income
included in it.
The government's attempt to get support to farmers, the AIDA
program, has failed the majority of our farm families. This is
why the farmers have and will continue to come to have their
voices heard on the Hill. Only 60% of that emergency aid has
even reached the farmers. Over a quarter of the claims for 1999
remain unprocessed by the federal government and the farmers want
to know why it is taking so long. The money promised over two
years ago by the minister of agriculture for losses in 1998 and
1999 needs to be delivered, but they still do not have their
money. Because of the years of farm policy failure by the
Liberal government, farm families need an immediate cash
injection. They demanded this. The funds that were given were
merely an insult to them.
I know it seems that I have wandered from the topic as I mention
the farm crisis, but Bill C-12 seems to reward some people who
are already doing very well and are not in a crisis at all. We
are able to easily come up with money to hand to them. The
apparent contrast of these two issues begs the question: where
are the government's priorities?
Many constituents of mine in the riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre are disillusioned with the government due to its uncanny
ability to make decisions that fail to address the real issues
affecting real people.
I want to be clear. I am not saying that judges are not real
people, that they do not have real needs and that they do not
have a right to have the government's attention for their real
and often valid concerns. What I am saying is that to the
majority of my constituents and, I would venture to assume, to
the majority of Canadians, granting federal judges a salary
increase of almost 20% in a three year period is not an important
priority.
How can the government justify giving its federal court judges
an additional salary increase of 11.2% over and above the already
given 8.2% increase that they received in 1997? How will this
proposed pay increase help fix the current backlog in federal
court cases? Will the federal court be 11.2% more efficient in
dealing with the current backlog of court cases?
The Auditor General of Canada recently stated in his February
2001 report that government departments must do a better job at
providing value for money. In other words, the auditor general
is asking government departments if taxpayers are getting true
value for the government's spending of their tax dollars.
This very day I attended on the Hill a symposium in which we
were told that value for money would be a valid criteria by which
we should judge government actions and government programs. I
ask this question of the government with respect to proposed Bill
C-12: how will this pay increase provide value for money for
Canadians and for their taxpayer dollars? How will giving the
average judge an increase of approximately $19,000 to $20,000 in
salary address the roots of the problem the federal courts are
facing today?
Although I am no economist, I did a little math to try to shed
some light on the amount of dollars being spent on this
legislation. If one takes the salary of the lowest paid judge,
according to Bill C-12 itself, and adds an 11.2% increase, it
means a minimum salary increase of nearly $20,000 to every
federal court judge.
If we multiply $20,000 by the number of federal court judges
whose salaries will be increased, there is a total salary
increase of over $19 million. Is this money, $19 million for
only 1,000 people, well spent?
1635
There is a need for an improved judiciary system. As my
colleague has mentioned already, there are plenty of lawyers to
fill these positions; the Prime Minister has a list. Yet all he
can think about is increasing their salaries. The problem
requires more imagination than simply adding money. More money
in the hands of judges does nothing to address any of the
problems.
In closing, I do not support Bill C-12 on the basis of four
points. First, it fails to address the vital questions of
integrity and honesty regarding the appointment process used by
the Prime Minister and the government. Second, it fails to meet
the reasonable expectations of Canadians in regard to how their
judicial system should serve them. Third, the bill fails to
address any backlogs presently being experienced. Fourth, it
fails to meet the taxpayers' demand for a reasonable return on
their hard earned tax money.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak to this bill today.
I am not in favour of increases to the judiciary, for reasons
similar to those addressed by my colleague. However, I want to
take this opportunity to talk about some of the other problems
that exist in the judiciary in our country.
Many of the reasons for the lack of support for raises to the
judiciary stem from the frustration of individuals throughout
Canada with the decisions made by the judiciary, which in recent
years have become more appalling than anything I have ever seen.
I would like to run through some of those cases as I have seen
them and as I have experienced them.
A few years ago Darren Ursel violently sexually assaulted a
young lady in my riding. We followed the case right through the
courts. Judge Harry Boyle decided that the penalty for violently
sexually assaulting this young lady was a conditional sentence,
that Mr. Ursel would serve no time in jail, that it was a matter
of “go home, think about this and stay away from the bars”.
There was no time in jail. That judge set rape sentencing back
25 to 30 years in this country. There was basically no penalty.
Our community had to fight and fight hard through appeal to get
that guy two years. He got two years and ended up serving
virtually no time because the time from the issuance of the
conditional sentence through to the appeal was considered in his
sentence. The guy walked within a couple of months.
When I hear of stupid decisions by judges like this, one could
not expect me to come to the House of Commons and suggest that
they deserve a raise. I will go though a couple more cases.
Judge Dennis Devitt sentenced convicted child molester William
Gibson Brown to a two year conditional sentence and probation. He
was convicted of two counts of sexually assaulting a minor.
Devitt's reason for the sentence was that both the defence and
the crown agreed that a conditional sentence of two years would
suffice. Is there any reason for that?
Tomorrow we will be debating all day in the House to try to get
a national sex offender registry throughout Canada. This guy
sexually assaulted a minor on two counts and was given a
conditional sentence. He did not serve a day in jail. Yet the
government asks me to give a raise to a judge. There is not a
hope in blazes that I will do that.
1640
If that is not frustrating enough, let us talk about Dean James
Bauder of Manitoba, who had his nine month prison sentence
overturned by a Manitoba court. Bauder was convicted of sexually
assaulting a young girl who was his children's babysitter. He
sexually assaulted her for a period of time when she was 12 and
then 13 years old. The judge, Justice Kerr Twaddle, justified
the sentence and described the 12 year old as a willing
participant. A judge sat on the bench and said that this child
was a willing participant with an adult.
Then the government comes in here and wants me to stand up to
give judges a raise. These are not all federal court judges, but
they are judges, and the image the judiciary is getting in this
country is really bad.
I have been doing a lot of work on the issue of drugs in our
country, so I get reports of sentences and convictions of
individuals. I have them here, as a matter of fact. They are
very interesting. When one looks at them, one wonders what goes
on in our courtrooms and why drugs are pushed so much by
individuals and the profit is so high. I just want to tell the
House about a couple of decisions that were made.
A guy was caught with $302,000 worth of drugs, which were
seized. He was on welfare at the time. A judge gave him a 60
day intermittent sentence on weekends. Now there was a penalty:
he had to go to jail on the weekends for the possession of
$300,000 worth of drugs.
In and of itself, one might say that is all right because the
guy was caught for the first time. Was it the first time? Let
us look at him. I have here four pages of this guy's
convictions. In Calgary, Alberta, he got probation from a judge
for break and enter, and probation for a second break and enter.
A few months later he got 18 months for another break and enter.
He got out of there and was convicted on another break and enter.
Did the judge give him more time? No. The judge suspended his
sentence and gave him probation again. Two months after that he
was convicted of another break and enter. He got two years and
was surprised, because he had not been penalized a heck of a lot.
That was escalating things, that time by a good judge.
After that he is convicted of break and enter five times. Those
are either withdrawn or concurrent. When he got out of prison on
parole he was on probation and what did he do? Breach of
probation. What happened? Nothing. The judge probably thought
it was possible to rehabilitate him at this point.
In June of the following year he was released on mandatory
supervision. He lasted until August when he was recommitted. In
September he was convicted of break and enter and his sentence
was 18 months consecutive, which was actually no problem for this
guy because they let him out very quickly and he was convicted of
break and enter again. Then he was caught with stolen property
and the charges were withdrawn.
He moved to Winnipeg and was charged with break and enter twice.
There was a stay of proceedings and he was sentenced to mandatory
supervision. A couple of months later there was a break and
enter, then break and enter, theft, break and enter, theft, times
five. This was a nice guy we had going there. He got a little
worse. He moved to Edmonton and was committed for three months
for theft.
As we can see, this fellow had a string of convictions and the
judges were not doing this as a deterrent. These judges were
looking at him and saying “poor boy”. They gave him a little
bit here, a little bit there and nothing here, the poor boy.
We need some corrective action. Where are the judges?
1645
He has piles of cases for stolen property, drugs, forged
documents, using stolen credit cards, mischief, assault,
trafficking and stolen weapons. It goes on and on. I could
spend all week talking about these guys.
The problem is that these individuals are going into our
courtrooms and the judges are treating the cases like
misdemeanours. Yet, the judges say they are doing a pretty good
job and that they want a raise. I have the greatest of
difficulty, having lost confidence in many of the decisions that
happen in courtrooms, standing here and say it is justified. It
is not justified.
There are more cases across the country where people have lost
confidence in the system than I could name. I went to my office
a few minutes ago and asked the staff to pull me up a few
decisions by the judiciary. A Quebec judge decided Friday to end
the trial of the parents accused of letting their baby starve to
death. He cited the 18 month gap between the incident and the
couple's arrest, so they walked. A child was starved to death
and nothing happened.
I do not know how we have come to this. I believe however that
the legal industry, which was once our justice system, has now
lost sight of the common sense of the common law and spends more
of its time on the technicalities of the law. That is wrong. I
have had victims come to my office. They have said that they
were victims, that they did not matter and that when they went
into the courtrooms they saw bad decisions. They said there was
no help for them and that nothing could be done.
Sometimes help does come. There is a great movement in the
country today to try to get the judiciary to smarten up and
finally make some decent decisions. Once in a while it does but
it has been a long time in coming. Before one ounce of money
goes on the paycheque, I want to see some accountability and
responsibility picked up by the judiciary.
I had a meeting with a victim last Thursday in my office in
British Columbia. A judge in British Columbia convicted an
individual of murder. He was in the car when another guy blew a
lady away. He shot her in the head. He was sentenced in
December, I believe, for murder. He appealed it. What did the
judge do? He said “Why keep the guy in jail. We do not want to
corrupt him”. So he let him out. It was one of the rare
situations where a person was convicted of murder and a couple of
months later, because a lawyer applied for an appeal, the court
let him out pending the appeal. That judge showed a great
disrespect for the crime of murder.
It is not just me saying that. All the Liberals are listening,
as we can see. It is like pounding on deaf ears.
Hon. David Collenette: Say something intelligent.
Mr. Randy White: The minister wants me to say something
intelligent. It is very interesting that he says that. I know
every one of the victims whom I talked about. It is kind of sad
that what I have been saying is considered unintelligent. I
guess that is just where the government comes from.
If we have a concern about the judiciary, we speak about it in
the House of Commons and bring comments of victims of crime to
its attention. If the government disagrees with it, then it is
unintelligent.
I will make sure that the comment of the minister is well known
across the country.
1650
The government thinks that just because there are lawyers and
judges in courtrooms today that everything is A-OK and the system
works. In many cases the system is not working. One wonders why
people continue to push drugs. I have and do talk to pushers.
One of the reasons they do it is because there is no penalty for
them.
I recently read about the guy who was caught with about $300,000
worth of drugs. His penalty was maybe a fine or maybe a
conditional sentence. There was virtually no penalty. What is
the deterrent for these individuals?
Mr. John Bryden: That is not on the subject.
Mr. Randy White: A member has asked me to get back to the
subject. The subject is that judges stand to get a raise in pay
from this legislation. I suggest to members opposite that many
people do not think it is a good idea. They do not have the
confidence in the judiciary to allow for a raise.
Mr. John Bryden: That is rubbish.
Mr. Randy White: It is true. Time and time again we find
that when we issue these kinds of raises people ask whether they
deserve it. It is the same for members of parliament. When
raises come up for members of parliament people say that they
just do not deserve it.
It is interesting that I can come into the House, knowing the
system as well as I do as far as victims go and being in
courtrooms, and listen to that kind of foolish remark from the
other side. I find it interesting that once again it really does
not matter in the House how bad things are. As long as it is a
majority government it is A-OK in the courtroom.
Time and time again victims are being revictimized the moment
they get into the courtroom. I do not think there is a way in
blazes that we could ever justify an increase, although the
majority government would give it to them.
I guess I just want to express my profound disappointment in
many of the stupid, irresponsible decisions that judges have made
in our courtrooms. I will continue to take every opportunity to
address that issue as I stand here. I thank the minister for his
comment and will make sure that the people I deal with truly
understand how abrasive a minister of the crown can be toward
victims.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the observation
that I appreciate that the member who just spoke has reservations
about how efficiently the court system operates. He certainly,
as we all have done, encountered occasions when he has felt that
judges have ruled in ways in which we might not agree.
My problem though is that he fails to appreciate that the
courts, like our democracy, are not perfect. They make mistakes
just as parliamentarians make mistakes. However, the very basis
of our belief in the rule of law is our faith that the court
system and the judges in that court system will exercise their
judgments without interference, will exercise those judgments
impartially.
1655
As the minister said, when she made the opening remarks for this
legislation, the whole point of this legislation that we have
before the House, Bill C-12, is to provide a salary regime for
the judges, which once provided for, ends the kind of
interference or pressure that might be put on the judges
politically.
This is a very important principle. This separation of the
courts and the government is absolutely vital. I find it a
little bit discouraging to hear the member take what in fact is a
fundamental principle in the separation of powers in our society
and turn it into a dissertation about his disenchantment with the
rulings of various judges.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that judges are fallible. Laws are
fallible. Members of parliament are fallible. However, the one
thing we must protect, and this legislation does that, is we must
protect the impartiality of the system, be it the House of
Commons with its privileges or the courts with their separation
from the government. I just wanted to say that.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I guess one could say that
this legislation is objective and it does make that separation.
However, the fact is that if a person in Canada wants to register
his or her complaints and concerns on behalf of victims of crime,
the person has to do it at an appropriate time. I choose the
debate on judicial salaries to introduce that.
Heaven forbid if the Liberals ever brought legislation in the
House to clean up the mess in those courtrooms, like the lengthy
delays, the deliberate delays, the judge picking that goes on and
the inappropriate stoppages of court cases. Heaven forbid if
they ever brought that in here but they will not. That is the
difficulty.
If we want to address these kind of issues and these
inappropriate decisions, then we have to take every opportunity
to do it. I choose to do it now. That is my right and my
privilege and I am damn well going to do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to prolong the debate needlessly, but I just realized that
what the member was saying could be very interesting.
I understand his wanting to speak at the appropriate time, which
happens only very infrequently. However I do not think it
appropriate for him to use his right to speak today to put our
justice system on trial. He could talk about salary and about
how the justice system could be improved. How does the
government expect to attract qualified people if it does not make
enough money available to pay judges well?
I agree with what the member is saying, but we must also
remember that while improvements are necessary, we must let
ability find expression as well. I believe that a salary must
befit a judge of the supreme court, all judges of the supreme
court, not only the chief justice, and all the judges of the
federal court and the judges of the court of appeal.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this argument, because it follows
from the ability of our judicial system. Yes, partisan
appointments are made. Yes, it is good to bring this sort of
thing out, but today we should concentrate on this particular
fact. I think judges' ability is related to salary, and the
member should answer this question.
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I happen to think
performance is related to remuneration. In a country like ours
one does not issue incomes or remuneration without having some
accountability and some performance associated with it.
In this case we are talking about remuneration of judges. I
choose to talk about performance in conjunction with remuneration
of judges. I think it is appropriate as do a lot of people with
and for whom I work.
1700
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, that was precisely the point. The
problem is that the member is mixing performance with
remuneration, and it is precisely that kind of interference with
the courts that the bill is designed to avoid.
That is why this remuneration is described in an act of this
parliament. It is to take it out of the hands of government. It
is to take it away from this idea that if one does not perform as
I suggest, as I the government want or as a member of parliament
wants, we will change the remuneration. We will lower it. That
is precisely what we have to avoid and what we have to protect if
we want to have the kind of arm's length judiciary that this
democracy needs.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, that member is on another planet in comparison
to this member.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that there
is no separation. Judges are appointed for life by the political
party that is in power. It happens to be the Liberals for the
third successive time so we have a Liberal judiciary. That is
why it is not separate. Politics are up to their ears in the
judiciary.
Mr. John Bryden: Nonsense. That's why they are appointed
for life.
Mr. Randy White: He says that is nonsense. Can anyone
believe that?
Mr. John Bryden: Yes.
Mr. Randy White: Many people involved in the Liberal
Party over there, as lawyers, have moved up into the judiciary.
The decisions in many cases are Liberalized decisions.
An hon. member: It is totally separate.
Mr. Randy White: It is not separate at all. The
government attaches a very close relationship between politics
and decisions in the judiciary. I am not telling any secrets.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, so much for the
independence of judges. I want to put on the record that this
member is not a lawyer. This member does believe that there are
reforms that can be done to our judiciary but this member also
believes that politics, the judges and the courts should be as
separated as much as humanly possible, and that is precisely what
the bill is designed to do.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, he actually thinks that
politics and the judiciary are separate from a party that
appoints judges from lawyers who have been with the Liberal
Party, that appoint parole boards, immigration boards, refugee
boards and harbour boards. I cannot believe that anybody on that
side would think there is a separation between politics and the
judiciary. That is just not the case.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I certainly hesitate to bring this exciting exchange of opinions
to an end, but perhaps those two members will be able to engage
themselves fruitfully in some other context without the benefit
of an audience.
I have a few remarks to make before we send the bill off to
committee, as I think we should probably do with some
expeditiousness. It is something that had progressed quite far,
if I understand correctly, in the last parliament and there does
not seem to be a great need to beat it to death in this one,
particularly at second reading. If there are amendments to be
suggested or made, or if further discussion is needed on the
details of the bill, it seems to me that is something that can be
done in committee.
A few remarks would nevertheless be in order. In the context of
our overall opposition to the bill, the NDP does see some merit
in some aspects of the bill, particularly those aspects that have
to do with the creation of unified family courts and justices to
deal with them, as well as the division of annuities, which is
also found to be a positive element.
1705
However the major thrust of the bill, which is where we have
some reservations, is to provide judges with big raises. It is
not that judges should not be well paid. I think most Canadians
would contend that they are well paid. It is a question of
whether they should be paid even more.
I have noticed that one can never separate out discussions about
pay raises, not just with respect to judges' pay raises but also
with respect to remuneration for MPs and various other categories
of people, from the context. The context in which the NDP
operates with respect to the bill is the way in which so many
other aspects of our justice system are being starved for money.
We have a bill before us that gives an 11.2% increase to people
who are already making well over $120,000 or $130,000 a year when
there are so many other people within the justice system, equally
important to its proper functioning, who are not getting this
kind of increase and are not making that kind of money. They may
also have to deal with many of the stresses and strains that come
from years of cutbacks to the justice system. When these raises
come in that context, it is a little hard for us to stand up and
say amen to this without taking the opportunity to bring forward
some of these other concerns which I think are quite legitimate.
Many would contend that there is a crisis in the justice system
and that if money can be found to increase the salaries of judges
then money should also be found to address some of the other very
serious problems that exist within the justice system.
In many provinces crown attorneys do not have sufficient
resources to prosecute the crimes that come before them. Surely
that should be a priority if we are concerned about justice. In
many parts of the 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
many injustices not only for the accused but also for the victims
and those involved in the justice system.
Anything that tends to increase and aggravate delays within the
justice system is a problem. Certainly a lack of resources
contributes to a lot of the delays that people experience. We
are saying that if there are resources to deal with pay raises
for judges then why are there not resources to deal with these
other problems in the justice system.
These are just some opening remarks. I look forward to a
further study of the bill when it gets to committee. I must say
though that I found the exchange between the Alliance member and
the Liberal member somewhat interesting. I think the Liberal
member makes a point when he says that we would not want a
situation in which judges felt they had to please politicians in
order to maintain their remuneration or in order to be eligible
for raises in the future. I do not think that would be a good
thing because that would imitate, to some degree but to a much
lesser extent, the flaws of the American system where they elect
their judges. Here we would have judges answerable to people who
were elected. That would introduce an element of politics into
it but it would be qualitatively different than the politics
that are already in the justice system.
The Alliance member quite properly pointed out that judges tend
to be appointed, not always but in many cases, from the ranks of
the ruling party. If the same party is in power over many years,
it tends to create a situation whereby people begin to see the
judiciary as politicized in the sense of the appointment process.
1710
Once people are appointed then presumably they have a great deal
of independence and their appointments cannot be revoked. To the
extent that good appointments are made, even if they be
appointments from within the ruling party, the politics is
removed from the system to a certain degree after the
appointment.
I think people are fearful when they hear some of the things the
Canadian Alliance member said. He said that people would like
the politics to stay throughout the judicial process and that
there be some answering to the political process at certain
stages or at some critical point in the life of a judge.
Having said that, I think it is quite legitimate for Canadians,
whether they be Alliance members of parliament or others, to be
critical of decisions that judges make. I do not think that
there is anything wrong with that. Judges are not beyond
criticism or above criticism. I think all Canadians from time to
time, including myself, are somewhat bewildered sometimes by the
judgments some judges make.
However I do not think that is a matter that should effect a
debate on how to compensate judges or remunerate judges. It may
be an opportunity for somebody to get up and get a few things off
their chest. That is okay. That is what parliament is about and
that is the context in which to do that.
The Alliance member was quite within his rights to use a bill on
judges to talk about what he did not like about judges or what he
did not like about certain decisions or pattern of decisions that
judges make. There is no problem there. To suggest a connection
between meeting a certain political criterion and remuneration I
would think would be something that everyone, and perhaps even
the Alliance member himself, would want to reject.
I find it interesting that the bill responds to a recommendation
that the remuneration of judges be taken out of the political
context altogether and that parliament from here on in accept
uncritically or without amendment the recommendations made by the
commission.
To the extent that the Alliance finds itself against this there
is a certain irony. If I have heard correctly over the years,
this is the very thing it has advocated for members of
parliament. Those members have said that we have to take the
politics out of the determination of the salaries of members of
parliament: take it away from members of parliament, give it to
an independent commission and be prepared to accept the
recommendations of that commission. If I am being unfair to what
they have said over the years I hope somebody will correct me,
but it seems to me that is what I have heard many times, that
this is something that should be decided independently.
The bill does just that with respect to judges. Either we have
some inconsistency in principle with respect to how we allocate
or set up independent commissions to make these kinds of
judgments or we have an interesting variety of opinions on the
matter as we sometimes get from members of the Alliance.
It struck me as ironic that this issue should be criticized.
Would people suggest that it constantly be a decision of
parliament to determine what judges are paid? I have seen that
for 20 years. Every time the government feels we have to give
judges a raise, we have a debate about judges and the same old
speeches are trailed out.
Perhaps the idea of giving it to an independent commission is
not such a bad idea after all, but it does not mean that we have
to agree necessarily with the way in which the government handles
these particular recommendations. For our part we feel that the
government would be on a lot stronger ground if at the same time
it was committed to addressing a lot of the other inadequacies in
the justice system.
1715
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the comments of my friend from the NDP were very
good comments. There are a couple of matters I want to point out
to him.
He mentioned something about it being easy to criticize the
courts in Canada. I know it is easy to criticize an umpire or a
referee in a hockey game and to deal with that, but I can say as
a practising lawyer myself that one has to be very careful about
what one says about judges and their judgments. It is far easier
to say things in the House than it is outside the House, unless
we want to find out what the rules are for contempt of court. I
point that matter out.
I want to put something in perspective too. Comments were made
about the American system of justice. I can think of a lot of
great supreme court judges in the United States: Justice Holmes,
Justice Warren and Justice Marshall. They were appointed but
went through a very rigorous appointment process. They have a
lot of power like the judges in Canada. The public there
believes it has a right to know what agenda these people are
bringing to the courts. This is vetted and is publicly dealt
with.
A person who I personally and politically had a lot of
admiration for during the Reagan era was Robert Bork. He was
turned down in that process. That would probably make my NDP
friends happy. It did not make me happy but it showed that the
system worked.
In our system we do not get any scrutiny on that. Basically, my
own reading of how one gets to be a judge on the Supreme Court of
Canada is to be a good donator. A person who earns $110,000 a
year is going to have a lot better chance of getting into our
Supreme Court of Canada or our courts of appeal. Another thing
would be to be a good fundraiser. That means being a lawyer, but
if someone has one of those criteria and is with the right party,
chances are pretty good he or she will be there.
I am not exactly sure the public or anyone else would say that
is the proper way of determining who should be in the courts. I
want to put a few of those points in perspective. There have
been a lot of excellent judges on the supreme court of the United
States over the years. We can criticize that system all we want,
but I think the level of judicial decision making that has come
out of the U.S. supreme court generally has been far superior to
our system here.
I want to perhaps get my learned colleague's reaction to these
comments. I do not think we are advocating electing Supreme
Court of Canada judges but we are talking about having a good
independent system in place to make sure we get the very best men
and women as our judges.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to
extend my congratulations to the member for Prince Albert. I
believe this is his first parliament. Of course, he has a very
distinguished pedigree in terms of the constituency but I do not
know about the party. Members have represented Prince Albert in
the past, some from my party and also a couple prime ministers, I
believe.
In any event, the member makes a good point. It is certainly
not a point that I was wanting to disagree with. I just did not
talk about it.
He is asking me what I think about the view that perhaps we
should have a way of appointing our supreme court which gives
Canadians more of an opportunity through the appropriate
parliamentary committee to hear what they think. This is not to
politicize it or get them elected or anything like that, and not
to uncritically imitate the American system necessarily, but
something to take into account the fact that judges, since the
inception of the charter, have a lot more say about a lot more
things than they used to.
Perhaps an appointment process that was created before the
charter is not adequate to that task. I am sure that is a matter
of debate within all political parties as we try to wrestle with
the increased role of the judiciary in our society and what we
welcome, what we have reservations about and what we should have
concerns about as parliamentarians. Some people have more
concerns than others. I think the point the member raises is a
legitimate.
1720
With respect to criticizing judges, I did not criticize any
judges. In fact, it is members of the hon. member's own party,
some of whom have made a political career out of criticizing, not
judges in the abstract, but specific judges and specific
judgments. I would hope he might share the advice he had for me
in terms of contempt of court and exercising caution with respect
to criticizing judges with some of his caucus members at some
point.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member who just gave us his
speech with regard to this particular bill is populist. I
recognize from the comments he made that he does not see the
election of judges as the way he would go. I happen to favour
the idea of electing judges, but obviously it does not carry the
day with all.
He alluded in his comments to the idea that possibly the
appointment process might need to be changed. My question would
be along the lines of what ways or suggestions he might propose
for changing the appointment process. I happen to like the idea
of people being brought before committees, which are responsible
in some way or degree for those particular departments, to face
some sort of vetting process. There was earlier discussion on
this very matter in terms of the process that goes on south of
the border, but certainly there are other ways it can be done.
I would just like to mention in the question as well that the
way I am familiar with the process working at least in my
province, and I am sure it is not the only province that this is
done for, is basically along the lines of political favours,
whereby a group of cabinet lawyers or possibly, if there is not
enough lawyers in the cabinet, the caucus lawyers in a particular
party gather around and names of potential appointees are
suggested. They run the gauntlet. During the process the
lawyers in that particular governing party determine it by saying
“Know him, know him, don't know him”. If a person gets enough
know hims and general favourable nods, the person gets the
appointment. If a person gets more do not know hims, where people
say they know him but they do not happen to enjoy his particular
political stripe, then he does not get appointed.
The previous comment about people being good donators or good
fundraisers does have validity in terms of how people get some of
these things. Does the member think that that process is a
fairly accurate way of describing some of the ways in which
people get chosen to be justices? Does he think that there is
some form or process that would be appropriate? What does he
particularly think about the idea of running appointees past a
cabinet committee that is in the area of responsibility?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will take the member's
word on it for that damning critique of the way the provincial
government appoints judges in his province. I would not want to
dispute that. Hopefully it is something the people of Alberta
will take into account today.
I go back to the first part of his question or comment when he
talked about the appointment process. I seems to me that like so
many other things around here everything is connected to
everything else. He suggested that possible appointees, or
recommended appointees or candidates for appointment to the
supreme court should be brought before the appropriate committee
of the House of Commons for vetting, or for conversation, or for
investigation or whatever. To do that without parliamentary
reform will not do the trick.
The American system works because the government does not
control the committees. The American system works because there
is some chance that people who are of the same party as the
appointer, the president, might not do what the president wants.
There is a real process.
We have a problem in Canada. There are all kinds of things we
cannot really reform unless we reform the House of Commons. To
just bring candidates for nomination to the supreme court before
a committee that is run by Liberals for Liberals and have them
rubber stamped in the way that so many other things are rubber
stamped, what would that accomplish?
1725
I do not want to be the counsel of despair but on the other hand
we have a bigger job ahead of us than just putting them before a
committee. We have to change the committee and parliamentary
culture in order to make it a meaningful event, otherwise it will
be another charade like so many of the other things that happen
around here.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the words put forward by my colleague, the
House leader for the New Democratic Party. He has put forward a
number of pearls of wisdom and some provocative issues that add
to this debate. This is a debate that could be very far reaching
should we choose that route.
Bill C-12 is a fairly focused piece of legislation when it comes
to remuneration for judges. It speaks to process and speaks of a
committee that will and has made recommendations on the issue of
remuneration.
There are a number of important elements to this bill and
members have discussed some in great detail, such as the
shortcomings of judges, their decisions and the appointment
process. All of that is worthy of debate. To quote my friend
from Winnipeg—Transcona “parliament is certainly well healed,
well versed for that to take place”. Parle, meaning to speak,
is what we are here to do.
This particular subject matter is one that has been very
controversial for not only members of the House but for Canadians
generally. People are quite rightly concerned about the ever
increasing, some would say ever expansive, role of judges in
challenging laws. The charter plays a great deal in that.
There is specific concern about the resources to which
individuals working in the justice system are sorely in need of
support, whether it be legislative support or resource support.
This is another huge expansive topic that we could speak to at
this time. This particular legislation is aimed at trying to
make a distinct difference between the political process of
appointment and process of remuneration, or the salary structure
that is in place for judges.
The Conservative Party is supporting this bill. We look forward
to having it come before committee where some of the other issues
that might stem from the bill can be looked at. I have some
limited experience in the judicial system, but for the most part,
I believe the majority of judges in this country are hardworking.
I believe they perform an incredibly important task. Arguably,
members of the judiciary, whether at the provincial court, or
appeal court or supreme court level, have more individual
discretion over a person's life than members of parliament or
other officials in Canada. They have incredible discretion in
their hands.
The Conservative Party also believes in being responsible to
taxpayers. We support the government's acceptance of the
recommendations which were made by the independent Judicial
Compensation and Benefits Commission. This is now entrenched by
virtue of Bill C-12. This is another important aspect of
consideration when it comes to better pay for judges. The
compensation that is being put forward is coming about on the
recommendation of an independent commission.
The first reading of this bill on February 21 set forward that
the Judges Act will implement the government's response to
recommendations made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and
Benefits Commission. That came about historically as a result of
a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 that
established new constitutional requirements for determining
judicial compensation and requiring every Canadian jurisdiction
to have an independent, objective and effective commission. If
there is to be credibility and accountability, it is extremely
important that it is arm's length from government and that it
looks at the issue of compensation.
Delving into that further, it also amends the Judges Act to
increase judicial salaries and allowances. Let us be very clear
about what the bill does.
It raises judicial salaries. It is intended quite clearly to
improve the current judicial annuities scheme, to put in place a
separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges and
to make other consequential amendments to the Judges Act and the
Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. It is certainly well
intended to give judges the security they need.
1730
In recent years there has been a lot of concern about criminal
activities in the country. That has led to much of the
controversy and frustration on the part not only of victims but
of those who work actively in the legal system.
Some of the decisions we have seen judges make lead people to
question whether the system is working. However let us question
the decisions rather than the personalities and the judges
themselves. Let us look at the decisions in isolation, based on
the facts from which judges made those decisions. If criticism
is then merited, it is fair game. There is a forum and a way to
appeal. There is also ample discussion in the general public
about the wisdom of judges' decisions on occasion. That is fair
game. Once again, that is healthy. That is democracy.
The separate and important issue is not to let that criticism
and discussion permeate the issue of whether we should compensate
judges fairly or whether we should look at their salaries as a
separate issue from their performance on occasion.
Let me put it another way. The issue of judges' salaries is
important, but we must ensure judicial independence is always
maintained, that judges are not tempted by any outside influence
that could compromise any ruling from the bench. What I am
getting at quite clearly is that with some of the elements of
organized crime in the country, and I hate to raise the spectre,
there is the real possibility of bribery, judicial interference
and temptation if our judges are not being compensated fairly.
Let us also put this into perspective in terms of salary ranges
in Canada. We must look at other functionaries and their pay
scales, for example heads of corporations, doctors and athletes.
Certainly performance is one issue, but the function judges
perform is also something we must take very seriously. The
performance a judge puts forward in his or her daily exercise is
crucial to the preservation of justice. It is an absolute
cornerstone if the system is to function properly. Judicial
compensation and benefits very much preserve the independence of
judges and their ability to do the job.
The compensation commission is appointed for a four year term.
Its mandate is to consider the compensation and benefits for
judges and to make recommendations to government. It does so
every four years. It reviews the situation and takes into
consideration factors including the salaries relative to the role
they perform. It must report to government within a nine month
period. It talks of modernization and talks of keeping pace with
other current pay scales. It calls for setting a certain
priority relative to other professions.
I refer once again to the comments of my friend from
Winnipeg—Transcona. There is ample evidence that there are
problems in our justice system with crown prosecutors, legal aid,
lawyers, court officials and police, those who administer the day
to day meting out of justice. Those who are in the trenches, in
the MASH unit of the judicial system, similarly must be
compensated fairly.
Perhaps there is a methodology or a system in place where we
could have some sort of association between reviewing judges and
their pay scales and those of the functionaries that perform the
very important day to day tasks before the judges which allow the
judges to make their decisions.
Crown prosecutors and legal aid lawyers are under such terrible
constraints of caseloads and backlogs that they are not able to
put forward to a judge crucial information to enable him or her
to make those decisions.
Perhaps there is wisdom in broadening the discussion and perhaps
even broadening the legislation at some point in the near future.
1735
Turning back to the commission itself, the commission makes a
recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2%. I note this is
significantly less than the 26.3% increase proposed by the
judiciary itself. Clearly that would not be appropriate. Clearly
we could not have judges themselves making recommendations on
what their pay increase should be. That would be akin to what we
do as members of parliament, and we know how the public feels
about that.
At least the bill does not go down that road. At least the bill
respects the fact that there is a judicial committee, arm's
length from government, that is making the recommendation. Once
again perhaps we in this place should be learning from that
caution.
The commission's recommendations were based on research
comparing judges' salaries to those of private sector lawyers. I
would suggest, and I challenge others to talk to some high
ranking lawyers who work for big firms, that there are many who
literally would be taking a pay cut if they were to take a
judicial appointment.
If we want to put the cream of the crop on the bench, if we want
the very best litigators and lawyers to be sitting on the bench
making these crucial decisions, we must be prepared to compensate
them fairly, and in some cases comparable to what they could make
in the private sector.
The salary performances and bonuses of senior federal deputy
ministers, for example, also bear scrutiny and comparison. The
importance of salary and benefits in attracting outstanding
candidates to the bench cannot be understated. Quality is an
absolute necessity. It is too important not to strive to have
the best of the best on the bench. What an important function it
is that judges perform. I reflect on that.
The Judges Act will also officially establish the compensation
committee for the long term. It will be required, as I stated
before, to convene every four years, make recommendations and
come forward with those recommendations nine months after they
have commenced. Its mandate is to inquire into the adequacy of
judicial compensation and benefits.
The committee's mandate consists of three important
considerations: the economic conditions of the country, cost of
living, overall economic position of the federal government
vis-à-vis budget surpluses, et cetera; the financial security of
the judiciary to ensure judicial independence; and the need to
attract outstanding candidates. Those are the basic criteria for
which the committee would meet. They are certainly important
criteria.
The recommendations, I think it also bears noting, are not
binding, but the supreme court decision requires that the
government publicly justify any decision of acceptance or
rejection of the recommendations. This response is reviewable in
the court and must meet the legal standard of simple rationality.
A common sense strain runs through the commission and the
government's use of the information it provides. It would be
measured by the reasons and evidence offered in support of the
government's decision. There are some checks and balances within
the bill that are laudable and that meet the objectives it seeks
to address.
The salary regime, the pressures and independence are also very
important. The pressures that judges feel is also a
consideration when they decide whether they would accept an
appointment. We have talked a bit about the appointment process
but salary is certainly a factor. Financial security is
certainly a factor for an individual to accept an appointment.
I would like to put on the record the yearly salary of the
judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. The basic salary for
chief justices is $230,000. The puisne judges make $213,000.
The yearly salaries of the federal court judges are as follows:
the chief justice makes $196,000; 10 other judges of the Federal
Court of Appeal make $179,000; the associate chief justice of the
federal court makes $196,000; and judges in the trial division
make $179,000.
The current salaries in accordance with section 11 of the act
and the adjustments in section 25 are also as follows: the Tax
Court of Canada chief judge makes $196,000; the associate chief
judge similarly makes $196,000; and other judges in the tax court
make $179,000.
1740
The yearly salaries in the provincial court of the province of
Nova Scotia are as follows: the chief justice, $196,000 and the
court of appeal judges, $179,000. I am putting these salaries on
record because it is important that we keep the figures in mind
when we look at salaries of other occupations, other heads of
corporations.
Those are undeniably large numbers for the average Canadian to
consider. They are significant and yet appropriate rates of pay
must be put in place if we are expected to get the highest
quality of individual into those jobs. Judges are undeniably the
cornerstone of democracy and defenders of fundamental rights from
the bench. If they are to have that respect, ability and
prestige they must be remunerated.
The bill is a good one. We may need to have a look at some of
the specifics and potentially a look at the tie-in to the
shortfall in other areas of our judicial system.
The priorizing of this bill in returning to parliament is one we
might question. However I suspect it is because there will be
speedy passage. One would hope that the bill will go to
committee and will be dealt with quite quickly.
The bill is something that is necessary to get in place quickly.
If there is any anxiety or pressure brought to bear by delaying
Bill C-12, it will not be healthy for our current judicial
members.
There is also reason on occasion to recite some of the atrocious
and ridiculous decisions that have come out of the courts, but I
would not suggest there is merit in doing that in the context of
this debate.
My final point is that there are ways to correct some of the
shortcomings. There are ways to approach the remuneration of
judges. We can review some of the shortcomings. We can cite
chapter and verse some of the decisions we take great umbrage
with, great outrage as to what the findings might have been.
We can then question the quality of the judiciary. We can try
to make the argument that we should not reward judges by
increasing their salaries based on perceived performance, or lack
thereof in certain instances, and that therefore judges should
not get a raise. That would be the rationale in simple terms.
Or, we can look at it in terms of how we make sure it does not
happen with greater frequency, that we do not continue to have
substandard individuals in positions on the bench where they
would make poor decisions. How do we attract the very best? How
do we ensure we will have individuals who will let their names
stand and who will come forward to serve, which is a great
privilege to do in that capacity?
How do we do that? We compensate them fairly. We ensure that
they will be given salaries on par with other important positions
in society and that they will be given the financial respect they
deserve.
Most judges have served with great distinction under difficult
circumstances and are forced to make real gut wrenching decisions
on a regular basis. Quite clearly they struggle with those
decisions. They do not always get it right. I am not here to
defend the judiciary at great length. I suggest the system
itself, although not perfect, is the best in the free world.
We must clearly ensure that we attract those with the greatest
ability. On the whole judges perform their task quite
adequately. The legislation has led to an interesting debate of
the various philosophies of how the judiciary and the appointment
process and the politicization of it should work. However Bill
C-12 is exactly what we need in attempting to distance politics
from remuneration. The appointment process is something we
should look at next.
The Conservative Party will be supporting it. We look forward
to having it at committee where we can discuss it further.
1745
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member from Nova Scotia touched on a number of
areas that I think are of interest here.
One of the comments was in regard to the question of bribery. I
would have thought that for most men and women in law school who
were told that some day they would have the privilege of serving
on a court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada the first
thing that would come to mind would be service above money.
Second, it seems to me that the need to have this vetting
process is very important in order to make sure that the people
we are appointing to the courts are people who we are satisfied
have high levels of integrity and personal behaviour. That is
something I think this process could identify. Even if they have
different ideologies from mine, I can respect that they are
honest people and of good integrity.
Actually if money ensured high levels of integrity in our world,
Hollywood would be the best place in the world to go to find
that. The sports world would be another area. Presumably the
people who are getting the most money would be the people who
would conduct themselves with the highest standards of integrity.
I am not exactly sure the money issue is as big as people make it
out to be. I am willing to guess that $190,000 a year would put
someone in the top 1% in the country. In some provinces it would
be one-tenth of 1%. In Saskatchewan there are not many people
who make $190,000 a year, and I am sure that in the province of
Nova Scotia they are few and far between as well. In Toronto or
Calgary it may be a different situation.
There is another area I am concerned about, and I raise it for
my learned colleague from Nova Scotia. It is the vast disparity
in lawyers' incomes in this country. I practised law in
Saskatchewan for 25 years and I looked in envy at the income
levels of lawyers in Toronto and Calgary. There are big
differences. Maybe in a place like Toronto, where a $500,000 a
year income level is not unusual for skilled lawyers, there may
be a problem attracting people, but in Saskatchewan there would
be no shortage of competent lawyers available for judicial
appointments at a salary of $190,000. They are competent people
and the lineup would be a long one. I am not exactly sure that
the bill addresses that sort of concern about the vast disparity
in incomes.
I cannot explain this vast disparity in incomes in these
regions. I know that Alberta and Ontario are like the beacons on
the hill in this country. They have booming, growing, prosperous
provinces that attract thousands of people and lawyers from other
regions of the country in massive numbers, and they do very well
economically. However, I am not from one of those areas. I am
from one of those areas where we have had a different philosophy
and a different way of doing things and our standard of living
and our incomes are much lower. Maybe the member from Nova
Scotia could address this concern. Maybe we need some
flexibility in our levels of remuneration based on the region of
the country one comes from.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my learned friend
for the comments. He raises a number of interesting points. I
am not going to stand before the House and debate the merits of
or try to in any way defend some of the inflated salaries of
certain professions. I am a huge sports fan, Mr. Speaker, as I
know you are, and as are many members of the House, but I would
never try to justify the merits of paying an athlete literally
hundreds of millions of dollars on occasion to sign long term
contracts versus the paying for the performance of a researcher
who is trying to find the cure for cancer or of an individual who
is volunteering to go into a war torn area and put his life at
risk to try to aid others.
These discrepancies and anomalies in certain professions and in
the remuneration that people receive are in many ways cannon
fodder for debate and criticism, but there is no way to justify
or even begin to reconcile the remuneration and the salaries that
are put in place.
1750
Having said that, I come from a region not unlike the hon.
member's when it comes to the salaries that a person would
command in our profession as a lawyer or in other professions.
There are certainly cost of living considerations when one looks
at other regions of the country. Calgary, Toronto and Montreal
are perhaps the most obvious that come to mind when one considers
the salaries in some regions versus others.
Whether that would merit an examination of regional bonuses when
it comes to judges or judicial appointments and differences in
the judicial salaries of his province of Saskatchewan or my own
of Nova Scotia vis-à-vis Ontario, I would suggest that it might
cause more consternation and more difficulty than it would
resolve.
I do not think I particularly agree that we should be examining
how to somehow perhaps skew the compensation based on the salary
levels of various provinces, although it does raise problems. Are
we going to be drawing the very best from Ontario if we cannot
offer them a salary in the range which they command in their
profession currently? It is a difficulty that I guess can only
be resolved when one can peer into the heart and soul of a person
who wants to serve in that capacity.
I would suggest, and I think the hon. member would be quick to
agree, that anyone in the legal profession who has practised law
as long as he has and is now serving his country with distinction
in the House of Commons would consider it a great honour to be
appointed to a judgeship at any level. That is part of the
individual personal decision that one has to make, along with
remuneration, job satisfaction and any number of other listed
factors that come into play when a person makes a decision.
The hon. member raises a number of interesting points. I look
forward to debating this issue further in committee and I thank
him again for his comments.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I realize that the hon. member of course was previously,
and I imagine still is, a lawyer himself, so he speaks with some
level of knowledge about this, which many others in the country
would not have.
I would like to ask him, as I asked the colleague from the New
Democratic Party who spoke before him, about what he feels might
be a way to improve the appointment process. In his speech he
talked a great deal about the compensation judges should be given
for the type of job they do. I can appreciate some of the
arguments made in that respect, but I know there are abuses in
the system.
I will relate to him one example that I am aware of in Calgary,
whereby a particular firm was given the nod, as it were, in terms
of it being the firm's time to put forward one of its people for
a judgeship. Officially it is supposed to be an open process.
What happened was that someone who did wills and estates in a
particular firm—and I do not want to name that particular firm
even though I could here in the House—and who was not a
particularly accomplished lawyer sent in an application. When
the government received it, it took that application to be the
application that the firm in a sense had anointed as its
application and that person was appointed.
Later on, two individuals, one of them representing the
government, happened to meet on an elevator. The one
representing the government said to a senior partner with the law
firm that he hoped everything had worked out okay, that the
government had received the firm's appointment and everything was
taken care of.
The senior partner said that the firm's selection had not yet
been made. The government official said that of course the firm
had made its selection, that the government had the piece of
paper, and he asked if that was not what it was supposed to get.
The official said he thought that was what the firm wanted. The
lawyer then replied that he did not even know who the individual
was and that he would look it up on the letterhead.
He had to look at a list of about 200 lawyers and finally found
the lawyer who had been struggling in wills and estates. He then
realized that someone had openly sent in a bid and had been given
the judgeship.
1755
I tell the story because I know there have been problems. I
know that people have been appointed to these positions—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I was trying to catch
the eye of the hon. member. Time is running very short in the
question and comment period. There will only be one minute for
reply, please.
Mr. Rob Anders: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Basically the
question was this: Does the member have suggestions for
improving the selection process?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question and I agree that there are some shortcomings in
the way the system currently works.
For example, I think a system may someday evolve where we will
have judges who deal with specific types of law. I believe that
the law in this country is becoming so complex there may be a
need to have a criminal bench, as we currently have a tax court.
There may be a need to specify that a certain individual will
only hear employment law. There may be a need to diversify the
bench in such a way that we may have to shrink the pool for the
types of selections we are making.
Trying to get politics out of this is increasingly difficult.
It is like trying to pour rum in milk and then somehow trying to
siphon it out. It is a very difficult thing to do. The politics
of it will be there, but if it is based on the competence, the
performance and the ability of the individual, then that is
certainly the base we will continually strive for.
Having the provinces further involved and having them put
forward lists of competent individuals who have been vetted is an
idea worth examining. The possibility of having potential judges
come before committees is one idea I would not rule out. However,
I believe the final selection process is always going to be the
privilege of the crown and that is something we may have to
examine in the future.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in this context I would like to ask a rhetorical
question: in a democratic society, who should ultimately have
the final political power and authority to make decisions?
In 1982 Canada made a major change. Up to that time we believed
in the principle of the supremacy of parliament. We believed
that the 301 men and women who were elected to parliament every
four or five years would ultimately have the final say on our
laws in Canada.
In 1982 we changed that. We brought in a constitution that
included a charter of rights. The charter basically and
essentially transferred the ultimate power and authority to our
judges. That is like giving the referee in a hockey game the
rule book and telling him that if he does not like the rules he
can change them as he goes along; it is like giving the umpire at
a baseball game the same kind of power.
Three premiers, all lawyers at that time and two of them Rhodes
scholars, Mr. Blakeney, Mr. Lyon and Mr. Lougheed, saw great
danger in this change. As a condition of adopting both
constitutional changes, they insisted that we have a safeguard in
our constitution. That safeguard was the notwithstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause was there to give parliament the final
say on our lawmaking abilities in this place.
As a result of the federal government's unwillingness to
exercise the notwithstanding clause, we have had a Supreme Court
of Canada that has made some fairly major astounding decisions in
our times, which have had tremendous fiscal impacts on Canada. I
am talking about things that could have caught the Minister of
Finance totally off guard, costing $5 billion, $6 billion or $7
billion a crack. Its decisions have had major economic and
social consequences. I could mention specific cases but I do not
think there is much merit in that. I will, however, mention the
Singh decision, which has had a radical impact on immigration law
in Canada.
What I am getting at is that if we are going to have this system
in the future, we need a strong independent system for appointing
people and we have to make sure that the people who are appointed
are people with very high standards of integrity and honesty.
That is very important.
1800
We have already talked about some of the appointment criteria. I
can give an example from my home province. It is well known
among lawyers that one of the larger law firms had a lawyer in
its employ that it did not really want or like, and since it was
its turn to send in a name, as the member from Calgary mentioned,
it sent in that lawyer's name. Unfortunately the public had to
live with that judge for 20 years and with his decisions. There
are a lot of inadequacies in the appointment process.
In terms of salary and benefits, I want to emphasize the point
that service above monetary rewards should be the compelling
reason to serve on a court of appeal or the Supreme Court of
Canada. I know many noble and honourable lawyers who would find
it a great privilege to be asked to serve on the Supreme Court of
Canada. I have often wondered why we have to go around seeking
applications from people. Why we do not seek out these folks and
make sure that we get the very best on our Supreme Court of
Canada? If we have a Gretzky equivalent in the legal community,
why are we not seeking that person's service on our Supreme Court
of Canada? I do not think money would really be a major problem
with these people. They would see it as a great privilege to
serve on the court.
I am a bit concerned that the court will ultimately have the
power to decide whether this independent committee is independent
enough. If it finds that it is not independent enough, we will
receive some court decisions that sort of imply or suggest that
the court would ultimately have the power to decide what are fair
enumerations and benefits.
What is very important to note is that when the public interest
cries out for action, it is parliament that has the final say on
what our laws should be not the judges. If I go back to how I
would like to see things operate and I would use the analogy of a
hockey game. The league owners and teams decide on the rules.
They create a rule book that they give to judges, who are called
referees and officials, and they would decide off sides and
whether its a goal and so on but they do not make the rules.
We are in a very difficult bind because we have given tremendous
power to a handful of people at the court level. I wonder where
this mentality came from in 1992. It seems to me that implicit
in the whole argument of shifting from the supremacy of
parliament to the supremacy of the Supreme Court of Canada was
that there was something dangerous about democracy. It implies
that to elect men and women to our system of government and have
them make decisions is dangerous.
That sort of belief implies that because a person has spent a
lot of years as a lawyer and a lot of years doing partisan things
for his or her political party, and fundraising seems to be one
of the things that lawyers are really good at in the partisan
sense, that this somehow qualifies the person as an elite. It
further implies that the elite know better than the democratic
will of the people and that nine or ten people should have the
final wisdom on decisions on public policy.
I find that whole notion very disturbing. Some people would
suggest that if we took that far enough it would get us into an
authoritarian type system. It would perhaps be a more benevolent
type of dictatorship than that of other countries. However these
folks are not elected. They do not have to face the media scrums
after a day in parliament. They do not have to come into
parliament and be accountable for their actions and decisions.
They are pretty immune from it.
The finance minister has to determine how he pays for their
decisions and other ministers have to determine how to deal with
the economic and social impact of the decisions. A lot of times
it is like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.
1805
I think it would be far better if those decisions were made by
our elected people. We have a lot problems with our elected
system but, as Sir Winston Churchill said many years ago, it is a
terrible system of government but it is better than all other
forms of government invented by now.
I would be interested to hear what other parliamentarians think
about the mentality behind the transfer of democratic power from
our elected men and women to an appointed group of eight or nine
people. Implicit in that appointment is that they are smarter
and wiser than the public's will, as expressed through our
election process, and that they are a better judge of deciding
what is good for society.
My own view is that it is a liberal value. During the election
we were going to debate values, but one of the legacies of
liberalism is that it is better to have elites make the decisions
for people. It is dangerous for people to make decisions for
themselves. It is also dangerous to have elected democracies
because these people are not quite smart enough. I recall one
prime minister saying that we were nobodies when we were two feet
out of the House of Commons. He had a lot to do with some of
this stuff, if I recall things correctly.
It seems that some individuals had some good intentions. They
were going to create a superior system of government, our
parliamentary system and our present way of doing things. I
refer to the words of William Shakespeare who said something that
I think is very relevant to this topic, “The road to Hell is
paved with good intentions.”
I believe the person responsible for this fundamental change in
our system of government had good intentions. I am not exactly
sure that living with the results of this system are really
showing the sort of things we want in our society, such as
accountability and good public policy. Judges can make very
major decisions and simply walk away from it, leaving people
sitting in parliament trying to deal with the carnage and the
damage that results from these sorts of decisions.
I could give some very specific examples in recent times of
those kind of decisions. The Marshall decision on lobster
fishing rights off Nova Scotia would be one that is very current
to me. That decision will cost us a lot of money and it will
cause a lot of unnecessary conflict and division in our society.
We will need to tackle those problems. The people that made
those decisions in the Supreme Court of Canada are not
accountable for those decisions.
I have major reservations about the bill. The Supreme Court of
Canada said that if it had independent commissions to decide
salary and remuneration, it would accept that. We should bear in
mind that the Supreme Court of Canada will decide whether that is
independent enough for it or not. With some of the cases
involving provincial court judges, they superimposed themselves
in there and have become the decision makers for their salary and
remuneration. In Saskatchewan, there was a fairly significant
increase in provincial court salaries because of this sort of
approach.
Anyone who would review that process would know it is flawed.
How can we have people with that much power decide salary and
then use something like judicial independence as an argument for
this sort of thing? Does somebody seriously think that our
judges are in trouble because they are receiving $190,000 a year?
Does anyone think that they do not have a roof over their heads,
cannot put three meals on the table or take care of themselves,
and so on? That is utter nonsense. They are in the top 1% of
the country. Most Canadians would just love to have that level
of remuneration.
I think the salaries for our judges have always been adequate.
That is not a problem. I think it is absolute nonsense for
judges to imply that somehow their judicial independence would be
usurped by having salaries decided by somebody outside their own
control.
1810
They would have control in the final run as to what would be an
independent committee. Parliament would not have that decision.
Like all other things in society, with a government that does not
wish to use the notwithstanding clause they would have the final
say.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I was rather taken by the last couple of sentences the
member expressed about the business of judicial independence.
I wonder if there could be any sort of connection between
judicial independence and judicial imperialism. We have a
specific attempt by the Supreme Court of Canada to actually
interpret legislation, not in the form of an executive branch but
rather in the form of a legislative branch.
Could the hon. member say something about that part of it and
whether there is a deficiency on the part of legislation that is
passed in the House? It is so broad and so general that it is
almost as if parliament is saying it does not wish to deal with
it and is asking the supreme court to deal with it. Are there
two parts to the issue?
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, we have a solution to
the problem. We had two Rhodes scholars and another very
intelligent lawyer, Peter Lougheed, who saw the danger. All
three of them saw it. One was NDP. One was a middle of the road
Tory. I think the other one may have been on the right a bit.
They all saw the danger and they insisted on including the
notwithstanding clause.
The prime minister at the time and the current Prime Minister,
were very much involved with that process and they consented to
it. However, since the adoption of that act in 1982 we have not
had a prime minister decide to exercise that power in the face of
some really outrageous things.
One example was the Singh decision. This person landed on our
shores. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that even though he
was not a Canadian he was entitled to the full protection of our
Canadian legal system: the charter or rights, due process and
everything along the line. Then there was a series of appeals
and so on, and in reaction to it the government said the only way
to deal with it was to expand the immigration department and all
our internal appeal procedures.
Anybody who had anything to do with immigration law smiled from
ear to ear. This was a new engine of growth for that whole area
and there has been a flock of people move into the area. That is
why we have these problems today. They are being debated in the
House and taxpayers are spending a disproportionate amount of
money on the whole system when common sense would say that there
is a better way of dealing with it.
The government has not decided to take that action because it
would mean exercising something called the notwithstanding clause
which enshrined in our constitution the supremacy of parliament.
The prime minister at the time would not have gone ahead with the
constitution if he had not understood that. He was a very
intelligent man. He understood the significance of what that
notwithstanding clause meant.
I am really amazed at how governments since that period of time
have failed to exercise that power. It is very frightening. I
keep going back to my analogy of the hockey referee. I cannot
see the owners ever turning all that power over to referees, not
just to enforce the rules and call them fairly and so on, but to
say that if they do not like the rules halfway through the third
period they can be rewritten whichever way they want.
That is basically what the government has been doing with our
system. It has given the nine men and women on the Supreme Court
of Canada a blank cheque in this whole area. It has basically
told them they have the ultimate authority, that although people
elected them to be the Government of Canada they are wiser and
smarter, and that the public really does not know what is best so
they have the final decision.
1815
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. colleague
from Prince Albert talked about the possibility of it being
unwise to select judges specifically on their need or greed of
money. It would seem to me that those were pretty good comments.
Selecting someone to be my judge who is so greedy or so needy
that his love of money causes him to not take that position
unless he makes over $200,000, in my mind brings him into
question.
My hon. friend is a lawyer. He has had experience in a lot of
court cases. There are two questions I would like to ask him.
Could you give us some specific examples of how the courts have
usurped the power of parliament? What is the proper way of
selecting judges?
The Deputy Speaker: Just before I give the floor to the
hon. member for Prince Albert, I would like to remind members
that when asking questions to one another to direct them through
the Chair, not directly to each other.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for that very challenging question. I could go through a lot of
decisions but I guess the most recent one I can think of is a
murder that occurred in Washington state.
The victims were in Washington state. The crime was committed
there. Canada really did not have any interest in this crime
other than we do not like to see innocent people murdered.
However the people who were murdered were not Canadian citizens,
they were American citizens. Through good fortune, the people
who committed the crime ended up in Canadian territory. With the
Singh decision and so on, they had full rights to use our system
or to basically exhaust it. They made it to the Supreme Court of
Canada and the supreme court did something very astonishing.
As a lawyer, I respect the American process. It believes in
reasonable doubt. One is innocent until proven guilty. One is
entitled to a defence counsel. Long before that was ever an
entitlement in Canada, the public purse provided one with defence
counsel. The supreme court of the United States has a long
history of appointing defence counsel to represent people who
have limited means and so on and some major decisions have worked
through the system. One is entitled to a trial before one's
peers, a jury and so on. It is a system much criticized in the
rest of the world as favouring the accused too much.
The Supreme Court of Canada decides that American judgment as to
what it should do with criminals in America is not good enough,
that Canadians know better, especially the Supreme Court of
Canada, and that Americans have no right to decide the penalties
if they are not in line with our penalty system.
Capital punishment is totally alien to our value system. The
American supreme court never asked the people of Washington state
or the other 280 million people in the United States whether they
thought capital punishment was warranted in this situation. It
knew better and decided to impose its decision on the Americans
as if they were in some banana republic or in some dictatorship
in Africa or in the Middle East or something like that. The
Supreme Court of Canada has been doing that internally.
There have been many other cases. There was a case seven or
eight years ago. It was actually from my province. A person,
whose name I forget, killed 14 or 15 children in California and
ended up on our soil. It was a decision very much like this. He
worked his way through the system. Fortunately, the Supreme
Court of Canada still had some people who had some good
judgement. A four to three decision ruled that this guy should
go back to California. The plane was running at the airport in
Prince Albert. American authorities were waiting at the Prince
Albert institution. They rushed him out of there, put him on the
plane and flew him out of the country before some immigration
lawyer could start another application.
1820
My understanding is that this fellow is still working his way
through the system in the United States. The Americans are not
finished with him. However, I think in many ways the government
would have preferred that this individual stay in Canada where we
are much more compassionate and caring in regard to these sorts
of individuals than a lot of other people.
They know better and we have a Supreme Court of Canada that
definitely knows a lot better than the average Joe in Canada.
Those people have a lot more wisdom. They have been on the 28th
storey in Toronto, looking out the window through a lot of smog
for a lot of time and that gives them a lot clearer picture of
the landscape of the country and what should be done.
There are a lot of examples of this sort of thing. To me it
gets right to the whole question of the justice system in the
country. It is defective.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, for the folks back home, what is happening today?
Basically we have a Liberal government that has just come off an
election. It did not really have much of a mandate to go to the
people with, so it is putting forward a Judges Act which was put
forward in the last parliament, and it wants to give a
significant raise to judges.
The important thing for people back home to keep in mind, and I
will discuss many of the details of the bill, is that rather than
bringing forward legislation on the Young Offenders Act in order
to strike at serious repeat offenders who are causing all sorts
of problems with the legal system, the Liberals want to deal with
judges' compensation. The Liberals did not want to talk about
the Young Offenders Act. They did not want to deal with serious
repeat offenders.
It goes on. The Liberals did not want to deal with consecutive
sentencing, where somebody who commits a crime only serves one
murder sentence and gets a multiple discount for multiple
murders. They did not want to deal with consecutive sentencing
so that the individual could serve one sentence after another
sentence, which is, by the way, something that the Liberal member
for Mississauga East brought up in the House and tried
desperately to get her government to adopt. Despite that fact,
they tried to kill her bill in committee. Despite that, no, they
do not want to talk about consecutive sentencing. The Liberals
do not want to deal with issues that have been brought forward by
their own members like the member for Mississauga East, a good
loyal Liberal who has probably been there for a decade.
The government does not want to listen to that. It does not
want to listen to what her constituents have to say on this.
Instead it is raising judges' salaries.
I will go on. These Liberals do not want to deal with
pedophiles. They say it is okay for people to possess kiddie
porn, that the judge's decision on it is all right. They do not
want to deal with pedophiles, pedophile legislation and
possession of child pornography. No, the top priority for the
Liberals when they come back after going out on the stump and
getting elected is raising judges' salaries.
Those are Liberal priorities for you. This goes on. They do
not want to bring up the idea of a violent sex offender registry.
We have people in Canada who have committed multiple rapes, yet
does the government come up with an effective strategy to deal
with multiple rapists? No. The government paroles them and put
them back on the streets.
Instead of dealing with these real and serious issues, what does
the government come to us with after an election? It wants to
raise judges' salaries.
Let us talk about raising judges' salaries since we are not
going to talk about all those other important things that a
Liberal justice minister should be bringing forward. We are not
going to talk about the things people really want. We are going
to talk about what the bureaucrats want. We are going to let
them drive the agenda. That is the Liberal way.
Let us talk about this whole idea of how judges are chosen. I
take issue with the Prime Minister. I recognize that the Prime
Minister was elected yet again by the people in his riding. I
would not have voted for him, but at least a plurality of the
people in the Prime Minister's riding decided to vote for him. At
least he has some sort of mandate. Not only was he elected by
some number of people in his own riding, but as well he actually
had to get enough delegates at the convention for the Liberal
Party.
Back in 1990 he was in my home town of Calgary, much to my
chagrin. Nonetheless that was where he was elected. He had
probably a few thousand people who said they wanted to give this
guy the nod.
1825
At least the Prime Minister has been chosen by the delegates
within his own party and by the people within his own
constituency. It is not as democratic as I might like. I think
it would have been better if all Liberal Party members across the
country would have voted rather than just the palace guard.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rob Anders: I hear some squawking on the other side.
I know I am hitting home when that happens. I know they are
sensitive to this issue.
Despite all these problems with their process, nonetheless the
Prime Minister has been democratically elected. If we can choose
the Prime Minister democratically in the country, who then goes
on to appoint people to the supreme court and to thousands of
other positions, many of which are patronage positions including
the other place which I like to rant about every now and again,
and if he seems to accept the will of the people for his
nomination and for his choosing, then by what rational argument
do members across the way or anyone in this place say that
judges, or any other position for that matter, cannot be
democratically elected?
If we choose the man who is supposed to be the head of the
government in this place, the Prime Minister, and he is
democratically elected as one of the most important decision
makers supposedly around, then why would we not choose judges or
senators or many other people by democratic election? This makes
absolutely perfect sense to me. Yet we have people across the
way who will argue one side and then the other side, equivocate
and try to muddle this issue by saying it is complex.
Fundamentally it comes down to from where people believe the
power is derived. I happen to believe, and I will state it
squarely today, that the power is derived from the people. I
think they generally make pretty good decisions when they are
given the chance.
I have asked many people today about the appointment process,
what they think would be a better process than the one we have
now. I happen to think that vetting them before a committee at
least would be better than what we have. In my ideal scenario I
would probably want to have them democratically elected.
I know right now with the process as it stands that people are
given justice positions because of political favours they have
done for a government. There are people in this place that can
try to sideline that by saying that is not the case and by asking
how dare I raise questions about these things.
Every one of the people in here, especially the practising
lawyers in this place, know all too well that there are people
who are given justice positions because of their political
favouritism, of their stripe, of their donations or some mishap
like that. Frankly there is a better way to go about it and I
think the wisdom of the people is a good way to go.
I know that one of my NDP colleagues in this place asked why we
would want to have these people determined by committee because
the Liberals would just use that as a rubber stamp anyhow; they
go ahead and do whatever they want in committee so why would we
want a committee to vet it.
I realize that the Liberals abuse the committee process in this
place better than pretty much anybody could. They are experts at
abusing the committee process, even for their own members like
the member for Mississauga East where they severely abused the
committee process to try to kill her bill.
I recognize that if these appointments had to go before
committee at least they could be some form of questioning.
Hopefully we could shed the light of day on some of these
appointments. If we cannot actually change what the Liberals
decide they want to shove down peoples' throats, we could point
out to the public that a person has made large contributions to
the Liberal Party or has some sort of connection to someone in
government.
It is an issue that deserves a lot more time than what you are
giving me, Mr. Speaker. Nonetheless, there are ways we can
improve the process by vetting through committee and possibly
electing them.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)