Debates of Nov. 28th, 1996

Judges Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act; and of the amendment.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Fundamentally, the Canadian judiciary must remain independent and free of bias or coercion from outside sources, in particular those which stem from special interest groups or, in fact, Parliament.

This bill concerns Madam Justice Louise Arbour. She was appointed to be the chief prosecutor in The Hague for the UN war crimes tribunal. At the outset I would like to say that is not only an honour for her but it is an honour for all Canadians. She will take the place of Chief Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, a highly distinguished individual. Her appointment to this position demonstrates the confidence which the international community has in Canada and its judiciary. We are looked on as being a nation which, by and large, maintains a great deal of independence, for which we are highly respected by the international community. It is a degree of respect which is completely out of proportion to our size and our economy. A lot of Canadians do not realize the respect which the international community has for our nation. The appointment of Judge Arbour certainly demonstrates that respect.

The amendment to Bill C-42 is a good one. I must commend the Senate for bringing it to the attention of the House. Bill C-42 ensures that there will not be a cozy relationship between our judges and outside influence. Without this amendment judges, technically, could be open to influence, not only within Canada but also outside our borders.

The appropriate middle ground would be for Canadian judges to step down temporarily to take up very important appointments, such as the one we are discussing today. Judge Arbour is perhaps the most prominent of all the Canadian judges who have been appointed to a position in the recent past.

The role which the Canadian judiciary plays in enabling democratic and judicial institutions to build up in other countries is important. It is particularly important in the democratic and judicial restructuring of countries which have been wracked by war. Many of these countries do not have a proper judicial process in place. Many of them have had their judicial process destroyed.

Canada has a very good judicial system. It is something that could be exported to other countries. In that way those countries could be taught how to plan a judiciary that is free of bias, free of influence and independent of the wiles and influences, powers and purses of other groups in the community. It is a basic tenet of living in a free and democratic institution, one with which everyone in the House agrees.

This bill contains a number of important considerations and concerns that Canadians have made with respect to the judiciary. One of those is the appointment process. The number one criterion in becoming a judge ought to be merit and experience. At present, though, judges are appointed on the basis of not necessarily what they know but who they know.

We have many good judges in our system. They are superb, intelligent, bright, meticulous and articulate individuals who do great honour to our system. We in the Reform and the Canadian public have a problem with the appointment of those rare individuals who come into the system, not on the basis of their skill, not on the basis of their merit but because they are a friend of the government of the day. That has to be addressed. If the government were to take that on, it would add increased credibility to our judicial system.

Recently the courts moved from interpreting the law to making laws. In fact they have shot down laws that this House has passed. It stems from the 1982 charter of rights and freedoms. The charter has given increasing powers to the judicial system, in particular the supreme court, to actually make laws.

Members of the public, when talking to me about this, find it quite perturbing, as many in the House do, that the supreme court, a group of appointed, not elected, individuals actually have the power to supplant laws that have been passed by the House. The public does not understand that and find it extremely grievous.

A better idea would be to rein in the supreme court, to make sure that its role is to interpret law, not to make law. I am not a lawyer but it would be very good if the government studied ways to revamp the judicial system to ensure that the supreme court goes back to interpreting law and not making law.

Another aspect I will touch on briefly is that Bill C-42, to which this amendment applies, deals with some extremely generous pension benefits for judges. That needs to be dealt with further, I am quite sure in the future.

Reform also finds quite grievous the way the bill is being finessed through the House. It belies an increasingly perceived cosy relationship between the Minister of Justice and the judiciary. These kind of relationships have to be severed. The judicial system, our courts and our judges have to be separate in their decision making process from this House and the Minister of Justice.

As a former correctional officer I would like to say one thing about Judge Arbour. She is most known for her scathing indictment of what went on at Kingston in the women's penitentiary and the riot that took place. I have never been on record in saying this but I would like to take the opportunity to do so.

I found, as a former correctional officer, it to be completely, grossly unfair and a scathing indictment of the correctional services. During a riot-I have seen this happen-in a penitentiary when dealing with inmates, who often do not deal in the ways we deal with each other in public, can become a very dangerous situation. Inmates can be carrying hidden weapons. It is very reasonable to ensure that those individuals are stripped searched. In a riot situation it is important to go in with overwhelming force. It is important for the safety of the correctional officers. It is also important for the inmates. Going in with less than overwhelming force actually poses a greater threat to the inmates and to the correctional officers.

I was greatly disappointed by the unfair and negative treatment our correctional services received. It became an issue of political correctness and trial by media. It was not an issue of fact and what is reasonable in those very difficult and trying circumstances. Most members of the public would not understand this because thankfully most people have not been in jail.

I would like to touch on an important aspect of Judge Arbour's current responsibilities, one on which Canada can take a leadership role. It has to do with the war crimes tribunals that are taking place in the Hague.

I had an opportunity to meet briefly with Judge Richard Goldstone a few months ago. He was visiting Canada to ensure that the war crimes tribunal continued. As we speak, it is in a state of flux and could potentially fall apart. This would do grievous harm to the principles of international law to which most civilians and politicians in the world adhere.

Most nations of the world follow certain rules and regulations in an effort to ensure that those who are least powerful, mostly civilians, are governed by some basic tenets of law that protect them, their property and their families.

The war crimes tribunal unfortunately came into existence because of the absolute disgusting turn of events most recently in Bosnia, Rwanda and Burundi. It also stems from previous war crimes tribunals such as the Nuremberg trials and from previous international agreements on international law over the governance of war.

If we are not going to support the war crimes tribunal and ensure that it continues, all the international laws that exist from the Nuremberg trials to what we have today will be for nothing. If we allow this organization to fall apart, which it is in the processing of doing, then it will send a message to those who would commit heinous, atrocious, appalling crimes that they are free to do what they want because no one in the world is going to bring them to justice. They will be left to continue committing these terrible crimes.

Therefore, I implore the government to back Judge Arbour and her colleagues and use its influence to get other countries to also back the war crimes tribunal taking place in the Hague. The government should also try to ensure that it becomes more effective. They are finding it impossible to work under certain circumstances. There is a lack of funding and manpower which makes it almost impossible for them to bring war criminals to trial. There are also other numerous bureaucratic entanglements which prevent them from doing their jobs.

It is going to require an increasing amount of international co-operation. We have an ideal opportunity, having a Canadian as the chief prosecutor, to pursue a course that is going to streamline and increase the effectiveness of the war crimes tribunals. Having a Canadian there will carry forward our skills as a nation and a leader in diplomatic endeavours to the Hague and to the war crimes tribunals.

We also have an enormous role to play in the world. The situation in Zaire and central Africa must be looked at for what it is. This is an impartial, apolitical issue as a half a million to a million people's lives are on the line. Some things have to be done at the outset. We have to get the agreement of the Zairean government to ensure that reconnaissance takes place in eastern Zaire to determine exactly what is going on. Humanitarian groups that are poised to go in and provide assistance to these people cannot go in because it is an extraordinarily dangerous situation.

I am not advocating for a moment sending in a huge mass of troops armed to the teeth to stop a war. That simply is not going to happen. We have to prioritize what we have to do. The first priority must be to ensure the safety of those half million odd civilians who are fleeing from the fighting. Many are being killed by Tutsi rebels who want to kill off male Hutus.

A possible solution would be to send a multinational force. Canada can provide the logistics, troops from the Organization of African Unity and the EU, independent of Belgian and French troops, could go into the area and ensure that safe corridors are available for the civilians to go back to be repatriated into Rwanda.

Second, humanitarian groups that are already on the ground with medicines and food must be allowed to safely go into eastern Zaire to provide these basic necessities to these people. What is faced now and in the coming days is an epidemic in these populations of malnutrition and starvation and also an epidemic of diseases such as typhoid fever and cholera that is going to kill thousands on thousands of people.

This, though, cannot be the end of it. We have seen a cycle develop in central African over years and years of killing and some repatriation and further killings taking place. The cycle of killing and death has to stop.

The international community cannot keep pouring money into central Africa without an end point. As politically incorrect as this is to say, perhaps we should take a very close look at working with the three governments in the area to redraw some of the tribal lines to ensure that Hutus and Tutsis live in their pre-colonial tribal areas. Maybe this is a solution that would enable the warring factions to stay away from each other.

There has to be a demilitarization of the extremists on both sides. It is extremists in the Hutus and the Tutsis that are taking a significant role in trying to continue the fighting in their areas. They are not only killing members from the opposing tribe, they are also killing moderates within their own tribes. What is left is a very fearful group of civilians powerless to change the course of events because they are ruled by extremist militias who are doing things only for the benefit of themselves and a very narrow group of political elites within their own separate countries.

We have also an opportunity in Zaire, a country that is one of the poorest in the world, as Mobutu Sese Seko recovers from prostate cancer in France, to try to convince him that now is the time for us to work with the IMF and the World Bank to build up the democratic and economic structures within Zaire which are required for long term peace. Not only does this have to happen within Zaire but it also has to occur in Rwanda and Burundi.

Without the restructuring that has to take place in these three countries, peace will not occur. All we will be doing by pouring money into the situation today is for the cycle of violence and starvation repeat itself at some time in the future.

We persistently pursue short term goals. I implore the government to work with the international community to convince them that we should pursue not only a short term solution to save the civilian populations within eastern Zaire and Rwanda but also pursue a longer term solution for economic, judicial and democratic restructuring that has to take place in these three areas.

It will require a stronger arm and more active influence. This is where the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank can come into play. Initiatives from them within the country in terms of peace building between groups that were fighting each other, in terms of blocking off arms, redressing the poverty situation perhaps through microloans, systems along those of the Grameen Bank, will all help to ensure long term peace within the area. These initiatives are absolutely essential for peace to occur.

As a country we do not consider our power in the international community to bring groups, nations and organizations together. Louise Arbour's being the head of the war crimes tribunal is but one example of our reputation as a nation. It is also an example of how we can be involved in international organizations to revamp them so they will truly address the problems that will affect us all in the 21st century but which very few governments and people are willing to address.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca observed in his reference to the Supreme Court of Canada that our judicial system now has more powers, now makes laws. He seemed to blame the charter of rights and freedoms and he claimed the public does not know about this. I submit that those observations are wrong.

The Supreme Court of Canada never makes laws. We know that and we have a duty to tell the citizens of the country that the supreme court does not make laws. The members of the Reform Party are laughing at this. They seem not to appreciate that the charter of rights and freedoms is a fundamental part of the Canadian Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

When the Supreme Court of Canada interprets the laws passed by parliaments or any other legislative body in the country, the Supreme Court of Canada has a duty and obligation to have the laws tested in light of the charter of rights and freedoms, the supreme law of the land. In this respect the court does not make new laws; it only interprets them to ensure that laws passed by Parliament do not contravene the fundamental law of the land.

The Canadian judicial system has received international acclaim and distinction for its independence, integrity, talent and creativity. It is creativity we see when the Supreme Court of Canada makes the ultimate interpretation when there is a potential conflict between laws passed by Parliament and the charter of rights and freedoms. When an interpretation is made and we happen to disagree with it, let us not conclude that the court has made laws. We have to re-examine ourselves as lawmakers to ensure the laws we pass can withstand the test of the supreme law of the land.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member agrees with me in saying that the supreme court should only interpret laws rather than make them.

I have a lot of respect for my hon. friend. I strongly urge him to speak to the police officers and representatives of the police forces and to speak to the prosecution lawyers who find the charter of rights and freedoms hamstrings them dramatically.

I also suggest to the hon. member that the charter is actually discriminatory. In its tenets the charter specifically says that it is acceptable to discriminate against a group of people who have previously been deemed to have had some advantages. That is not free. That is not equal. That is not ensuring equal rights for everybody. That is damaging the rights of people and is discriminatory by its very nature.

We had the bill of rights before this charter. The bill of rights worked very well. The police were happy with it, the courts were happy with it and the people were happy with it. Unfortunately in 1982 the Liberal government of the day decided to bring in the charter of rights and freedoms which has turned our judicial process on its head. It has hamstrung the courts and the police officers in the trenches who try their very hardest under extraordinary circumstances to keep our streets safe.

If the hon. member wanted to do the honourable thing, which I am sure he does, he would suggest to his party that we pursue the idea of going back to the bill of rights.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this debate is a result of amendments proposed by the Senate, particularly in light of what happened in the Senate yesterday when it turned back term 17 to do with the Newfoundland school system.

This was a process undertaken by the people of Newfoundland in a truly democratic way, probably the most fundamental democratic process that could be arrived at, a referendum. As a person from outside the province of Newfoundland I would not offer any opinion as to the judgment of the people of Newfoundland. The people of Newfoundland in a true, fair, clear democratic process had an opportunity to speak and they did.

The result of the referendum then went to the Newfoundland assembly, those who were elected by the people of Newfoundland in a free, fair, democratic process. My understanding is that that House voted unanimously in favour of the motion. Then it came to this Parliament and this Parliament in a free vote substantiated the results of the referendum.

On Bill C-42, the Senate is now deciding in the same way that it did on term 17, to throw the bill back to this House. I think this indicates that within Canada's parliamentary process we truly must have absolute reform and come to a triple E Senate.

We know that the Senate is effective because it has managed to turn back term 17. We know that the Senate is effective in that it has managed to turn back Bill C-42, which is currently being debated in the House. We know the Senate is effective but the fact that it is not elected, is unaccountable and unrepresentative of

anyone in this country other than the political masters who put the senators there in the first place says reams about the Senate itself.

The Reform Party position always has been and will continue to be that while we require a House of sober second thought such as the Senate, it is absolutely essential that the House of sober second thought gain some credibility by going through a process of being elected and accountable.

Specifically on issue of Bill C-42, the main motion being debated is an amendment to Bill C-42 introduced by the government in the Senate. That is rather interesting in itself. Bill C-42 went from this place to the Senate. Then in the place of supposed sober second thought some flaws in Bill C-42 were discovered. We have reason to believe that the government of the day decided to use this method of making the renovations to Bill C-42, rather than by directly taking them into account in this House.

This House must be the place where legislation is made. It must be the place where legislation is voted on because this is the place where members are elected and are ultimately accountable to the people of Canada.

The current Judges Act does not allow any judge to accept any employment other than from the Government of Canada. The Judges Act at the moment does not allow judges to receive compensation from anyone other than the Government of Canada.

The Minister of Justice has passed orders in council approving Madam Justice Louise Arbour to work in the UN commencing last July 1. This is part of a pattern, and if I may suggest a rather arrogant pattern, that seems to have infested both the Liberals and the Conservatives. Because they have been the governing parties of Canada since Confederation, they go ahead and do these things without reference to this elected Chamber.

There is this order in council which permitted Madam Justice Arbour to work at the UN commencing July 1. The interesting thing, which shows the arrogance of the Liberals and of the justice minister, is that these orders in council are in direct violation of section 55 of the Judges Act. But the government said to itself: "That is no problem. We will use the rubber stamp of the House of Commons and simply get that turned around".

Why closure yet again? Many members during the last Parliament railed against the number of times closure was used by the Conservatives. Members stood in their places and made all sorts of noises about how unjust, unfair and immoral closure was. Now we see how the government has changed. It now brings in closure at will.

Why do we have closure today? Because if this bill is not passed today the justice minister will have to issue a new order in council because the present one will expire on November 30. The justice minister maintains that the order in council is valid because Madam Justice Arbour is still being paid by the Government of Canada. He has ignored the prohibition on accepting other employment which is laid out in the Judges Act.

Many lawyers make their money on fine print. It is a rather interesting part of the whole justice process. Indeed, the niggling details will end up shooting down a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil suit. Lawyers make their money by worrying about the niggling details.

As a matter of fact, I am given to believe that even in a criminal case which is currently before the Supreme Court-the Latimer case-they are talking about the details. There has been a conviction in that case and now Mr. Latimer's lawyer is saying: "But we did not take care of the details. Therefore, we are going to take it to the supreme court".

What did the justice minister say in the House on November 22 in answer to a question from my colleague from St. Albert who raised the issue of Bill C-42? It is almost unbelievable. He said: "I invite the hon. member to rise above the niggling legalisms upon which he now relies for partisan purposes and join with this government to make sure" and so on. What kind of a justice minister does Canada have? He is the supreme lawyer in Canada and he says: "I invite the hon. member to rise above the niggling legalisms". Is that not what the law is all about? It is in the detail that lawyers make their money. Here we have the justice minister turning around and saying not to worry, not to sweat the small stuff.

In this case the small stuff happens to be section 55 of the Judges Act. That section says that Madam Justice Arbour should not be doing what she is doing and that the government should not have put her in a compromised position which has occurred as a direct result of the boldfaced arrogance of the Liberals.

Many Liberal members were very upset in the last Parliament about the numerous times closure was used by the Conservatives. They railed against it. It is really interesting that in rushing bills through the House the Liberals have used closure on Bill C-33, time allocation on third reading and report stage of Bill C-41 and limited committee discussion and time allocation at third reading and report stage of Bill C-68.

And what do we have with Bill C-68? We have a whole bunch of question marks. This same justice minister came forward yesterday with his proposed regulations. What he is not talking about is that again he not only does not consult with this Chamber, he not only does not consult with the members who have been elected by the people of Canada, whether it is on Bills C-33, C-41, C-68 or C-42, he does not consult with anybody. The Liberals are a power unto themselves.

The three provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have said they will not administer Ottawa's proposed-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member with some niggling legal point, but there is a rule of relevance in the Chamber. I urge the hon. member to address his remarks to Bill C-42, the bill we are discussing.

I recognize that in discussion of the use of closure he has a point, but when he gets off into the details of other bills he seems to be straying a bit far from the subject. As he knows, I am very reluctant to interrupt him on such a point but I would urge him to address his remarks to Bill C-42, the subject of discussion today, and the amendment moved by one of his colleagues to that motion.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what you are saying. With the greatest respect, I would suggest, however, that we have within the justice department and with the justice minister a pattern relating to Bill C-42 that I would like to explore.

For example, section 745. We have today the clear, irrefutable evidence that what the justice minister should have done was completely abolish section 745 as the people of Canada asked for. This justice minister simply does not listen.

I draw to the Speaker's attention the fact that when the justice minister would turn around and in an answer to a specific question directed to Bill C-42 and say "don't sweat the small stuff, it is only niggling little detail", I suggest that the niggling detail is exactly the issue that we have to be discussing in relation to Bill C-42.

Again I cite as an example section 745. During the process of section 745 there was an obvious lack of consultation, a lack of taking into account the perspective of the people of this House and indeed the people of Canada. With regard to section 745 and the problem with it, and what they did with Bill C-45, by turning around and going forward with half measures they created a situation where they could attempt to make it appear as though they had actually done something.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention a rather interesting article from the Calgary Sun dated September 16. This particular columnist is talking about the Liberal failure to scrap section 745 of the Criminal Code that lets first degree murderers out on parole after 15 years in jail. Because of section 745 butchers like Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson are entitled to apply for parole.

The Reform Party has been calling for the abolition of this heinous loophole for years but it is still in effect and should be an embarrassment to any Liberal, but not to the Liberal member he is speaking about who comes from Edmonton. Her little newsletter has a headline blaring: "Murderers Denied Parole Rights Under Section 745". But it is simply not true. The only changes that the Liberals have proposed is that murderers will not automatically get reviewed for release and that any new mass murderers are ineligible. Bernardo and Olson are still eligible for parole after 15 years. This columnist suggests in Liberal speak that is probably success.

It is the loopholes, it is the niggling details, it is the fact that this justice minister in coming to this House with Bill C-42 actually came to this House with, as it were, a Trojan horse. It was unclear at the time when he came to this House with the bill that in fact this bill had any real implications. Certainly it was unclear that it related to the issue that the Reform Party has been driving home for the last two days with respect to Bill C-42.

It is not only the process that the justice minister comes to this House with a Trojan horse and gets Bill C-42 through in that way, but then the government has the audacity to go to the other place to make the amendments that it wants to make when it realizes that even this Trojan horse was not put together properly.

There is a fundamental flaw with this House when the government treats this House like a rubber stamp and treats the elected representatives who are elected, after all, by the people of Canada in this way.

Let us take a look at all the bills that have come before this House. I must say that in my own committee, in taking a look at the Copyright Act, what does that have to do with Bill C-42? I will tell this House what it has to do with Bill C-42. Having had this Trojan horse brought in, having had the details not at all clear, having had the Liberals treat this House with the disrespect that they have under Bill C-42, now when Bill C-32, the Copyright Act, is before committee I, as a responsible parliamentarian, must assume that there may be a Trojan horse even in that bill.

Therefore under Bill C-42 we have the difficulty that when we have a government coming forward, treating the House with disrespect, bringing in things in a surreptitious way, we have to take a look at all the details of every bill.

With respect to the amendments that have been brought forward by our party, we have proposed in our section (b) amendment that we:

(b) strike out all the lines in section 56.1(2) and substitute the following:

"If Madam Justice Arbour elects to take leave pursuant to section 56.1(1) she may receive moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses, in connection with her services as Prosecutor, from the United Nations";

(c) add the following words to section 56.1(3):

"notwithstanding any prohibition against accepting any salary fee, remuneration or other emolument described in section 57";

(d) add the following words to section 56.1(5):

"and that benefits payable under these sections will be paid or will commence to be paid at the expiration of the leave of absence without pay".

It is the niggling detail and it is the Reform Party that is drawing to the attention of this House and through this process drawing attention to the people of Canada that currently we have a justice minister, a justice department and the Liberal government that continuously come to this House and rather than looking at the kind of detail that I have just read to this House that the Reform Party has brought, rather than dotting the i s and crossing the t s and doing the job correctly, rather than treating this House with the respect that it and the people in this House deserve, the Liberals continue to come to this House and treat it like a rubber stamp: ``Oh, by the way, if we have a problem we will correct it after the fact''.

There was an example of that even in the passage of Bill C-63 the other day. With Bill C-63 there had been a number of things that had been brought up at the last minute in this House as a result of debate. The government should be commended in a small way for the fact that it did end up taking a look at some of the provisions in the bill that needed some fine tuning. I commend it for that, but I ask why we had to get into that process. Why did we not have an opportunity on Bill C-63 to actually get those issues onto the table? I suggest the reason was that government once again was treating Bill C-63 in the same way as it has Bill C-42 and all these other bills. It has treated this Parliament as a rubber stamp.

The government very simply went through a committee process on probably the cornerstone legislation of our government or the governing of this country, democracy in this country. It simply went ahead and had a situation where it had two weeks of hearings. The interesting thing was that one of those weeks nobody was in Ottawa. We were out in our constituencies working. So it had only one week to actually consider the terms and the details of that bill.

I suggest there is an absolute irrefutable pattern here that the Liberals continuously treat this House as a rubber stamp, treat the members of Parliament with disrespect. I say that they treat us with disrespect in that they expect us to just roll over and do what is asked. They may be good enough for the Liberal backbenchers but it is not good enough for this opposition.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really did appreciate the speech which I just listened to by the member for Kootenay East. He talked about not sweating the details. I think he was quoting the Minister of Justice in question period last week.

The point I would like the hon. member to give the House his opinion on is while Madam Justice Arbour has been asked by the United Nations to a do a tremendously worthy job on behalf of all humanity, to go over there and uphold international law and to let international law be a beacon of light for civilization around the world, would it not be a sleight on the job that she is going to be doing if we have to trample over the Canadian law to let her go over there to uphold the law?

That seems to be the issue that the hon. member was arguing, that while no one is disputing the great responsibility and the fact that someone from Canada has been selected to do this particular position, in our haste to accommodate the United Nations to allow her to go over there and uphold the law we have trampled over our own rules.

It seems to me rather strange that we would do that because surely it would cast some kind of aspersion on her capacity over there if we find that the laws of Canada have been broken to accommodate the United Nations. That is one point I would ask him to consider.

The second point I would ask him to consider which I would like his opinion on too is this idea that Madam Justice Louise Arbour has been granted a leave of absence from the bench for as long as she is required because there is no return date in this particular motion. We do not know how long she is going to be gone, but she is on the bench. Although she has a leave of absence she is still a member of the bench in this country with the superior court in the province of Ontario.

She is what one might call a referee in the game of law. Yet now she is going to be a player. On one side she is going to be the prosecutor at the international court in The Hague. We get into this situation of being both the player and the referee. We have people in this House who are quite familiar with the game of hockey, for example, who know full well that you cannot be a referee and a player because the whole thing just tends to fall apart.

I would like to have the member's opinion on whether one should, can be or whether it is advisable under these conditions to be both a referee and a player and the fact that we have ignored our own internal laws to allow her to take over this position at the United Nations.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting that while my colleague was speaking I heard from the other side of the House that a person can be a player and a referee if it is a different game.

I would suggest that if the chief referee of the NHL were to suit up for the Montreal Canadiens there probably would be something of incredibility on the part of people in the stands. They would simply not accept that. In fact, even in that, which is at a totally different level to what we are talking about when we are talking

about the supreme court of Ontario, there is just no way that we could end up having it fit.

There is more to it than that.

The reality is that within our system we are at the mercy of the judicial system as to how it in turn interprets the law. There was a very interesting exchange earlier with the member for Winnipeg and my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca about the whole issue of whether the supreme court actually ends up making law on the basis of the charter of rights and freedoms. As a result of Pierre Trudeau and the whole thought process of the Liberals where we now have a charter industry populated by very high priced lawyers, we now have an even more of a requirement for there to be an absolute, positive, total, utter chasm between prosecution and the defence and the judiciary.

To my colleague, I would say that the ends do not justify the means. Louise Arbour will be a prosecutor in The Hague while still a member of the impartial bench of Canada. The justice minister is on record as saying in a Senate standing committee that there are no provisions in the judges act allowing her to accept this appointment. That is an important issue. There are no provisions in the judges act allowing her to accept this appointment. He said that. Yes, I agree with my colleague, one cannot play the game and be a referee at the same time no matter what the circumstances are.

An exemption for a particular person from public policy such as Madam Justice Arbour is called a private bill. Again, this did not come to the House as a private bill. Public policy goes through the House as a public bill. There is no provision in the rules for a hybrid, public-private bill.

Again we are referring to the justice minister of Canada, the chief lawyer of Canada, who is saying do not sweat the small stuff, do not worry about the niggling details. This is not good enough, not nearly good enough. I would think that any lawyer in Canada would realize that for the justice minister to say do not sweat the small stuff, do not worry about the details, would have to question the total confidence of a person in as high a position as the justice minister of Canada.

The justice minister is contravening the rules of this House by forcing this amendment through in a public bill. What has made it even worse is that he and the government are in a process of not only forcing it through the House but forcing it through the House by closure. We know there has been closure on some bills in the House which has been rather interesting. We have even seen closure and situations of people taking different positions in the House. It seems as though there is a question in the mind of this government as to whether it can actually get down to governing in a proper way. It has simply gone power hungry, power crazy on closure rather than taking the time through a process of negotiation with the Reform and with the Bloc, the official opposition, to get bills through the House in an orderly manner. But it is not doing that.

We have tabled a multi-point amendment. It makes the condition of Madam Justice Arbour's leave of absence more stringent. We insist that in this process details must be adhered to. And not withstanding the laissez faire, do not worry about the detail attitude of our justice minister, we are going to continue to act as the guardians of the Canadian justice system, notwithstanding the fact that the justice minister says do not worry about the details.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be given the opportunity to speak to Bill C-42.

I want to be absolutely sure in what I say here that you understand that I am dealing with Bill C-42. I am speaking specifically on the consequences of the political interference to a large extent in the judiciary today. In doing so I will cite a number of examples which will show that what is happening in Bill C-42 is indeed part of the problem with the judiciary today. The examples come from my riding.

I have recently been involved with the first example. Some people will be shocked to hear it. They will wonder what exactly is going on. They will wonder how the judiciary is accountable and where we are going from here. My first example is the case of a young lady who was victimized in Aldergrove, British Columbia in my riding.

She met an Abbotsford resident, Darren Ursel, in a bar at the Alder Inn where she had gone to meet a friend who did not turn up. This young lady had a soda because she does not drink alcohol. She and Ursel got talking. Ursel suggested they go for tea. They hopped in his car, drove to Ocean Park Pizza, and stopped at a bank along the way so he could use the ATM. They had tea and coffee and he drove her back to the parking lot at the Alder Inn where her car was parked. And there the horror started.

He did not let her out of the car. He tried to kiss her. She did not want to. He became forceful and held her down. He then invaded her privacy with things that are a lot more disgusting than I should even mention in this House, and I will not. This fellow violated this woman in the worst ways one can imagine.

He went to court in my riding. The judge said that what Ursel did was aggressive, angry and sadistic to some degree and that at other times Ursel was tender. The judge took into account that Ursel had no criminal record, was remorseful and had done everything in his power to deal with the situation.

It sounds familiar. Bill C-41 was mentioned a little while ago in relation to conditional sentencing. So let us see what good old Judge Harry Boyle gave Mr. Ursel. He found him guilty, all right. Ursel was sentenced to two years less a day conditional sentencing; not one day of incarceration. This is conditional sentencing: "If you do it again you will be sorry". He was put on three years probation.

Today that young lady is in very bad shape. The community is appalled at that decision, and understandably so. What it really says to me is the judge really said the first rape is free, there are no consequences. That kind of lack of accountability in this country is absolutely appalling. Most people in my riding think that judge should be removed from the bench and so do I.

Ursel is walking the streets today, but the young lady is not. We have not taught him a darn thing about the horrendous acts he undertook. If I told members what he did they would be that much more ashamed of the decision that was made.

To some extent that leads me to another example in my discussion of Bill C-42. Later I will explain why this is all happening in Bill C-42. I want to talk about a young man named Arron Stewart. I know his mom and dad are listening and so I will present the facts as they gave them to me.

On March 26, 1995 their son, Arron Michael Stewart, was killed by a single stab wound to the heart. He was 23 years old. The individual responsible was an 18-year old, Scott Kent.

When a group of males from Delta were leaving a party an altercation took place between a Langley male and one from Delta. They were separated by another Langley male. Another young fellow was accused of becoming involved in a fight and kicking another fellow down.

Kent was hit in the face by one of these young men and, in retaliation for kicking and mouthing off, Kent returned to his residence, assessed the damage to his face, stole a knife and returned to the scene. It was the crown's contention that Kent was going after another young fellow.

Kent was stopped and was asked what he had in his hand. They had seen a knife. It was mentioned that the knife was in this fellow's hand. The knife was presented. Young Aaron approached, pushed another fellow out of the way for his protection and within seconds he was stabbed. He died 15 minutes later.

This is only a very short snapshot of the events. Suffice it to say Aaron was no threat whatsoever to Kent. The evidence presented at the trial suggested that Aaron 's role was that of peacemaker. He tried to disarm or defuse the situation. According to Kent, Aaron was going to assault him.

The defence's position was self-defence. Given all the evidence it was, at best, difficult to believe and a very hard sell.

Kent was on probation for assault causing bodily harm at the time. Aaron had no record whatsoever.

The judge instructed the jury, over 40 pages, not to take this information as a propensity to violence. That is what the judge said, that he has a previous record but do not consider it.

Bob and Audrey Stewart say they feel that Aaron's life was taken in a violent manner, and it was. They felt that Kent was guilty of second degree murder. On two occasions a plea bargain for manslaughter was put to the crown and rejected. They were confident that justice would prevail and Kent would be held accountable.

On October 30, 1996 at 12.15, after 16 hours of deliberation, Kent was acquitted. The last thing the parents remember the judge saying, while he was smiling, was: "You are free to go".

This young fellow murdered an innocent young man. He had already been charged with assault. He was free to go.

This is one of the few countries in the world where a person can stab someone else and not be penalized. I often wonder how it is possible for someone to be free to go when they attempted to plea bargain for manslaughter, virtually admitting what had happened.

Where do these decisions come from and why? I have studied many Canadian judicial decisions over the last several years. I want to relay a few which pertain to Bill C-42. Some of them will surprise people, but I have become hardened to the kind of decisions which are made these days. I have talked to a lot of young people about these decisions and they are appalled. They do not know how to stop it. They do not know what to do.

How do judges get on a bench? Are they political appointments? Basically. With Liberal governments being in power in Canada for so many years how can we expect anything other than many Liberal judicial decisions?

One of the Liberals, I believe, just said "and a few more yet". If that is so, then we can expect more Liberal judicial decisions like the ones I am going to read to the House.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sherman Hood, before acquitting a man of sexually assaulting a North Vancouver waitress, said: "No' sometimes meansmaybe' or `wait a while"'.

Has anyone in their life ever heard such disgusting rulings? That is an easy one. In the Northwest Territories circuit court Judge Michel Bourassa said that sexual assaults "occur, when the woman

is drunk and passed out, the man comes along, sees a pair of hips and helps himself". That is from this country's bench.

Many people listening may have heard B.C. county court Judge Peter Vanderhoof describe a three-year old girl. She could be anyone's child. After sentencing her attacker to 18 months probation for sexual interference as they call it today, he called the three-year old girl "sexually aggressive". Now I ask, is that reasonable? Is that in any way typical of what Canadians expect from this country's bench? Where do these decisions come from?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

What does this have to do with the Judges Act?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

An individual over on the Liberal side just asked me how this relates to the Judges Act. I think I will leave that up to the listeners because he certainly does not understand what I am talking about. He does not understand the reality between this House politically appointing judges to positions and how it affects world decisions like C-42 is doing with Louise Arbour. He does not understand that but I think other people will.

I recommend that members read the book Contempt of Court by Carsten Stroud. They will see how relevant many of the things in this book are to C-42. Some of us from British Columbia will remember the case Stroud refers to: ``David Snow was charged in Vancouver with kidnapping two women and trying to strangle a third. I quote from the judge's decision: I cannot conclude that the placing of the wire around the neck of the victim and the placing of the plastic over her head are sufficient to establish intent to kill''.

If the Liberal member does not understand the relevance between the political impact of Bill C-42 and appointing judges to the bench, in many cases Liberal judges making Liberal decisions, then that is exactly what I am trying to deliver in this message: You do not understand and therefore you should pick up and get out of here.

Let us talk about Port Hardy, B.C. provincial court judge Brian Saunderson who gave 57-year old Vernon Logan an absolute discharge. This was a decision from the bench. Even though Logan pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, the judge said: "The law banning child pornography violates the charter of rights because it is an infringement of one's freedom of thought, belief or opinion, as unfettered access to reading material is necessary to exercise those freedoms".

Members are getting rowdy over there because they do not like the message but it is just too bad what they do not like because they are going to have to listen to it. If the Liberals opposite listened a little more they might understand what some of us are trying to tell them. These judicial decisions are hurting people. They are setting bad precedents.

My favourite judge, Howard Wetston, about whom I have spoken several times, recently decided in yet another ridiculous ruling that federal prisoners have the right to vote under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I quote: "Preventing prisoners serving more than two years from voting is too sweeping an infringement". So first degree murderer Richard Sauvé won his case and now they all vote.

I cannot say that the member is now gone, can I, Mr. Speaker?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Nobody knew when he was here.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Sometimes when we do not understand what is going on it is better to vacate.

In Montreal last July two teens were sentenced to three years each in enclosed custody and two years of supervision after pleading guilty to reduced charges of second degree murder in the brutal killing of an elderly couple. The judge described the killings of the elderly couple as senseless and despicable. In delivering the sentence he also forbade those two young fellows who killed the elderly couple from possessing firearms and explosives for five years. Now is that not a dandy? In another two years they will be able to have explosives.

This country has seen it all. I am very concerned, as are my colleagues, about the relevance of politics in the judiciary today, the consequences of which are bad judicial decisions. Bill C-42 is doing just that. It will create bad judicial decisions. What do we do about it?

We heard about the judges who used cocaine and booze as an excuse for murder. Psychotic killer Michael Kruger got a few thousand dollars for being inconvenienced during a labour dispute in a prison. The judge said he was "inconvenienced for denial of showers, therapy and a swimming pool". That is kind of sick.

Now that I have told the House what some of the problems are, what are the solutions?

The two most important qualifications of judicial appointments in this country must be knowledge of the law and integrity. They should not be who you know, whom you work for and what political party is in power.

Lawyers must always be examined before their appointment to the bench. They should be examined on their competency in the areas of law where they will be making the decisions. If they fail, they should not be appointed. We must end political appointments, not begin them with Bill C-42. We must end them.

There has to be more predictability in sentencing in this country.

There has to be a continuous testing, or time limited appointments on the judiciary. The names of candidates for judicial appointments should be made available to the public with their background information. Who they know, who was in the last corporate boardroom, and who raised money for the campaign should not enter into it. The justice minister should not be making legislation to make it convenient for an appointment.

There should be a national code of conduct and conflict of interest rules for judges. I am not dreaming this up. This came from a report commissioned by the Canadian Judicial Council. Was it done? No. The judicial council said that disciplinary hearings against judges should be open to the public. And why not? What is wrong with that? Except it does not fit in with the mode of being involved with a political appointment or the politics of the issue.

For absolutely certain the mandatory retirement age of judges should be lowered from 75 years to 65 years as a minimum. I think it should be lower.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

How low?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

I am asked how low. Let us limit the terms of chief justices in most courts to seven years. How about that?

Do not think for one moment that is coming from a political bias. That is coming from the judicial council. Maybe these members should listen.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleague's presentation. Certainly he reviewed not only the Judges Act as it relates to Bill C-42, but the very effect of that act on the appointments that are made and the results of those appointments. The hon. member gave us an indication of what is happening in the courtrooms across this land.

I was particularly interested in a situation he referred to with regard to an Aaron Stewart. I know my colleague's interest and I know that he works with people on the ground. Is my colleague aware of how the victims in that situation have responded to what has happened? How do they feel about this country's judicial system?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as it happens, Bob and Audrey Stewart never had the opportunity to present a victim's impact statement in that case. In fact today the prosecution in British Columbia is deciding as to whether or not the case will be appealed. If it is not, certainly we will be dealing with that immediately.

I want to provide the House of Commons and the Canadian people with a real victim impact statement from two parents who did not get the opportunity to present it: "Nothing prepared us for the early morning events of March 26, 1995. Two Courtney detachment RCMP officers came to our home to inform us that our son Aaron Michael Stewart was a victim of a stabbing incident at a house party in Langley. He had died within 15 minutes. Our nightmare began.

"In a single moment our lives were changed forever. Our grief was and is indescribable. Aaron was a wonderful son, brother, grandson, nephew, cousin and friend. We had done our level best to raise Aaron and we had nothing but pride in him. Life is very precious. We thank God for the 23 wonderful loving years we had with Aaron. We were truly blessed. Death is always very difficult regardless of age or circumstance.

"The violence surrounding Aaron's passing just increased the pain. Given his love of life and his youth, his death can only be described as a senseless tragedy. A tragedy of this magnitude happens to other people. Never do we imagine the possibility of it happening to us.

"We find it difficult to even remember the last 19 months. We were thrown into funeral preparations, courtroom appearances and media coverage, to say nothing of trying to deal with our own grief and that of our family and friends. Compounding this was the shock and outrage we all felt.

"We put our faith in the legal system fully expecting justice to prevail. The show cause hearing afforded the accused bail, a $10,000 surety and an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew. We were appalled and addressed our concerns in writing to the deputy regional crown. A new prosecutor was named and we were afforded the opportunity to be a part of the process.

"On two occasions defence counsel requested a plea bargain to manslaughter. The crown advised us of these requests but we were assured the violent nature of the crime warranted the charge of second degree murder. The requests were rejected. The eight days of preliminary inquiry in December 1995 only increased our resolve. There were 30 or 40 statements taken on that morning and over 20 witnesses called by the crown during the inquiry. We were very grateful for the overwhelming support shown by family and friends. We were never alone to face this ordeal.

The next step in our attempt to seek justice was the trial, October of 1996. After three weeks of testimony our world ended, the jury handing down an acquittal. Justice did not prevail. Where do we go from here?"

I can only say to Robert and Audrey Stewart that we will not give up the fight for justice. We will not give up the fight for legitimate process through the judiciary. I think the Liberals should take note of what I have said here today and go back and think about all those victims out there and try to spend a little more time helping victims and not criminals.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I had the privilege of having a rather lengthy conversation with a few security guards here on the Hill. Many of them, having been here for a number of years, are a source of much more knowledge and perhaps intellect than most of the members opposite and so they give me reasonably good guidance.

One thing that came up from two or three of them was why do we not have an elected judiciary in this country? I tried to explain to them the pros and the cons of this as I saw it. I wonder if the hon. member, since we are talking here in Bill C-42 about a band-aid bill when the government should be revising the whole lousy system, would give me his views on whether or not we should have an elected judiciary.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many people in this country today think we should have an elected judiciary. There are good points and consequences to that decision.

Overall, if we look at the American model, there is a tendency for judges to respond to a lot of political pressure from individual groups and so on. I am not sure how well that serves the process.

The difficulty here is that governments have really been involved in appointing judges. Members say it is an independent process, but it is really not. We can tell by Bill C-42 that a government is directly getting involved with the judiciary.

I like the suggestion from the Canadian Judicial Council that the terms of chief justices should be limited to seven years. That would make a difference. With some of the judges who have made bad decisions, as I have related here today, then we would only be stuck with some of these guys for a maximum of seven years but usually six, five, four or three.

If I had my way I would prefer to see a shorter term than an election of judges.