Rob Moore

[Death Penalty, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and participate in this debate. Unfortunately, the motion before this House today is really a total waste of this House's time and nothing more than what I would say a cheap political trick and a feeble attempt by the Liberal opposition to draw debate where there is no debate.

We therefore oppose this motion today. The motion calls on the government to reaffirm that there is a not a death penalty in Canada. We have said before and we will say again, there is no death penalty in Canada. The Minister of Justice and other members of this government have clearly said that this government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty.

Since December 10, 1962 no one has been executed in Canada. That is over 45 years. On July 14, 1976 the death penalty was removed from the Criminal Code. The death penalty was then removed from the National Defence Act on December 10, 1998. Since that day there has been no death penalty in Canada in law as well as in fact.

In 1987 a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote sent a very strong signal that Canadians were in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty. As the Prime Minister has confirmed, this government is not going to reopen this debate in Canada.

The second part of the motion asks the government to reaffirm its policy to seek clemency on humanitarian grounds for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries. As we have said repeatedly, in cases where Canadians face the death penalty abroad the Government of Canada will continue to consider whether to seek clemency on a case-by-case basis based on what is in the best interest of Canada.

According to today's headlines, a majority of Canadians support our case-by-case approach and as we found out last fall, a majority of Canadians support our overall approach to justice, an approach that focuses on tackling violent crime and tackling crime in our communities.

It is an approach that puts victims first rather than the approach of the Liberals in the past, and what frankly continues to be their approach, of putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The protection of Canadians is a priority for this government. It is the priority of this government and if securing clemency is contingent on a murderer or a multiple murderer being repatriated to this country and let free to roam our streets, this is not a risk that our government is willing to take. Bringing back convicted killers sends the wrong message.

The third part of the motion before this House today calls on the government to continue its leadership role in promoting the abolition of the death penalty internationally. This government has been and will continue to be a leader in speaking up for a principled stand on human rights and the rule of law in all international forums.

For those states that legally retain the death penalty, the government will continue to advocate for full respect for international law including international legal obligations. I might add that it is standing up for humanitarian issues that is the reason why we have men and women from Canada across this world today who are fighting for those very freedoms and those human rights.

Many states do retain the death penalty. International law imposes restrictions on the use of the death penalty and imposes strict safeguards on its imposition. Canada's interventions with other states, whether made at a bilateral level or in a multilateral arena, are made in the context of supporting human rights within the framework of international law.

There has been no death penalty in Canada for 45 years. Our government has indicated that there is no intention to change that. We have also indicated that the decision as to whether or not we will seek clemency will be assessed on a case-by-case basis based on what is in the best interest of Canada.

I also find it very interesting. We are having this debate tonight on this issue and yet in the Senate sits stalled the tackling violent crime act. We have the leader of the official opposition who has absolutely refused to force Liberal senators in the Senate to pass the tackling violent crime act.

The tackling violent crime act would protect Canadians right here in Canada, would make our communities safer, would make our children safer, would take a tough approach on gun crimes, and would tackle the very serious issue of impaired driving.

Just today I got off the phone with a constituent who was concerned with the exploitation of young children by violent sexual offenders. We have in our legislation measures to protect young people, all of these stalled in the Liberal dominated Senate.

We have been calling on the leader of the official opposition for weeks to have the Liberal senators pass Bill C-2. This is legislation that provinces are calling for, parents are calling for and law-abiding citizens are calling for.

The only people I can imagine who would be against Bill C-2 would be criminals, and apparently the Liberal Party is also against passage of Bill C-2.

Everyone else I have talked to is in favour of getting tougher on crime. They are in favour of protecting children. They are in favour of making our streets and communities safer. They are in favour of tackling impaired driving. They are in favour of having an age of protection of 16 years rather than 14 years so that adult sexual predators cannot prey on Canadian young people. They are in favour of having laws that say if people commit a violent crime with a firearm, then they will do serious time for that crime.

That is what Canadians want. That is what our party wants. That is what this government wants. That is what we have introduced in the tackling violent crime act, and it is time for the Liberals to get the message.

If the Liberals want to stand with the criminal lobby that would prefer that we not pass this kind of legislation, they can continue to do so. We will stand on this side with law-abiding Canadians. We will continue to stand up for their rights. We will continue to make our streets and communities safer for all Canadians.

[Judges Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if we listen to the chief justices in the various provinces as we have done, there is a need. The hon. member knows, as she sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that there is a profound need for more family court and superior court judges to address family issues.

I mentioned in my speech the negative impact that can be had for justice delayed. A theme that we hear over and over from people who are involved in a dispute is that they want it resolved. They want the dispute resolved probably in a way that they would prefer, but all parties usually agree that they want it resolved as expeditiously as possible.

A backlog has existed for a long time in the system on family cases. In order to address that backlog, we need to create new positions. This bill does it in a comprehensive way, rather than a piecemeal way. It creates 20 new positions. It is going to go some way in addressing that backlog.

The hon. member mentioned the measures we are taking in the area of criminal justice. No one on this side and probably no one in the House wants to see our justice system clogged with cases, but when there is a crime committed, when there is a trial before a judge or before a judge and jury, we want to see that an appropriate sentence is available.

The legislation we have brought forward is to address the fact that the scales of justice have tilted too far away from the protection of the rights of society and the rights of an individual victim. We want to tip those scales back in a way that better protects society. That is why we have introduced a number of very positive criminal justice measures.

[Judges Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh for his question. Certainly it is good to see him back as we resume our work in this Parliament specifically on justice issues.

As I mentioned in my speech with respect to the positions that will be created when this piece of legislation passes, the allocation of these appointments will be done in consultation with the chief justice of each province as well as in consultation with the provinces.

We have all heard the stories of the need in various provinces to address the backlog in the family court system. I know that is of concern to the hon. member. We are taking those concerns seriously. We are endeavouring to fill the positions as quickly as possible.

Further, it has been impressed upon us by the chief justices of the various provinces that there is a need for more positions to be filled. That is why we need to create these new positions and fill them as quickly as possible to address the backlog.

[Judges Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak to the Judges Act amendment bill.

This bill has the appearance of being of minor importance, for it amends a single number in a single paragraph of the Judges Act; however, the significance of this amendment is indeed great.

It will create the authority to appoint 20 new judges to the provincial superior trial courts and it will allow the government to achieve two very important objectives: first, to provide increased support and access to justice for some of Canada's most vulnerable groups, including aboriginal communities, victims of domestic violence and children in need of protection; second, it will facilitate the timely resolution of specific claims.

Subparagraph 24(3)(b) of the Judges Act, which we refer to as the pool, creates the authority to appoint additional judges to the superior trial courts of any jurisdiction in Canada. The pool was created in the early 1970s because of the recognized difficulty in having to constantly amend the Judges Act when jurisdictions needed an additional judge or judges.

This section is intended to permit the government to respond quickly to substantiated pressures on provincial superior courts. This bill would increase by 20 the number of appointments authorized under this section for judges of the trial courts and thus permit the appointment of 20 new judges to these courts.

The need for additional judicial resources to respond to existing and increasingly urgent pressures in the provincial superior courts has been clearly demonstrated, especially in six jurisdictions across Canada. Those jurisdictions are Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nunavut.

In Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, the need for more judges arises in the existing family branches of the superior courts, and is largely the result of enhanced child protection laws and a growing population. Similarly, Quebec has witnessed mounting family and civil caseloads within its superior court.

Nunavut faces serious issues in terms of access to justice for its aboriginal communities. Complex criminal trials and increasing family law caseloads have clogged the system, and over the past year the senior judge of the Nunavut court has had to postpone several jury trials and court circuits due to a lack of judges.

Judges, lawyers, court administrators and other professionals are all struggling to meet those growing demands, and maintain an accessible and effective justice system for families and for children. Despite these efforts, court delays and backlogs have continued to increase and it has become clear that additional judges are required to be part of the answer to this situation.

Each of these jurisdictions have submitted detailed statistical data outlining case volumes, trends in court workload and backlogs. Based on the government's quantitative analysis of this information, these jurisdictions and their chief justices have objectively substantiated the need for at least 14 judges to respond to these existing pressures.

In addition, the government has introduced Bill C-30 creating the new specific claims tribunal. This tribunal will have the authority to make binding decisions where specific claims brought forward by first nations are rejected for negotiation, or when negotiations fail.

As the Prime Minister indicated in June, it is critical that the members of this tribunal have the necessary experience, capacity and credibility to examine historical facts and evidence. They must be able to address complex questions surrounding Canada's legal obligations and determine appropriate levels of compensation. For this reason, the proposed specific claims tribunal act provides that tribunal members must be superior court judges.

It is estimated that the tribunal will require the full time equivalent of six judges to handle its anticipated caseload of 40 claims per year. These claims are dispersed across the country with the greatest number arising in British Columbia, and some of the most complex cases originating in Ontario and Quebec.

All provincial superior courts are currently working at full capacity, with a number of them, as I have just described, experiencing significant backlogs and delays. As a result, authority for an additional six judges is being sought to provide the trial courts with the capacity to absorb the new work of the tribunal and to address these claims on a priority basis.

It is intended that through this infusion of new judicial resources, the courts will be able to allow a number of their experienced judges to be appointed to a tribunal roster of up to 18 judges. It is proposed that these judges would sit on the tribunal on a part time basis for a period of time equivalent to the number of additional judges provided to the court. The judges appointed to the roster would continue to sit for the balance of their time on cases assigned as usual by the chief justice of their own court.

Allocation of the 20 new judges to specific jurisdictions will take place following consultations with chief justices of the affected courts and the provincial and territorial governments. These consultations will begin immediately to allow the requesting jurisdictions to refresh the data upon which their original proposals for new judges was based.

It will also provide governments and courts the opportunity to discuss the workload and functioning of the new specific claims tribunal. The goal is to be in a position to appoint the new judges as soon as possible after the passage of this legislation.

We are extremely fortunate in Canada to have a judicial system that is independent and impartial. We take for granted that our judiciary will be fearlessly and fairly deciding on the basis of the facts and the law of each case, complicated issues that affect our children, our families, and our communities.

Our courts bear a tremendous responsibility. Each day they render decisions that have an impact on personal relationships, living arrangements and financial circumstances. These judges determine how parents will share responsibilities for their child, what level of support the child will receive, and sometimes whether a child can be safely left with parental care. At times the level of conflict between family members is extremely high, which increases the risk of negative repercussions for the children involved. There are few of us who do not experience a visceral reaction when we hear the facts of some of these cases.

Our judges cannot act upon these gut feelings. Throughout the process the court must be, and be perceived to be, completely unbiased and impartial. Public confidence in our judges and a decision they render demands no less. Maintaining an impartial and independent judiciary is thus the centrepiece of our justice system and we are rightly proud of the success we have achieved in this regard.

However, the protection of important principles such as independence and impartiality has little meaning to the average Canadian when the system is inaccessible to them. Average Canadians must have access to the court system for it to be properly functioning.

This government recognizes the social cost of maintaining a family justice system that is accessible and responsive to the needs of families in crisis. There is a social cost when the system is inaccessible. These costs include demands on the health care system and the criminal justice and youth justice systems that are incurred when family law issues are not dealt with in an effective and expedient manner. We have all witnessed as well the conflict and uncertainty that has arisen from past failures to establish a fair and impartial process for achieving binding resolutions on specific claims.

As members can see, this apparently minor amendment would have a significant impact on access to justice for a number of Canada's most vulnerable communities, including children in need of protection and aboriginal communities. It is also critical to the effective functioning of the new specific claims tribunal.

I am confident that all hon. members will recognize the true significance of this bill and will support its speedy passage.

[Human Rights Day, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a historic anniversary. Fifty-nine years ago, on December 10, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. John Peters Humphrey, who was born in my riding, in the town of Hampton, New Brunswick, was a principal drafter of the declaration.

The year 2007 also marks the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which inspired a vision for Canada in which all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, free from discrimination. One of my predecessors in the riding of Fundy Royal, MP Gordon Fairweather, was the first chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Every year this day reminds us of persisting challenges in our communities and all over the world. Human rights are our common heritage and their protection requires our unwavering attention. We believe that a world where freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are paramount will ensure a better world for us all.

On the anniversary of Human Rights Day, we wish for all of us, who live in our country of compassion, a renewed vigilance and commitment to the cause of human rights.

[Justice, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government was elected to provide safer streets and safer communities for all Canadians. That is why after 13 years of Liberal inaction, 13 years of a Liberal revolving door justice system, we have taken action with an ambitious justice agenda.

We are restoring the principles to the Youth Criminal Justice Act of deterrents and denunciation of criminal activity. Of course, our number one goal is to provide young people with the resources they need to ensure that they never enter into a life of crime.

[Airbus, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government has announced that there would be a public inquiry into this. Professor Johnston is going to be making recommendations as to the appropriate mandate. Hon. members should let Professor Johnston do the work that we have asked him to do.

[Airbus, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is a little ironic, because those junior Matlocks on the other side are calling for a public inquiry and the Prime Minister has set the parameters and has said that there would be a public inquiry. Professor Johnston is going to be making recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for that public inquiry.

Let us do that and let Professor Johnston do the work that he has been mandated to do.

[Airbus, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Professor Johnston will make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a public inquiry into any allegations that were made, including specific issues that warrant examination.

[Airbus, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear on this issue and has done the right thing by announcing a full public inquiry into the allegations contained in a sworn affidavit.

I wish the hon. member, and he knows this full well, would allow Professor Johnston to do that work.