Rob Moore

[Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection Act, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it has been extremely interesting to listen to debate this evening on this private member's bill, an act respecting fishing, trapping and hunting heritage in Canada. I have listened with great interest to comments from members from all sides of the House. I want to state from the outset that we on this side fully support the legitimate rights of outdoors people who hunt, fish and trap, individuals who, as part of their Canadian heritage, partake in these very legitimate activities.

I want to clarify a few things and explain in a little more detail the role of the federal Parliament in our country. We have, as we know, two jurisdictions in Canada. There are actually three if we include municipal, but there are the provincial and federal levels. The Conservative Party of Canada has been very keen on respecting those different areas of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial levels.

I need to point out that the Parliament of Canada, as an institution, does not have the power to enact legislation in relation to hunting and trapping directly. These are matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, and federal legislation may deal with them only incidentally.

It was very interesting to hear the comments from all sides of the House. There are a lot of issues out there. Even in my own riding of Fundy Royal in New Brunswick, I hear from hunters, fishers and people who are interested in pursuing their sport, interested in passing on a heritage and legacy to their children. Many of the individuals I talk to, for example, enjoy hunting and will talk about how they used to hunt with their fathers and grandfathers, and would like to pass that on to their sons and daughters.

In today's society and the world that we live in that is becoming increasingly difficult. We heard some examples of that tonight. Bill C-222 touches on this issue, but I need to remind us as legislators that we also must respect the federal and provincial levels in our country.

I want to take as an example the Species at Risk Act. The objective of that act is in no way to manage the hunting and fishing of the species in which it relates. On the contrary, the purpose of that act is to provide the greatest possible protection for species that are threatened with extinction and it, therefore, prohibits killing, harassing, capturing or harming members of certain species of animals for example. That act, however, deals with hunting and trapping activities only incidentally and endeavours to respect the fact that, as we all know, people have to go to their provincial departments in order to obtain hunting licences. That is because it is only within the provincial jurisdiction.

Obviously, the federal government has the full authority that it needs to manage activities that take place on federal land. For example, the management of activities that take place in a national park, including hunting and trapping activities, is a matter of federal jurisdiction, but this bill before us would not apply solely to land under federal jurisdiction.

I am aware of course that hunting and trapping are activities that are an inherent part of many Canadians' lives. They are a part of our Canadian culture and Canada's national heritage. This is a point that I commend the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for making. His bill has brought forward debate on this issue and it has actually been encouraging to hear members state their support for the legitimate rights of Canadians that take part in these activities.

However, we know that of course the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette is also acting with the best of intentions. Again I commend him on that, because this is a well-intentioned bill and it is one whose objective we certainly support.

However, the House is not always the ideal forum for discussion of issues relating to provincial jurisdiction. As I stated, hunting and trapping do fall under the jurisdiction of the individual provinces and territories.

On questions relating to fishing, the situation is much more complex than it is on hunting and trapping. To begin, I would like to point out that in the bill the first whereas in the preamble states, “Whereas legislation governing inland fisheries is within the jurisdiction of the federal government...”. While that statement is not entirely incorrect, it is also not entirely accurate. I will explain what I mean.

The federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over matters that relate to fishing in tidal waters. Freshwater fishing is a matter in relation to which jurisdiction is shared by the federal government and the provinces. In non-tidal waters, the federal jurisdiction over conservation and protection of fish authorizes the federal government to impose measures such as setting of fishing seasons, opening and closing of fishing seasons, setting total allowable quotas, size limits of fish that may be caught, gear requirements, et cetera. Most of these measures are most efficiently implemented when imposed by licence conditions.

The provincial jurisdiction authorizes the provinces, as owners of the land where the fisheries take place, to decide who might fish, what fishing privileges are conferred and what fees must be paid. Put simply, the federal government has jurisdiction to set the fishing rules in inland waters, by analogy setting the size of the pie, while provinces have the right to decide who gets to fish and for how much fish, by analogy who gets a piece of the pie and how large that pie will be.

That is the legal theory on the respective jurisdiction of the federal government and of the provinces with respect to inland fisheries, but aside from the theory, I am afraid that from a practical point of view the bill would have implications that may not have been envisaged.

As I said earlier, certain fish conservation and protection measures have been imposed and implemented by way of licence conditions. This is entirely appropriate given that fish conservation and protection measures must be adapted to the specific fishery for which the licence is issued. In other words, the trout fishery in region A, for example, will call for conservation and protection measures that are different from those imposed on the walleye fishery in region B.

Another example is that the species of fish that may be caught, limits on the size of the fish that may be taken and kept, and the fishing gear that may be used may all be included as licence conditions. Those matters may fall under the federal jurisdiction, so in addition to obtaining a licence from the province, a freshwater fisher should therefore, in theory, obtain a second federal fishing licence which will include conditions that must be placed on the licence to provide for fish conservation and protection.

To avoid this situation, there are administrative agreements between the federal government and the provinces under which the federal aspect of freshwater fisheries management has been delegated to the provinces. What that means in practice is that freshwater fishing is essentially managed by the provinces.

The bill would plainly have an impact on the management of freshwater fisheries and on the existing administrative agreements that govern that subject. Obviously we know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been involved in fisheries management for a very long time. We have a new minister responsible for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who I feel is doing a great job and Parliament has granted the minister broad discretionary authority to manage the fisheries.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for the effort he put into preparing this bill. I want to thank him for the interest he has shown in fishing, hunting and trapping, which are all important to Canada and to Canadians. No one on this side of the House would argue that this is an important part of our heritage. In light of what I have said here tonight, though, it is impossible for the government to support the bill as introduced by the member.

As a member of Parliament for a rural riding, I support the rights of people to fish, hunt and trap as they have done for many years. However, we also have to respect that these rights fall under provincial jurisdiction.

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take issue with some of the thesis of the member on the underpinnings of the bill.

First, the government has adopted almost all of the commission's recommendations. Second, this government has taken steps to respect the judiciary, to ensure that we have a process that works. We have done that by acting quickly to move the bill forward. I hope my hon. colleague will acknowledge that the former government's bill, Bill C-51, sat on the order paper and did not move forward. We are trying to move this bill forward expeditiously. We have moved forward very quickly with the bill.

Judicial compensation has been set in different ways. A commission was set up. Does the member acknowledge that the very judiciary we are talking about, the highest judges, the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in this land, has set out that Parliament is ultimately responsible for taxpayer dollars? Parliament is ultimately responsible for how that money is spent. The government has taken the commission's recommendations very seriously. We have looked at them and we have responded, as we are entitled to do as a government, in a very responsible manner.

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. At one time the salaries of judges and members of Parliament were linked. For various reasons, in a Parliament before my time as an elected member of Parliament, the decision was made to delink them.

We have seen the commission's recommendations for a 10.8% raise, which would amount to a $52,600 raise retroactive to 2004. I want to remind hon. members and make a point in mentioning that raise that according to Statistics Canada the median family income in 2004 was $54,100.

As parliamentarians, it is our constitutional authority and our constitutional responsibility to ultimately control the public purse. We have heard the commission's recommendations. We have adopted all but two of them. We have modified the recommendation for a 10.8%--

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe understands this issue and is interested in it. I welcome his question especially since we share a town in New Brunswick. The town of Riverview is privileged to have two members of Parliament; he is one and I am the other.

Ultimately the committee is going to do its work. The fastest way we can let the committee do its work is to get this bill to committee. As I already mentioned, former Bill C-51 was the previous government's attempt at legislation on this issue and it languished on the order paper. It did not move forward at all. Now within four months of forming government we have this bill in the House. We have tabled a bill that adopts all of the commission's recommendations, save two, and we are prepared to move that forward.

This government is acting in an expeditious manner. We understand this is important. A lot of due consideration went into the government's response to the commission's report. I think it will be seen that when it is studied, in keeping with the raises that our constituents are getting year to year, the government's proposal is much more in line with the reality that Canadians are faced with today.

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce debate on referral of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in relation to courts, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before second reading.

The bill was tabled by our government on May 31. It would fully implement all but two of the recommendations contained in the May 2004 report of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The remaining two recommendations would be implemented in modified form.

There are a number of constitutional principles which guide governments in establishing judicial compensation, both from Supreme Court case law and the Constitution itself. Section 100 of the Constitution specifically provides that it is the role of Parliament to set judicial salaries and benefits, a responsibility accomplished through amendments to the Judges Act.

As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that independent, objective and effective commissions must be established to examine and make recommendations on judicial compensation. These commissions support the constitutional imperative of judicial independence by replacing the need for face to face negotiations between judges and governments.

All members should be aware that the integrity of this constitutionally mandated commission process depends on governments and legislators to act with due diligence and reasonable dispatch in relation to the recommendations of the commission.

At the federal level, the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission is part of the constitutionally mandated process for the establishment of judicial compensation and benefits. The most recent commission reported in May 2004 following a nine month inquiry in which the commission considered extensive written submissions, expert reports from compensation professionals and verbal representations delivered over the course of two days of public hearings.

If the constitutional purpose of the commission's process is to be realized, then both governments and legislators must take the process seriously. In particular, it is incumbent upon those responsible for responding to and implementing commission recommendations to proceed as expeditiously as reasonably possible.

The issue of judicial compensation is an outstanding matter that our government inherited from the previous administration. Some members will recall that the previous government responded to the 2003 commission report on November 30, 2004. However, Bill C-51, which would have implemented all but one of the commission recommendations, was not introduced until six months later on May 20, 2005, and then the previous government did nothing to move that bill forward. Bill C-51 sat in the House from its date of introduction to the date the bill died on the order paper on November 29, 2005, when the federal election was called.

The actions of this government, on the other hand, demonstrate firm commitment to the integrity of the judicial compensation process. Within a period of approximately four months after assuming office, this government reviewed the commission report, issued a public response to the recommendations and tabled legislation.

Moreover, this government has moved expeditiously in light of a highly charged legislative agenda, including ensuring the timely appointment of Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein to the Supreme Court of Canada within three weeks of our assuming office.

More than two years have passed since the commission report was delivered. Now is the time to act when the integrity of the process and public confidence in the independence of our judiciary could be undermined.

This government has taken all the steps within its control to support and advance the constitutional process for the establishment of judicial compensation. Now it is Parliament's turn. The introduction of Bill C-17 is that step.

Today the government calls upon all members to initiate the final step by voting to immediately refer this bill to committee prior to second reading. As I said earlier, Parliament has a critical role to play in the establishment of judicial salaries and benefits. The Constitution requires Parliament to fix the salary, pension and other benefits of the federally appointed judiciary.

I am sure I do not need to remind the hon. members of this House that consideration by committee is a key element in the parliamentary process.

Members of the committee play a critical role in informing and guiding all parliamentarians in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility under the Constitution. They do so by conducting a principled in-depth review of the bill and the considerations which inform it.

The committee's work will be aided in a number of ways. First, the committee will have the benefit of the commission's comprehensive and detailed report which sets out each of its 16 recommendations.

Second, the committee can call witnesses, including the commissioners themselves, all highly respected professionals in their respective fields. These witnesses will be able to elaborate on any of the evidence, methodologies and other considerations that informed their recommendations.

Third, the committee will have available to it the detailed analysis provided in the government's public response which was released on May 29.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly acknowledged, indeed underscored, that decisions about the allocation of public resources ultimately belong to legislatures and governments. The court has clarified in the 2005 decision known as Bodner that governments can reject or modify recommendations of the independent commissions, provided that they provide a legitimate reason for doing so, supported by a proper, factual foundation.

The government response to the commission's report addresses the substance of the commission's recommendations fully, fairly and objectively. It is consistent with promoting the effectiveness of the commission process, depoliticizing the establishment of judicial salaries and preserving judicial independence.

Bill C-17 reflects the government response. The bottom line is that this government is prepared to accept all the commission's recommendations, with two modifications. First is the recommended salary increase. Second is the proposal on legal costs for the judicial organizations. On that issue the government's bill takes the same approach as former Bill C-51.

The government has decided to depart from the commission's recommendation of a 10.8% salary increase. Instead, the government is prepared to support a salary increase of 7.25%, or $15,700 per year, retroactive to April 1, 2004, plus an annual cost of living increment. The reasons why we believe 7.25% is an appropriate increase are fully explained in the government's response, which as I mentioned was presented on May 29.

Statements by members of at least two of the opposition parties following the tabling of this bill indicate that they take issue with the government's modified salary proposal. Although they did not expressly say so, they call for the implementation of the commission's salary recommendation for a 10.8% increase. They say that to do otherwise would undermine the important constitutional principles involved in the process.

Those who make this assertion have clearly failed to read or at least to fully understand the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bodner case, as I already referred to, or in the P.E.I. judges case. As I have indicated, the Supreme Court has made it clear that governments are not bound by commission recommendations, provided that any modification is rational and the integrity of the process is respected.

As or more importantly in these circumstances, when more than two years have passed since the commission report, the process requires us to move as quickly as possible. Yet the opposition parties, while exhorting the importance of the principles, are obstructing the expeditious consideration and resolution of the bill by Parliament. They are doing it right now by insisting on a debate on referral rather than agreeing to have the committee take this up immediately.

The former Liberal government allowed Bill C-51 to languish in the House. Now in opposition the Liberals are continuing to obstruct speedy consideration of the merits of the commission report and recommendations. While the New Democratic Party has called on the government to fully and immediately implement the commission recommendations, it has insisted on this five hour debate rather than see the bill immediately referred to committee.

It is difficult to tell whether members are arguing for no salary increase for judges or for us to simply hand over all of our parliamentary duties to the commission. If opposition parties wish to propose amendments whether to increase the salary proposal to 10.8% or to restrict it to the cost of living, referral before second reading provides the greatest scope. We have clearly stated in our response that it will be for parliamentarians to decide whether the increase should be 7.25%, 10.8%, or some other number, once they have fully considered the matter.

If the opposition parties truly recognize the importance of the constitutional framework governing judicial compensation, they, like the government, will want to fully discharge their parliamentary responsibilities under section 100 of the Constitution.

Under our Constitution it is the government which establishes judicial compensation. That is our job. Therefore, we call on parliamentarians to carefully discharge their important constitutional responsibilities in an informed and respectful fashion in light of the constitutional and statutory principles that are engaged.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some conversations with all parties. I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-2, in Clause 181(2) be amended by replacing line 26 on page 132 with the following:

“(b) any parent Crown corporation, and any wholly-owned”

This is to bring in line changes that were made under Motion No. 13 to the Access to Information Act, bringing the Privacy Act in line.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his consideration of the arguments that have been put forward. I think they are serious arguments. I heard the quote by the member, which reads that “the judge shall consider the opinion in determining whether an offence was committed”.

The member also stated that we cannot tell a judge what to do, but that is exactly what the bill is doing. It is saying that a judge “shall consider” the opinion of the committee. This is not any committee. We are not talking about general laws relating to evidence. We are talking about a House of Commons committee, a committee of Parliament. We are talking about a committee that falls under the legislative branch. We are blurring that line between the legislative branch and the judiciary.

Committees are made up of elected members of Parliament. As anyone who sits on a committee knows, there can be influences on one's judgment. We have to be very careful that we never do anything to undermine the right of a member of Parliament or anyone else in Canada to a fair trial. That is one of the underpinnings of our justice system. It is one of the rights that we cherish under the charter and that we are all entitled to as Canadians. As I said before, even as a member of Parliament one is entitled to a fair trial.

By forcing a judge to consider evidence of a committee, we are blurring that line. Not only would we be blurring the line among the legislative, the executive and the judiciary if we were to adopt this, not only are we doing that, but we are at serious risk of undermining the charter rights of a member of Parliament who is potentially involved in one of these trials.

Just so we know the context, we are dealing here with offences that may be committed under clause 41.1, which would prohibit MPs from accepting “any benefit or income from a trust established by reason of his or her position as a member of the House of Commons”. Any person with reasonable grounds to believe that has happened can make a complaint to the committee. The committee will study it. The real problem is mandating that the committee's evidence be put forward to a judge and that the judge “shall” consider it. It undermines the charter rights of the accused.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was a privilege to serve with other members of Parliament on the committee studying Bill C-2, the accountability act. I think we did tremendous work on behalf of Canadians.

From the testimony we heard and from the work that was done, we had a thorough vetting of the issues related to accountability. We heard from a great number of witnesses and we worked in a way to move the bill forward. Members on all sides of the House sacrificed a great deal to see the bill through committee.

It is the number one priority of our government and it is something that was long overdue. Canadians were demanding more accountability from public office holders and from Parliament, more accountability in the way their tax dollars are spent and more transparency in the way we run our democratic process. This bill, at the end of the day, accomplishes all those things.

I want to speak to Motion No. 9, which is a serious motion and one I urge all members of the House to consider as it impacts on some very fundamental rights and issues relating even to members of Parliament.

Specifically, the changes brought in by adding two provisions, subclauses 41.4 and 41.5, to the new MP trust fund rules proposed for insertion into the Parliament of Canada Act raise serious legal policy issues regarding the independence of prosecutions from political interference, as well as serious Charter of Rights issues related to the ability to get a fair hearing. They also raise some concern with regard to the Constitution and the division of power. It is for those reasons that the government proposed reversing those amendments.

To be clear, I would urge all members of Parliament to consider this amendment very carefully. It is not a minor amendment like dotting an i or crossing a t.

The amendment in subclause 41.4 would require:

Any person...who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed under section 41.1 shall...notify the Committee of the House of Commons designated to consider such matters.

This is the clause that prohibits members of Parliament from accepting benefits or income from a trust established by reason of their positions as members of Parliament, and from circumventing this rule.

The committee may then issue an opinion on the matter. The committee would study the facts of the situation and then issue an opinion on the matter. The new paragraph 41.4(4) provides that, in any prosecution of that offence, if there is a criminal prosecution of the offence, the prosecution shall “provide the judge with a copy of the opinion of the Committee”, which would be a committee of this House. It is important to note the exact wording, “and the judge shall consider the opinion in determining whether an offence was committed”.

Further, a similar process is proposed in the second amendment, subclause 41.5, for contraventions of subclause 41.3, and that authorizes the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to make orders regarding the treatment of MPs' trusts, with the same requirement as I outlined before in paragraph 41.4(4), that “the judge shall consider”--the committee's--“opinion in determining whether an offence was committed”.

Obviously it is pretty clear, even on the face of the wording, that these amendments raise serious legal policy and constitutional concerns.

First and foremost, the amendments are inconsistent and completely at odds with the fundamental principle underlying the new director of public prosecutions provisions contained in Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, namely, the need to ensure the independence of prosecutions from political interference. It is that perception of political interference, the whole idea that somehow politicians could influence a judicial outcome, that is the whole reason for the underpinnings of the move to the director of public prosecutions. It underlines a lot of what we have done in the federal accountability act.

Obviously I hope that all members of the House would agree with me that we should not have political interference in the judicial process. I think that is fairly basic. This amendment, as the bill currently stands, would provide for just such an interference.

Second, the amendments present a serious risk of violating the Canadian charter right to a fair trial of a member of Parliament charged with an offence. All of us as Canadians, and even those of us who are members of Parliament, are entitled to a fair trial under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

By requiring a judge to consider a parliamentary committee's opinion on whether an MP has committed an offence, the amendments would preclude a judge from respecting the procedural safeguards mandated by the charter, for example, by requiring a criminal court to consider evidence that is otherwise inadmissible either as hearsay or as opinion evidence with respect to an MP's guilt or innocence and/or to consider prior incriminating testimony, including testimony that the committee may have compelled from the accused member of Parliament. To be clear, this has an impact on the charter rights of members of Parliament and would undermine the right under the charter to a fair trial if we allowed this to proceed as proposed.

Third and finally, the amendment appears to undermine the separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held and has often stated that this is a fundamental constitutional principle. In the House, we all know that there is a separation among the executive, the judicial and the legislative branches. It is essential to having a thriving democracy and fairness in our system that those divisions be kept sound. It is a basic constitutional principle.

In passing this as it is, it would impinge on at least the perception of judicial impartiality and judicial independence, another fundamental principle that flows from our Constitution. It is for these reasons that I ask all members to consider deleting proposed sections 41.4 and 41.5 from clause 99.

To sum up, the independence of the judiciary, the right for a member of Parliament to get a fair trial under our charter of rights, and the division and the separation of powers among the judicial, executive and legislative branches of our government are all pretty basic fundamental values that we all hold dear. I ask all members to consider that when we consider Motion No. 9.

I urge that the motion be adopted because otherwise we risk putting members of Parliament in a very serious situation with regard to their rights and we also undermine the independence of the judiciary in this country.

[Petitions, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today, spearheaded by a mother from the town of Hampton in my riding, containing 17,471 signatures, in addition to 3,175 signatures from Canadians across Canada on the website.

The petitioners believe that a funeral is a necessity and should be a non-taxable service. They ask that Parliament have some respect for the dead and compassion for the grieving family by removing the GST, PST and HST taxes from all funeral services.

[Justice, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the Liberal platform of last year: “A Liberal government will reintroduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, and to double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun-related crimes”. All talk.

This government took action to protect Canadians.