Bill C-30 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act to establish a new method of indexation of salaries and allowances for members of Parliament and ministers, with effect from April 1, 2004. Salaries and allowances will no longer be adjusted by reference to the increase in the annual salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, but in accordance with the index of the average percentage increase in base-rate wages for each calendar year, resulting from major settlements negotiated with bargaining units of 500 or more employees in the private sector in Canada, as published by the Department of Human Resources Development.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's important to keep in mind.

On Mr. Warawa's last point, in the government's Bill C-30, many fundamental changes are proposed to CEPA right in that bill. That is what many of us in this committee are going to be engaged in on this special legislative committee. It feels like a practical application of this almost academic review of CEPA.

The committee must keep in mind that the review we're doing of CEPA is only a set of recommendations to government; there's nothing mandatory about them. The government can completely ignore what we do with CEPA, whereas Bill C-30 is a proposed bill; it is a proposed piece of legislation to change CEPA. It seems to me that as a committee we haven't yet resolved the cross-purposes of all these different pieces of legislation and review in front of us right now that are affecting the same act. The one that seems to affect the act the most, and most directly, is Bill C-30.

Civil Marriage Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 21, 2005

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Marie Deschamps, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 21st day of April, 2005 at 3:33 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Curtis Barlow

Deputy Secretary

Policy, Program and Protocol

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill C-8, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, the Canada School of Public Service Act and the Official Languages Act--Chapter No.15; and Bill C-30, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No.16.

Parliament of Canada Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-30.

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to speak to the budget implementation bill.

My colleague from St. John's South--Mount Pearl has already given a very good background history and chronology of the Atlantic accord. I am certainly going to speak to the Atlantic accord, but I also want to speak to some of the comments that have been made in the House. I hope to set the record straight on a number of issues.

I could not help but listen with amazement to the Liberal member for Mississauga South. He quite often has his own version of reality in this House, but to go back to 1993 and somehow blame the state of the country's affairs on a previous government which was in power 12 years ago is a stretch of the imagination even for the member for Mississauga South. He talked about a $42 billion deficit that the government inherited in 1993. I am not trying to deny that; that is a fact.

What the Liberals never seem to bring up is that the Conservative government of the day governed for 10 years and it had inherited $38 billion of that deficit from the Trudeau era government. The Conservatives operated for 10 years at 19% interest rates and only increased the deficit by $4 billion. They did not cut services to the provinces. They did not cut the transfer dollars. They did not cut health care.

The Conservatives signed, which is still the largest and most important environmental accord ever signed in North America, that being the acid rain treaty signed with the United States. They brought in free trade. They brought in the GST. They governed and they did that in difficult times.

The Conservatives laid the framework for the Liberal government to come into power and reap the benefits without a plan, without any course of action, without any road map for the country. The Liberals simply govern, reap the benefits of somebody else's planting, harvest the benefits of somebody else's crop and drive this country into the worst of times during the best of times. It is absolutely incredible that any member of the government would try to blame the situation it is in on a Conservative government that was in power 12 years ago.

When we listen to this fabrication of events that somehow, as my colleague from Newfoundland has said, we cannot cut the Atlantic accord out of this budget, that is absolutely ridiculous. We passed the health accord in this House in 11 days. We did not talk about it for four, five or six months. We were able to separate that out of the budget. We were able to put that through the House as stand-alone legislation. We passed it in 11 days.

My hon. colleague from St. John's South--Mount Pearl mentioned that this issue was brought to the House 35 times, including by our leader. Thirty-five times we questioned the government on the Atlantic accord before the Liberals finally succumbed and said that they were going to have to do something. On the eve of the last election and not before, when they saw that they were losing seats in Atlantic Canada, then they became supporters of the Atlantic accord.

The Liberals have an absolutely abysmal record and to somehow rewrite history and reconfigure the facts of what actually happened is not acceptable in any way, shape or form. We brought the issue up in question period 35 times, but what my colleague missed was that there were another 13 times we spoke about the issue in statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 prior to question period. The members from Atlantic Canada raised the issue 45 times, not counting the times our leader raised it.

We are at an interesting time in Canadian politics. There is a lot of discussion going on about the budget. There is a lot of discussion of how we cannot separate out the Atlantic accord, that it has to stay in. The Liberals managed to separate out Kyoto because it was wrong-headed and had no business being included in the budgetary items.

There are 24 items in the budget, one of them being the Atlantic accord. The challenge to the government is to separate out the Atlantic accord, pass it forthwith, send it to the Senate and make sure that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Nova Scotia get their funds from the Atlantic accord that they very rightly deserve.

The other thing we never hear the government bring up is the fact that last year's budget is still in the Senate. It is not as if it has been passed and has been implemented. Budget implementation takes time, but those guys are dragging their feet. It is still in the Senate.

Let us consider a couple of points on the budget implementation process. Last year's budget is still in the Senate. The previous budget implementation bill, Bill C-30, was introduced on March 31, 2004 and passed in the House of Commons on May 5, 2004. It took 35 days. These bills do not have to take time. The government is dragging its feet because it is caught up in the middle of the biggest scandal ever to hit Canadian politics since the railroad scandal during John A. Macdonald's time in 1872.

This is not about the Atlantic accord. This is about a Liberal government grasping with its fingernails trying to hold on to power. It is all about power. It is not about doing what is right for Canadians and doing what is right for Atlantic Canada.

Let us go back a little further in history. The last budget took 67 days to pass the House. The one previous to that one took 35 days. The one previous to that one took four months because the government was expecting to go into an election and it wanted to tell Canadians what a great job it was going to do for them. If the health accord went through the House in 11 days, in contrast the Atlantic accord could go through the House in 11 days. The average time that it took the last four budget implementation bills is 51 days.

Are we supposed to wait 51 days before Newfoundland and Labrador gets its just and fair share of its offshore resources, before the province of Nova Scotia gets its just and fair share of its offshore resources, or are we going to separate this out from the budget? We have challenged the government to do that. Our leader has challenged the government on many occasions to separate it out, send it to a committee of the whole, and pass it in the House in one day. The opposition parties are in agreement.

The government needs to show some leadership, but we have not seen leadership. The country is absolutely dying for leadership.

We have a budget here that is supposed to address the difficulties that Canadians are facing, difficulties that seniors are facing, difficulties that low income Canadians are facing, difficulties with delivery of health care services, difficulties of equalizing the transfer payment system. Unfortunately, the government would rather try to cling to power than deal with the issues of Atlantic Canada, of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia.

We have a unique history in this place. What we say in the House is on the record. I challenge Canadians and I challenge those watching this debate today to look at the Liberals' record. Listen to what they have been saying. I challenge them to take a look at the Atlantic accord and ask themselves why it cannot be a stand-alone piece of legislation. There is no reason it cannot be.

Canadians should take a look at the record, the deliberate shading of the facts, the obfuscation of the facts, that the Liberals have embarked upon. They should ask themselves why they would not simply set out the Atlantic accord in a separate, stand-alone piece of legislation and pass it forthwith. I think they will all come up with the same answer.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, discussions were held earlier among the parties and I think if you were to seek it you would receive unanimous consent that the vote on Bill C-30 be deferred to the end of government orders on Tuesday, April 12.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question is quite simple. It relates to my very brief remarks on third reading of Bill C-30 today.

The main contention that my hon. colleague from the Bloc has, for which there is some argument to be made, is that the Prime Minister should not be making less than the people he appoints, especially the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In my remarks, I put forward an idea that I believe would certainly be supported by the majority of people in Canada, and not only the majority of people in Canada but also the majority of people in Quebec. That idea is that members of Parliament should not be in a position where they get what I think would widely be viewed as an exorbitant raise.

If there is no increase in our responsibilities, why should we be getting 2% per year, or 10% per year, or 10% over four years, or 11% or whatever it is, if people out in the real world are getting substantially less? That is the whole point of tying our future salary increases to this index of the average increase that Canadians will be getting in what I refer to as the real world outside this place.

Having said that, my contention is that the government should have brought in amendments to the Judges Act to ensure that the judges would likewise be tied to that same index. I still believe the government should bring forward those amendments to do away with the commission that sets the salary and compensation for judges and should likewise tie the judges in Canada to this same index that Canadians in the real world face.

Would that not solve the problem? I know that my hon. colleague is really anxious to get up and have his say on this, but why that would not solve the problem? Instead of raising our compensation, our remuneration, up to the 11% that it is rumoured we would get if it goes ahead and stays the same way, why not bring judges down to the same salary increase that real Canadians out in the real world get?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga South for his question.

In January 2001, when we adopted the principle of linking the salaries of MPs and judges, the consensus was that the Prime Minister should earn as much as the highest official he appoints, namely the chief justice.

I do not want to get into mathematical formulae because, first, math is not my strong suit and second, I do not want to confuse the public. However, if, based on the industrial index that will serve as the reference for Bill C-30, this results in a maximum increase of 8% for the next four years instead of 10.8% spread over the same period, this means that at the end of that four-year period, starting in 2005-06, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada will earn more than the Prime Minister.

This violates the principle. This means that, ultimately, the Prime Minister will earn less than the highest official he appoints. I am not defending the Prime Minister and his salary increases. He has no need of his salary. With all the perks he gets, he does not need his salary.

However, this is about the principle and we fight for principles. After four years, the chief justice will earn more than the Prime Minister and that makes no sense.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would begin by saying that my colleague, the hon. parliamentary leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean had indicated that our party would be voting against this bill, for a number of reasons which I would like to explain in the few minutes available to me.

We know that the compensation of parliamentarians is the perfect subject when it comes to grandstanding. We have had proof of that here in the comments made on this by the Prime Minister of Canada, which once again reflected his attitude.

I have just heard the Conservative House Leader say that it is not right for MPs to determine their own remuneration. That is true, and that is why a committee on the modernization of Parliament, which was struck in January 2001 and made up of the parliamentary leaders, reached the following conclusion: we should stop discussing whether MPs ought to vote on their own salary increases. After that came the idea of linking increases to those given to judges.

If it is decided in an independent committee that judges get a salary increase, by that very fact, due to their linking, the MPs also get an automatic increase under this legislation, not because they have taken any action themselves. We cannot decide to raise our pay 25% or 30% simply because we have had no increase for the past seven or eight years. That is totally unacceptable.

I want this to be clear: the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-30, as it is to any increase in MPs' salaries. We want to retain the status quo. We want to continue to receive the fair and proper salary we are currently receiving. This is where the hypocrisy lies in the mechanics of Bill C-30, which disengages us from the judges' salary increases, although this has been settled since June 2001.

The underlying principles behind the linking with judges' remuneration were as follows: Is it normal and acceptable for the Prime Minister to earn the same amount as the highest official he appoints? Is is normal and acceptable for an elected representative to earn less than a public servant? Take the example of a minister, who is earning less than a deputy minister. Is that acceptable? No it is not.

The first principle was established by the House leaders of all the parties, the leader of the Conservatives, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country; the former Liberal House leader, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell; the NDP House leader, the then hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona; and my colleague, the Bloc Québécois House leader. The basic principle was that the Prime Minister should earn the same salary as the highest ranking official he appoints, not a penny more, not a penny less. Who is the highest ranking official appointed by the Prime Minister? It is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a position currently held by a woman. That was the first principle.

Second, do we agree that a minister should earn a certain percentage less than the Prime Minister? The answer is yes.

Third, is it normal for an MP with no ministerial responsibility to earn half the Prime Minister's salary? It was established that, yes, this is normal and the ministers' salaries should be somewhere between the two.

So that we do not discuss our own salary increases, there is an independent committee in charge of reviewing judges' salaries. As an aside, I do not want anyone watching to think that the Bloc Québécois wants to be mean to the judiciary. The Bloc Québécois is a party of law. It has enormous respect for the courts, judges and their decisions. People should not think the Bloc Québécois wants to be mean to judges. On the contrary, we think that instead of elected representatives voting on their own salary increases, those increases should be tied to salary increases for judges.

So we have Bill C-30 and the Prime Minister takes a cheap shot at parliamentarians. I am going to make a non-partisan comment on that unfortunate remark. I think that, basically, we parliamentarians take our jobs to heart. We take it to heart that we need to properly represent those who trusted us enough to elect us.

I would ask each of the 135 Liberal members over there whether they think they earn their salaries, whether they are doing their jobs and deserve what they are paid? We have had some informal discussions and many of the members of the Liberal caucus do not agree with the comment, the mean-spirited, partisan and vengeful comment, made by the Prime Minister, who is incidentally a millionaire. He owned a shipping company and some of its ships were under foreign registration in order to escape having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. It is easy for the Prime Minister to make comments like that.

These are the reasons that we in the Bloc Québécois cannot agree with this bill. It delinks MPs' salaries from judges' salaries, yet that question was settled back in January 2001.

Why reconsider that decision in Bill C-30, when it was made with the unanimity of all the parliamentary leaders? Does denying work that has been done correct the democratic deficit? Does it mean that all consensual decisions reached by the parliamentary leaders before this PM was here no longer count?

Does parliamentary consensus only date from the arrival of this Prime Minister? I regret to say this, but we do not need any lectures on morality from this PM. I am certain, I repeat, that many of the 135 Liberal caucus members across the way agree with me. I even know that they told their caucus that this was not right.

I may seem to be repeating myself, but it is to be sure there is no ambiguity. The Bloc Québécois does not want to be mean to judges, nor to the workers who will serve as reference points for this new legislation if it is passed. That is why we are saying that, if they want to delink us from the judges, they ought to maintain the salary. If the present salary is not maintained, then the link ought to be.

Do you know what lies behind this? The independent committee on judges' remuneration has set the increase for the next four years at approximately 10.8%.

The aim was to avoid having to respond to those who might say: “That makes no sense. The MPs have just voted and given themselves 10.8% over four years based on the cost of living index.” If we do not think this 10.8% makes sense, we need only say: “It is true it makes no sense. While it may make no sense for parliamentarians, it makes no more sense for judges.”

There is a saying that a woman cannot be just a little pregnant. Either she is pregnant or she is not. The government should clue in. If it makes no sense for parliamentarians to be paid this—the government has an obligation to be consistent—the government should set the same criterion for the judges. If a 10.8% increase makes no sense for parliamentarians, it does not make any more sense for judges.

So, logically speaking, as parliamentarians—this is what the Bloc would like, and we made our position very clear on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we opposed all government amendments to this bill—we should just reject Bill C-30 and have a policy of no salary increase.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary noted in his brief remarks a moment ago, I have indicated that the official opposition will be supporting Bill C-30 and, I might add, we have always maintained that we should not place ourselves in an ongoing conflict of interest by having to debate and decide our own remuneration. Indeed, this bill's predecessor, which linked us to the judges' remuneration, was actually the reason that the House went down that road before. This is a fairer way to go about setting our remuneration and I indicated that during my remarks at report stage as well.

As was indicated, Bill C-30 proposes to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act to establish a new method of indexation of salaries and allowances for members of Parliament and ministers. It will come into effect from April 1, 2004. Salaries and allowances will no longer be adjusted by reference to the increase in the annual salary of the chief justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, but rather in accordance with the index of the average percentage increase and base rate wages for each and every calendar year resulting from major settlements negotiated with bargaining units of 500 or more employees in the private sector in Canada, as published by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.

The original objective for linking compensation for members of Parliament to that of the chief justices, which is determined by the Judicial Salary and Benefits Commission, was to discontinue the practice whereby members themselves legislate their own compensation. However when the commission recommended an 11% increase in pay, an unjustified increase I might add, the government changed its position that compensation for MPs should not be linked to judges.

On that point, I think the general public will recall the debate that took place just before and during last spring's election campaign. We and others raised the issue of the impending judges' increase which would have the ripple effect on our remuneration as well. To the government's credit, at that point in time it agreed with us and said that an increase of that amount would be unacceptable. Therefore last fall it brought in Bill C-30.

When the bill was introduced it created a public issue regarding compensation for judges as well. While the government has indicated that amendments regarding compensation for judges is forthcoming, we believe, and I have stated it repeatedly, that the government ought to have accompanied Bill C-30 with that, since it was the 11% pay hike proposed for judges that triggered the need for a new method to determine compensation for members of Parliament.

The link between compensation for judges and compensation for members of Parliament and the excessive pay hike proposed for judges led to the need for legislative change. Bill C-30 solves only half the problem by establishing a new mechanism for MPs only, leaving judges with a process that provides them, potentially, at least at this point, with that 11% pay hike, which is almost four times the Canadian average increase in wages.

Therefore the Conservative Party calls upon the government, as we have in the past, to forgo the 11% pay hike for judges and immediately introduce legislation to establish a new mechanism for compensating judges similar to what has been proposed for members of Parliament in Bill C-30. That would ensure that significant salary compensation adjustments would only occur when it can be demonstrated that responsibilities have changed accordingly.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to speak to Bill C-30 on compensation for parliamentarians.

Bill C-30 fulfills a commitment by the Prime Minister to delink compensation for parliamentarians and judges and to allow parliamentarians to receive salary increases in line with those of Canadians in the private sector.

Parliamentarians, under the proposed legislation, Bill C-30, would receive salary increases adjusted yearly according to what is called the major wage settlement index. This is a highly respected index used by governments, businesses and unions. It is published annually and measures the annual salary increases negotiated by collective bargaining for private sector units with 500 or more employees. Accordingly this index represents more than 800,000 private sector employees in Canada.

As members will have noted during report stage of this legislation, our colleague from Prince George—Peace River indicated that the official opposition supported the bill because future salary increases would be tied to those in the private sector. He called this initiative commendable. I thank him and his party for their support of the legislation.

Similarly, the member for Timmins—James Bay told the House that his party, the New Democratic Party, found the index fair and supported the bill as well. I also thank them for their support of what we believe to be fair and reasonable legislation.

The bill has been recognized as a fair and reasonable way to deal with the salaries of parliamentarians. I believe that when we vote on this legislation, we will find it receives the very broad support of members of the House.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-30, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Salaries Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, which is the civil marriage bill. We will resume this debate when we return from the Easter adjournment.

We will also want to deal that week with third reading of Bill C-30, which is the parliamentarians' compensation bill, to which my hon. colleague was referring. The Judges Act will certainly come forward in the fullness of time.

We will also return to Bills C-23 and C-22, the human resources and social development departmental legislation.

We also that week hope to debate report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the border services bill, and Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development bill.

Thursday, April 7, shall be an allotted day.

I know that the House is also very eager to begin debate on the budget implementation bill that was introduced earlier today. However, in keeping with commitments made to the opposition members to give them adequate time to study and discuss in caucus this new legislation, I will call second reading debate on that bill early in the week of April 11.

While I am on my feet, I would like to wish a very happy Easter to all members in the House and officers of the House.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, today we will rise for the Easter break to allow members of Parliament the opportunity to return to their ridings. Certainly we are interested in knowing what the government has planned for business the following week, the week of April 4 to 8.

Specifically, yesterday we debated report stage of Bill C-30 which deals with the MPs' compensation. I have been asking for some four months for the government to bring forward its legislation dealing with the judges' remuneration. I wonder when we can expect that particular piece of legislation from the government.

Parliament of Canada Act

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 5:29 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Motion No. 1 at the report stage of Bill C-30.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House.

The New Democratic Party does support Bill C-30. We want to be on the record that we believe that this is a good motion that has been brought forward. We support the work that has gone on between the parties. The report stage amendment was based on all party discussions and we feel it provides fair remuneration for the caucus, the chairs, the deputy House leaders and the deputy whips.

As a side issue, unfortunately there is nothing for deputy hecklers, but hopefully will bring that in at a later date. That is a joke, for the record.

We support the amendment because we in our party believe that our caucus, chair, deputy House leader and deputy whip perform some very important functions in terms of our parliamentary duties in bringing forward the kind of legislation and issues that need to be addressed in this House. We also recognize the work that the representatives of all parties do in this regard.

We believe this deals with the MP issue of compensation. We supported it at second reading and in committee. We believe that pegging it to the industrial wage index is fair and we support that.

Once again, we are always concerned whenever wage increases or anything to do with remuneration is debated in the House as it tends to be a political football, but at this point it is time that we moved forward. It is fair and we support it.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to put some context into the debate on Bill C-30 and the compensation for members of Parliament.

As I recall, during the debate a couple of years ago, when the government was intent upon linking the salaries of members of Parliament to judges, I was opposed to that. I felt that what a judge did, in or out of a courtroom, had absolutely nothing to do with the job of a member of Parliament. In fact, there is arguably nothing similar about the two jobs.

Therefore at that time I felt there was no defensible argument for linking the salaries of members of Parliament to the salaries of judges. However I did believe that any linkage at all that removed from the House of Commons the ability to set its own remuneration was a step in the right direction. In other words, it was better than the status quo.

I believe that Bill C-30 is a step in the right direction. Now we can argue all along that the government should have brought this forward a couple of years ago. It should have done it then to link the members of Parliament to the similar average wage increase index that affects people out in the real world, in the private sector, and the increase in salary that they have to face.

This issue came to a head last spring when it leaked out that the commission, which sets the increase for the judges, appeared to be on the verge of setting a 10% or 11% increase in one year for judges and that same increase would have applied to members of Parliament. It is not defensible for us to go back to our ridings and say that we deserve a 10% or 11% increase in our salary when our constituents are getting maybe 1% at best.

I give that framework as a bit of background. I wonder why it is, never mind that the government made the mistake of linking it to judges to begin with, that we would not all be supportive of linking it to the same salary increase that the real world faces every day.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and address this amendment to Bill C-30.

On January 12, 2001, a commission chaired by the Hon. Ed Lumley was appointed to study and make recommendations on compensation for members of Parliament. The Lumley commission tabled its report on May 29, 2001, and from that report came Bill C-28 which implemented the proposals in the report. In the report the commission remarked:

Parliamentarians' salaries are important, not just to the members of Parliament themselves but to all citizens; certainly, how we compensate members of Parliament can influence the ability to attract good candidates. Our democracy is based on Parliament's ability to mirror society's basic values and to respond to the needs of Canadians. In turn, Canadians ought to understand that parliamentarians need to be compensated fairly.

The commission recommended a number of changes and established stipends for members who take on certain parliamentary responsibilities, such as chairmen of committees and vice-chairs of those same standing committees. This amendment that we are discussing today reflects and is consistent with the recommendations from the Lumley commission's report.

Before adopting the recommendations from the commission's report, compensation for members who perform certain caucus roles, such as House leader, whip and leader of recognized parties, were already established. However, while there was compensation for the deputy whip of the official opposition, there was no compensation for the deputy House leader for the official opposition.

The reason for forgetting about the deputy House leader may be due to the fact that it is a fairly new position. Before the second world war there was no House leader, let alone a deputy House leader. At that time the Prime Minister managed the business of the House. The outbreak of the second world war caused the Prime Minister to be absent from the House, so he delegated the responsibility of managing the business of the House to one of his ministers, who did the job in addition to his other responsibilities.

As government became more complex, the job of government House leader likewise became more involved. That is why today we have a full time minister responsible for managing the affairs of the House, and that is why he has a deputy House leader and a parliamentary secretary to ably assist him. He is shadowed by me, the official opposition House leader, and I too am assisted by a deputy, currently the member for Calgary Southeast.

The senior House leader positions on the opposition benches evolved with compensation, but the deputy positions did not. Unlike the opposition whip and his deputy, which are positions that go back to the early days of the parliamentary system, the deputy House leader is a relatively new caucus officer. This amendment that we are debating today proposes to correct that omission, and to recognize the position and the hard work of the deputy House leader.

This amendment also recognizes the reality of the multiparty system that we have today in this chamber. We have the Bloc Québécois with 54 members and the New Democratic Party with 19. As much as some of us would like them to go away, they have not. Maybe some day, but until then they also have whips and House leaders, and their deputies should be recognized as well. However, if the Bloc Québécois is insistent and in fact opposed to this amendment that we are discussing today, then I feel that it would naturally follow that its deputy House leader, deputy whip and caucus chairperson will obviously refuse this extra stipend that was revealed in the amendment that is under debate. I would assume that since they are voting against it.

We also have a situation where chairmen of standing committees now receive compensation, but the caucus chairmen do not receive any extra compensation and we should be consistent. To be consistent, this amendment applies the salaries of existing positions to the ones covered by the amendment.

For example, the deputy opposition House leader would get the same compensation as a parliamentary secretary under this amendment. Deputies for the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party would receive the same compensation as vice-chairs of the standing committees. Caucus chairs for the government and the official opposition would receive the same as the chairs of standing committees of the House, and caucus chairmen of the other two parties would receive the same as vice-chairs of the standing committees. This is a straightforward and a defensible proposal.

My party will be supporting this amendment and the bill. Why will be supporting this legislation? Throughout my 12 years in the House of Commons, I have always maintained that members of Parliament should not be placed in the natural conflict of interest that arises when we have to debate and vote on our own personal remuneration. I am not aware of anywhere else where this happens. I have had many jobs in the private sector and in none of those jobs did I have the advantage of setting my own remuneration or my own perks such as my pension benefits. There is no defensible reason why we would have that here in the House of Commons.

That is why I support the government's initiative to tie any future increases in our salary to a cost of living index that would reflect the average increase received in the private sector, in the real world outside of the chamber. That is a commendable goal of the legislation.

As I said before, the Bloc Québécois does have a valid point. There is more than a touch of irony here. This same government made some very impassioned arguments a couple of years ago about why we needed to link our salary increases to something so that we did not have to set them. We were in agreement with that. The government chose to link them to increases given to judges. As the deputy leader and the House leader for the Bloc Québécois have already stated, there is more than a touch of irony here in the fact that the government did this a couple of years ago and is now arguing against it.

While I support the bill and the amendment, as I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary, I have always maintained that it is incumbent upon the government to defend why two years ago it felt our salary had to be linked to judges and now is being linked to this index in Bill C-30, which is a fairer system and much more defensible.

By extension, I believe that we should watch very carefully when the government brings forward legislation to enact an increase for judges. If an increase of say 1%, to reflect the cost of living index and the average increase that is reflected in the private sector, is good enough for members of Parliament then it should be good enough for judges. We will be watching that very closely.

I take the parliamentary secretary at his word that the government will bring this legislation forward. My predecessor and I have been calling upon the government to do this. We hoped it would bring Bill C-30 and the amendments to the Judges Act forward at the same time so that we could have seen both and seen that they were compatible.

That has not happened. The government has not seen fit to bring that forward at this time. I am looking forward to that when the time comes. I am also looking forward to the debate that will take place hopefully soon on third reading of Bill C-30 when I can once again express the official opposition's support for this legislation.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the official opposition House leader for his comments and for his very constructive support, frankly, for this legislation, Bill C-30, with respect to parliamentarians' compensation being linked to the wage settlement index I referred to earlier.

His question with respect to the potential increases for federally appointed judges is a good one. The government decided to suggest to Parliament legislation delinking us from the Judges Act increases, to some extent because the quadrennial commission established by law to look at the whole issue of judicial compensation decided, of its own motion, to change the basis upon which it evaluated the appropriate remuneration of judges.

My understanding is that previously it had been linked to a number of public sector functions. The commission chose to look at different factors and therefore came up with a suggestion for judicial remuneration which we thought may have been inappropriate in the case of parliamentarians.

I would urge the opposition House leader to wait for amendments to the Judges Act to be brought forward by the Minister of Justice to give effect to the quadrennial commission report. All of his very valid comments will be explained during that debate. I am sure he will be very comforted by the discussion around amendments that will soon be proposed to the Judges Act as a separate issue.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend my colleague on his remarks in connection with the report stage amendments to Bill C-30. Specifically, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary about this whole issue of linkage and then delinking.

As he correctly said, the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, is supportive of this legislation and indeed supportive of the amendments. I will get to that in my remarks on report stage in a few minutes.

However, one of the things we have been concerned about all along was the linkage to the Judges Act and the fact that whatever increase the judges got would automatically be applied to members of Parliament.

We made the strong argument, and indeed, eventually the government made a similar argument, that there should not be that link or tie between an increase to the salaries of members of Parliament and an increase to judges' salaries.

It was this government that linked MPs' salaries to judges' salaries in the first place. Then the government delinked them. Now the government is going to link salaries to this index.

As I said, while we support linking to this index, we do not understand why judges should not be linked to this very same index as well. Why must they have this special commission, which indeed, if rumour is correct, is recommending an increase of somewhere around 10% or 11% to judges' salaries?

The government has not brought forward the legislation to deal specifically with an increase or this commission's recommendations that would deal specifically with an increase to judge's salaries. As yet, at least, we have not seen the legislation that would allow for that increase.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that there is no reason why judges should not be subject to this very same index. He made all the relevant points in his remarks about the validity of this index and the fact that it is fair because it is a reflection of the average wage settlements in the private sector.

I think that members of Parliament in most parties, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, are willing to go along with that. They feel it is a fair compromise. It takes our own remuneration situation out of our hands so that we would not constantly be caught in this conflict. Why would we not apply the same logic and the same index to the judges?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his comments. Because I know that members are so enthusiastic to give the bill third reading and passage, perhaps I was ahead of myself. The opposition House leader is absolutely correct. We will be addressing the report stage amendments and obviously I will be talking about the very worthy merits of the legislation.

I was saying that I am also delighted the committee reported back with the support of members of the NDP and the official opposition.

All the members know that, currently, parliamentary compensation is tied to compensation for the judiciary. Last September, the government promised that the changes to parliamentary compensation would reflect the average salary increase of Canadians. Bill C-30 follows up on this commitment.

In this bill, changes to parliamentary compensation are tied to the annual average wage settlement index, published by Human Resources and Skills Development. This index tracks annual pay increases in the private sector.

In particular, the index includes over 400 collective agreements for over 800,000 employees across Canada.It is published every February documenting the wage changes of the previous calendar year.

This index is widely regarded as an authoritative measure. It is used by governments, private sector employers and unions, including the Canadian Auto Workers, the Teamsters and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

As the government House leader has said before, linking parliamentary compensation to this index is the right thing to do, for three reasons.

First, it is a fair way to ensure that parliamentarians' salaries are adjusted in line with the changes received by Canadians. The former House leader for the official opposition said during second reading debate of this bill that “the private sector wage settlement process is a very good one”. He thinks “Canadians can accept that”. We on this side of the House agree with those sentiments.

Second, the index is a well-known, respected and predictable measure.

Third, members of this House have recognized that we should not be linked to an index that includes the public sector, because we could be in a situation where the government is negotiating compensation levels for public sector unions or other groups or where Parliament must legislate public sector wages. If these negotiations or such legislation were to affect our own salaries, then obviously this would appear to create a conflict of interest.

Given this consideration, we are proposing an index for parliamentary consideration and parliamentary compensation that covers salary changes in the private sector alone.

After the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs reported this bill, it was brought to the government's attention that a number of parliamentary functions were in fact not covered by the Parliament of Canada Act.

I am pleased that the official opposition and the NDP agreed that the deputy House leaders, deputy whips in the House and the Senate and the national caucus chairs receive modest compensation. These positions considerably increase parliamentary responsibilities and should therefore be compensated accordingly.

In conclusion, I want to say that, thanks to this bill, the government is keeping its commitment to delink compensation increases for parliamentarians and judges and, instead, to link them to the average pay increases of Canadians.

At the same time, I believe it is important that decisions on parliamentary compensation take into consideration the opinion of all members of this House. As a result, I am delighted that this bill has received generous support from both the government and opposition members.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to my colleague for interrupting his remarks, but if I heard correctly as I was listening through the translation, it appeared as though he was speaking to third reading of Bill C-30, not to the amendment that you, Mr. Speaker, just read into the record. I wonder if he could clarify that.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise at third reading of Bill C-30 regarding the salaries of parliamentarians.

First, I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for closely reviewing this legislation. I am also pleased that the committee reported on this bill with the support of members—

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

moved:

That Bill C-30, in Clause 6, be amended by:

(a) adding after line 27 on page 4 the following:

“(f.1) the member of the Senate occupying the position of Deputy Government Whip in the Senate, $5,200;

(f.2) the member of the Senate occupying the position of Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate, $3,100;

(f.3) the member of the Senate occupying the position of Chair of the Caucus of the Government in the Senate, $6,100;

(f.4) the member of the Senate occupying the position of Chair of the Caucus of the Opposition in the Senate, $5,200;”

(b) by adding after line 3 on page 5 the following:

“(j.1) the member occupying the position of Deputy Whip of a party that has a recognized membership of twelve or more persons in the House of Commons, $5,200; ”

(c) by replacing line 6 on page 5 with the following:

“Commons, $35,300;

(k.1) the member occupying the position of Deputy House Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, unless the member is in receipt of a salary under the Salaries Act or section 62.2 of this Act, $14,300;

(k.2) the member occupying the position of Deputy House Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, $14,300;”

(d) by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:

“(m) the member occupying the position of Deputy House Leader of a party that has a recognized membership of twelve or more persons in the House of Commons, $5,200;

(n) each of the members occupying the positions of Chair of the Caucus of the Government and Chair of the Caucus of the Opposition in the House of Commons, $10,100; and

(o) the member occupying the position of Chair of the Caucus of a party that has a recognized membership of twelve or more persons in the House of Commons, $5,200.”

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to remind hon. members that today's debate will be governed by the provisional changes to the Standing Orders which came into effect on March 7, 2005.

Almost all speeches are now followed by a questions and comments period.

For today's debate at report stage of Bill C-30, all members will have a 10 minute period for debate followed by a 5 minute question and comment period.

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-30.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and all Canadians know the reason the Conservative Party of Canada abstained from voting for the budget is that the budget was very popular with Canadians. In fact the Conservatives did not want to go knocking on doors given the fact that the budget was there. I say that just so we are clear with respect to the preamble.

This afternoon we will continue to debate the supply day motion. On Friday we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-3, the Coast Guard bill; Bill S-17, which ratifies a number of tax treaties; Bill C-23, the human resources bill; and Bill C-22, the social development bill.

When we return on March 21 we will resume debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. Tuesday, March 22 shall be an allotted day. On Wednesday, March 23 we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-30, the compensation bill. If we complete that, we will resume business from Friday. We will then return to the marriage bill on March 24.

With respect to the budget implementation bill, I expect to be introducing that bill in the House in the very short term. At that time the hon. member will see its exact contents.

Committees of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its December 9, 2004 order of reference in relation to Bill C-30, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee reviewed Bill C-30 and tabled its report, with one amendment.

I also have the honour to present the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the question of privilege concerning the usurpation of the title of member of Parliament by the Hon. Serge Marcil. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the said 28th report later this day.

Criminal Code

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had a chance to speak in support of Bill C-10, and I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to do so today.

The entire debate of the bill in the House and in committee should serve as an example of how Parliament should work. I want to thank the hon. member for Provencher and the other members of the justice committee for the role they played in making Bill C-10 an even better piece of legislation.

The bill would modernize the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code to make it more fair and efficient, while preserving the overall framework of the provisions.

Bill C-10 explains and modernizes the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with mental disability. The bill also would make consequential amendments to several related statutes to ensure consistency with the Criminal Code provisions on mental disorder.

Bill C-10 attempts to respect individual rights while ensuring public safety. Its amendments cover: review board authority; “permanently unfit accused victims;” repeal of unproclaimed provisions of the 1992 reforms to the Criminal Code; interprovincial transfer of unfit accused persons; and police powers. They run the entire gamut in regard to this issue.

Bill C-10 is the second step that the federal government has taken to elaborate and clarify a defence in the Criminal Code based on the mental disorder. Bill C-30 was the first.

Following the production of several reports between 1979 and 1985, in 1985 the Department of Justice released the final report of the mental disorder project. Based on that report, a draft bill was proposed by the Minister of Justice in 1986 to deal with the criminal insanity defence. Consultations on the bill continued through to the 1988 election.

The final push for change came in 1991 with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Regina v. Swain, dealing with the defence of insanity. The Supreme Court struck down the legislation and common law practices dealing with this defence as unconstitutional.

Following this decision in 1991, the former Progressive Conservative government introduced Bill C-30 to modernize the insanity defence, to remedy the parts that the Supreme Court had deemed against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to allow the courts to use certain set criteria in determining whether an accused person was unfit to stand trial.

Bill C-30 modernized the insanity test by replacing “in a state of natural imbecility” and “disease of the mind” in subsection 16(1) of the Criminal Code with the words “mental disorder”. However, “mental disorder” continued to be defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code as a “disease of the mind,” allowing common law rules to continue governing the application of the previously known as “insanity defence”.

Bill C-30 provided a new definition and criteria for “fitness” as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, as well as allowing the courts to order involuntary treatment for the mentally disordered.

Bill C-30 also introduced an extension to the 10 year detention cap for a mentally disordered person if they were accused of a serious personal injury offence, carrying a penalty of 10 years or more. These provisions allowed the courts to detain such offenders for life instead of 10 years. Bill C-30 received royal assent in 1992.

In response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2002, the government introduced Bill C-10 to address some of the concerns raised regarding mental disorder provisions in the Criminal Code.

The report that was put forward in 2002 was approved by all parties. In fact, the result of the review is an important example of how committees, when they are focused on the issues rather than partisan politics, can work in a cooperative fashion. This report is a demonstration of that cooperation and the value of committee work. I wish more committees would take note of the fact that we can work cooperatively and achieve our common goals.

Bill C-10 takes into account many of the recommendations of the justice committee's report in June 2002 as well as further input from the Department of Justice consultations with stakeholders.

The amendments in Bill C-10 address six key areas: first, the expansion of the review board powers; second, permitting the court to order a stay of proceedings for permanently unfit accused; third, allowing a victim impact statement to be read; fourth, the repeal of unproclaimed provisions; fifth, the streamlining of transfer provisions between provinces; and sixth, the expansion of police powers to enforce dispositions and assessment orders.

Bill C-10 was introduced and read the first time on October 8, 2004. On October 22, 2004, the motion was adopted and the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness before second reading. The justice committee held six meetings and heard 24 witnesses and reported the bill back to the House with amendments on December 10, 2004. Bill C-10 was concurred in at report stage on February 4, 2005.

The amendments made to Bill C-10 were primarily minor technical ones that included: an amendment that made the description of what kinds of health professionals could do assessments on mentally disordered accused more flexible; amendments that clarify how copies of documents can be provided to review boards; amendments concerned with victims' rights in terms of how and when they are notified of hearings as well as in terms of their victim impact statements; amendments dealing with summons for the accused; amendments dealing with how we determine the fitness of the accused to stand trial; an amendment incorporating the language recommended by the Supreme Court case regarding clear evidence, even though our party did not agree with this language because it was not clear what was meant by “clear evidence”; an amendment clarifying a provision giving flexibility to police; and several amendments clarifying the French expressions and ensuring that they mirror the English expressions in meaning and intent.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the House and the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the cooperative spirit with which they addressed the debate and the amending of this important piece of legislation.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to Bill C-30. The bill would implement the long-standing position of the Conservative Party, which is that members of Parliament should not be determining their own salaries.

The last attempt to create an impartial mechanism for determining MPs' pay led it to be indexed to the salary of the chief justice of the Supreme Court whose salary is determined by the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. However, when the commission recently recommended an 11% pay increase for the chief justice, the controversy was reopened.

Clearly, it would be inappropriate for members of Parliament to accept an increase that is so far beyond what most Canadians receive, especially when we are already making a salary that most Canadians can only dream of.

In fact, many people would question whether judges need and deserve an 11% pay raise either. It would have been nice if this legislation could have been accompanied by measures to reform the way judges get paid as well. It is a different issue in some ways because the job description and hiring and firing process for judges is very different than for MPs. It also comes down to preventing people in positions of authority and trust from lining their own pockets at the expense of overburdened Canadian taxpayers.

An 11% pay raise for a backbench or opposition MP would mean a raise bigger than the total annual salary of some Canadians. In fact, Canadians whose entire annual salary is only two-thirds as much as the raise proposed for members of Parliament, would be paying taxes to fund those raises. That would be simply obscene. Of course partly that is because the Liberal government has refused to enact the Conservative policy of increasing the amount low income Canadians can make before they pay taxes. However an 11% raise is difficult to justify in any circumstances.

Members of Parliament do not need exorbitant compensation. Those of us who work hard, stay honest and do our level best on behalf of our constituents and all Canadians, are certainly not in it for the money. Some MPs have already had highly successful careers in the private sector. My hon. colleague from Newmarket—Aurora is a case in point. Although she has worked hard and performed admirably as international trade critic for the government in waiting, she has not accepted a dime from Canadian taxpayers. Instead, she has chosen to donate her salary to a charitable foundation. I applaud her for that.

The Conservative Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the hon. Danny Williams, is a formidable leader and advocate of his province and has worked extremely hard on issues that are vital to Atlantic Canada, yet he too has decided to forgo his entire salary. He has taken the fight of ordinary Newfoundlanders to heart. He knows they face incredible financial burdens as a result of the high taxes, oppressive business climate and patronage driven, market distorting, reallocation schemes of the federal government, and has placed the interests of Newfoundlanders far above his own personal interests.

Of course not all of us are in the position to work free of charge, and I would not suggest that anyone should do so, but the examples set by our colleagues I have mentioned prove that the best legislators care more about their constituents than about their own compensation.

Canadians are our bosses and I do not think they believe that we need or deserve double digit raises. In fact many Canadians probably feel that they were hoodwinked when they hired certain candidates to represent them in this place.

Government members were hired because they said they would enact democratic reform, make the equalization system more conducive to economic growth and make the federal government more fiscally responsible. I think most Canadians would say that we as a Parliament have not yet fulfilled these basis elements of our job and we should not expect a raise until we live up to our commitments.

I support the bill because I am hopeful that it will create a reasonable and impartial mechanism for determining compensation for members of the House so we can finally stop debating our own pay and start debating the things that matter to Canadians.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, usually when I get up to speak in the House, I say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak. Thinking about this particular bill, realistically and honestly, I do not feel like I am pleased to have this opportunity. I am doing it because I am the House leader for the NDP and I am doing it to reflect the position of our caucus. Quite honestly, I am fed up with this issue as are many people. Here we are again in 2004 debating compensation for members of Parliament.

I listened very carefully to what the government House leader had to say. At one point in his remarks he said it was very logical to take this step, that is, Bill C-30. I began to think about that in terms of the logic of what is taking place here today in debating Bill C-30.

I suppose one could argue that it is logical from the government's point of view once the Prime Minister had made his political statements that he was going to undo what Parliament had previously done. From the government's point of view, one could argue that it has some logic. However, in the greater scale of things, it is unfortunate that we are yet again debating what seems to be a perennial issue on the compensation of members of Parliament.

One of my colleagues asked the government House leader why the government wants to have this particular index. The government House leader said the index was based on average wage settlements in the private sector and was a reasonable thing. Why is this index acceptable now, but in 2001 another measure was somehow acceptable? This question was brought up by my colleagues in the Bloc, and is the question we need to ask.

I feel that yet again this issue has become politicized. All members on all sides of the House would agree that we want, what we have been striving for, is a system of deliberation and implementation of pay increases for members of Parliament that is independent, rational, defendable and realistic.

I happen to believe, and I think most members of the House believe, that we get paid very well. I, like other members, work very hard at what I do. I consider it to be an enormous privilege to be a member of Parliament. I consider it to be an enormous privilege to be one of 308 members of Parliament representing the diversity of our ridings across this country. We get paid well for that. We all work hard. All members share in that sort of commonality and solidarity about what this place is about.

I do not want to be here debating our pay increase yet again for politically motivated reasons. Bill C-28, the former bill dealing with pay increases for members of Parliament, was passed in this place on June 7, 2001. I looked at the record and in actual fact the member for LaSalle--Émard voted in favour of third reading of that bill.

House leaders have spoken of the process they went through at that time to establish a sense of independence and rationality when dealing with compensation. I was not a part of that. Our former House leader, the member for Elmwood--Transcona, now the dean of the House, was very much a part of that.

He has put forward the principles of establishing an independent process, and criteria and benchmarks for determining our compensation. We believed that happened in 2001. Presumably the member for LaSalle--Émard believed it also as did other government members because they voted for that bill. All of that has been undone. Here we are today with another version and another index.

I could argue, like other members have, that this index, which is based on Human Resources Development Canada and the average wage index in the private sector, is a reasonable thing. What really gets people's backs up and why we are reacting as we are to the bill today is because of the history that has brought us to this point. The question is still out there and it makes me feel unsettled. How many more times will we have to go through this?

Now we have a new bill, Bill C-30. Now we have another index. Now we are to believe that it will be an independent thing and never more will members of Parliament have to deal with this issue. What assurance and confidence is there that it will happen now that this has been undone again?

That bothers me and I know it bothers other members in our caucus. I have to agree with members from the Bloc Québécois and our member who spoke previously. There is a double standard.

We take all this time debating MP compensation when what we really need to be doing is focusing our time, resources and priorities on why the average wages of Canadians have fallen so far behind. One reason the index is so low is that people are not getting the pay increases that they need and deserve. Most people are working longer hours and more overtime but they have less take home pay now than they did a decade ago.

I invite members to come to my community in east Vancouver to see what it means for working families who are struggling to make ends meet and where both parents are working, sometimes at several jobs, and paying exorbitant child care costs. They are paying 40% or 50% of their income for housing costs. That is the debate we should be grappling with in the House.

Those are things that stick in one's craw when we are here again debating the salary of members of Parliament. It becomes a big controversial issue in the public about how much money we make and how it is decided, and we all get drawn into it.

For me it was the height of cynical and opportunistic politics in the way the Prime Minister dealt with this issue before we came back in the fall. I think that even members in the Liberal caucus were dismayed and rather shocked at how this was dealt with.

The government House leader was correct when he said that it will be the will of Parliament as to what we do. We are a minority Parliament, and yes, theoretically the opposition parties could get together and agree to vote down the bill, make a decision to do whatever in terms of MP compensation and it would carry. However that is not the point. I think we have to stick to the principle, which is that there has to be an independent process.

I have heard a lot of discussion today on what will happen to the Judges Act when it comes before us. As we know the previous increase that would have come forward was linked to the quadrennial report of a judge's increase. I think the feeling now is that if it is not good enough for the MPs why should it be good enough for the judges. Therefore there have been some remarks here today from the Conservative Party that it will not proceed in that manner.

I have to say that the NDP debated this very carefully in our caucus. As much as we do not want to, as much as we detest the politics that got us to this point today, we are prepared to deal with the bill on its merit in terms of the index that is before us. We will agree that it should go to committee.

However in terms of what takes place with another bill that comes forward on the Judges Act, we will deal with it on its merit. We will look at it at that time. We will decide, in terms of implementing those recommendations that the government has accepted on the quadrennial report, as it applies to an increase for judges. At this moment I think we would be further escalating the cynicism that is taking place and the political nature of what takes place if we said that we will just automatically turn down that increase at this point. We should wait until the bill comes forward and look at it on its own merit and on its own standing. That is what we intend to do in the NDP. That is how we will debate it.

The bill will likely go to committee very shortly and we will support that. We will look at the index that is being proposed and we will probably support it.

I think the way it has been handled smacks of the kind of politics that we have come to expect from the Prime Minister. He does not have the kind of backbone to stick with a decision that has been made. If we are talking about what is fair, then let us get to the essence of it.

Let us talk about what is fair for Canadians, particularly those who are struggling in our society because of government cutbacks, the cutbacks made by the Prime Minister when he was finance minister over the last decade. That should be the real politics of what is going on in this place, not MP compensation.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-30. In doing so, I support our House leader and the comments which he has just made. He has been good enough to share his time with me and I thank him. I also speak in support of the position of the leader of our party who has spoken adamantly against this 10% salary increase.

I have listened very carefully to the government House leader, as he spoke in relation to Bill C-30. It would seem to me that we are in agreement as to what needs to be done. I would add that it seems as though the government has been forced on this issue by the other parties in the House of Commons and by editorial comment in the media of this country to eventually adopt this position.

As a new member of Parliament I struggled to understand this issue. I examined some of the previous commissions which have studied this issue in the context of our parliamentary history in the last 25 years. I speak of the Hales commission of 1979, the Lapointe Commission of 1994, and the Blais commission of 1998.

These commissions all seem to eventually seize upon five principles by which the remuneration of MPs should be judged. I would like to reference these in my opening comments.

First, it is important, since Parliament is such a valuable institution in this country, that we elect and retain competent and qualified people, and that good pay is essential to do that.

Second, MPs should not be expected to cover the expenses which they incur as a result of their lives as an MP out of their own pocket.

Third, and this is very important, MPs should not become wealthy or profit excessively as a result of their public service, nor should they see pay increases when other Canadians are suffering from financial hardship or not experiencing similar pay increases.

Fourth, MPs should not vote for their own pay increases since this constitutes a conflict of interest.

Finally, regardless of any determination of what constitutes fair compensation for the value of the work that they do, MP remuneration must be consistent with public expectations. Public expectations may in fact require MPs to be paid less than an amount which is properly what they should receive.

Public service is a choice. No one is forced to seek elected office and all of us in the House have done so willingly.

I will now turn to the legislation and judge it against those principles. Although the legislation is reasonably complicated, Canadians need to understand that this is essentially how it works.

In clause 55.1 of the bill, the salary of members of the House of Commons is set at $141,200 plus an annual amount that will be added to that in each year thereafter.

Canadians need to understand the way in which that will work is set forth in clause 67.1 of the bill which defines an index. Essentially, parliamentarians will now receive the same salary which they have received in the previous year plus an increase which is calculated with respect to the cost of living. The actual formula is indexed to the bargaining units of 500 or more employees in the private sector. MP salary increases will be commensurate with other Canadians.

In terms of whether MPs are to receive a pay increase at this time or not, it is worth noting, as the government House leader has pointed out, that the effect of this formula applied today, parliamentarians will receive a salary increase of only $200 in the coming year. That is a very important point to make in this debate.

With respect to the principles of which I have spoken, that MPs should not become wealthy or profit excessively, it is the position of our party and has been the position of our party that the 10% salary increase which was to be proposed by the commission, and which I gather was leaked publicly, was outrageous and unnecessary. It was excessive. Our party has not supported it. Our leader has not supported it. I do not support it.

We have been opposed to the 10% salary increase from the very outset. I am proud to say that it is our leader who was the very first person to say so publicly. I would note in that respect that a salary of $141,000 effectively places members of Parliament in the top 2% of Canadians in terms of what they earn. That should be sufficient. We do not need salary increases beyond that.

In recognizing the public policy discussion that has led to this conclusion, not only did our party reach this conclusion but respected commentators such as the Calgary Herald in this country on March 3, 2004, spoke eloquently about this in an editorial. It pointed out that the approach which the government had been following, the commission approach, was not working and that any approach which would result in a 10% salary increase was clearly flawed. I recognize the leadership that many people in this country have taken, including the Calgary Herald , in speaking on this issue.

To that I would add that the second principle of relevance in this is the delinkage from the salaries of judges. As has been said earlier today, I understand that the whole issue of the Judges Act and the salary increases to which judges are entitled will be brought before the House in a separate debate at a separate time.

As the our House leader has said, there will be very close scrutiny at that time of the proposed increases for judges because they are being paid very well in our society at this point in time. Further increases along the lines of what has been indicated, 11% over 4 years plus cost of living increases on top of that in addition to the salaries they receive, are not warranted at this time. This is not good policy. It is our hope that the House will not proceed in that direction at that time.

The approach which is contained in this legislation has in fact been applied with success elsewhere in Canada. I speak in terms of my own province of Alberta. In Alberta, since 1999, the annual pay raises for members of the legislative assembly have been tied to percentage increases, or for that matter decreases, in the average weekly earnings for Albertans in the prior year depending on Statistics Canada information. That pay hike amounted to a modest increase in 2002 of 2.81%; in 2003, 2.25%; and in 2004, 1.36%.

This has resulted in a system in Alberta where members of the legislative assembly have been able to secure wage and salary increases which are fair and commensurate with inflation and cost of living increases, but which are not excessive along the lines of the 10% which was being proposed by the commission in this Parliament at some time earlier this year. This is a system which can work. It is a system which has worked elsewhere in this country, and it is a system which we support.

This brings me to the third principle of which I spoke, namely, conflict of interest and the process by which MP salaries are set. MPs should not be voting for their own salary increases or decreases, for that matter. It is a demeaning process. It is demeaning to the House and to the fine men and women who serve here with the best of intentions. I do not believe anyone comes to the House of Commons for the money. To have MPs voting on their own compensation year after year is not a wise process and does not advance democracy in this country.

One of the real benefits of what is being proposed in this legislation is the indexing. We will take care of that and it will not be necessary to have this debate on an annual basis. For these reasons, I support Bill C-30. I am against the 10% pay increase which otherwise would have fallen.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I counted right there were four questions, but I will try to deal with them as quickly and as directly as possible.

On the first question with respect to the commitment or the comments made by the hon. member's leader, I guess I can take from that, and judging by the comments made, that the leader of the official opposition would be very attracted to this type of legislation and probably would in fact support it, judging from the comments.

The purpose of introducing this legislation is in fact to delink, as I have said. Under the present arrangement there has been a 1.3% increase as a result of an index in the Judges Act, so members of Parliament have received a 1.3% increase, which takes us from about $139,000 to about $141,000.

With Bill C-30, in fact, the difference would be about $200. There would be a $200 difference, and the actual index averaged 1.5% for the previous year, which is published in February, and that would be the number for the year 2004.

With respect to the Judges Act itself, I think it is very clear that the intent here is to delink and that by doing so we have in fact brought forward an independent piece of legislation for the House to deal with specifically on members' salaries.

I might also remind the member that for the judges' salaries it is a bit more than 11%; actually about 16% over four years. This piece of legislation would obviously serve to delink members' salaries from that particular proposal. I think it better reflects, frankly, what Canadians are looking for in MPs' salaries and certainly I think it better reflects the will of Canadians.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I listened very carefully to the opening speech on Bill C-30, just made by the House leader for the government, and I have three quick questions I would like to put to him.

The first would be pre-empted by a statement, perhaps, on the fact, if I heard him correctly, that he said the Prime Minister made this commitment to bring forward a bill to delink MPs' compensation, in other words, our salaries, from the judges' compensation. It was his own government in a previous Parliament that had linked the two. Now the government is delinking it. He said the Prime Minister made that commitment in September.

As I recall it, the Prime Minister was under pressure from the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague from Calgary Southwest, who last spring made that commitment to the Canadian people in the lead-up to and during the election campaign.

My leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, stated unequivocally that a Conservative government would not allow a pay package increase to go ahead that would have been 10%, which was what was leaked out of the commission that looks at judges' remuneration. That leaked out last spring. There was quite a debate about it in the media.

So those commitments, I believe, were made quite some time ago, not just in September. At any rate, we are here to debate Bill C-30. The first question I would put to the House leader deals with the actual increase. Certainly I think it makes eminent sense to attach our compensation to some form of cost of living index that other Canadians are faced with, at least when they begin to negotiate their salaries and any increase in their salaries.

But what is the actual increase that we will be getting? Is it half a per cent for this year or is it one and a half per cent? What is it? I ask so that people watching the program at home today will clearly understand what it is that we are talking about.

The second deals with the linkage to the judges. It was this government, as I already have said, that indeed initially linked it to judges' remuneration, so I would simply put this question: why is it that they are not bringing forward the judges' package at the same time instead of waiting until next spring to deal with it? I understand that is about 11% over four years, a substantial increase, and over and above their cost of living increase, I might add.

The third question is again for clarification. It is my understanding that once Bill C-30 passes and MPs' salaries are linked to the cost of living index there will not be a requirement in the future for the members of the House of Commons to debate and vote on our own remuneration.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-30, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-30, the parliamentarians' compensation bill.

The bill is the result of a commitment made by the Prime Minister to the Canadian people. On September 30 the Prime Minister said that the government would delink, or break the link, between the salaries of MPs and those of judges. He also said that the increase in salaries and the increase in MPs salaries would reflect essentially the increases negotiated by Canadians.

What we are doing today, in debating this and having introduced this bill into the House, is taking action on that commitment.

The bill is pretty straightforward and uncomplicated and follows the legislative process in the House of Commons. It is my hope that the legislation will go to committee for review and that it will come back to Parliament for a vote in the new year.

I think all MPs will want to deal with this question in the same straightforward manner. I know that at times issues like this are difficult issues to be debated on the floor of the House, but the government made a commitment to treat the compensation of parliamentarians separately and apart from that of judges. Therefore it is logical that we would take this step and present a bill independent of the Judges Act, which deals only with the compensation increases of parliamentarians, and deal with the question of compensation increases for judges in a subsequent bill.

In determining the compensation increases for parliamentarians, the bill itself describes a measure that tracks private sector wage increases as the benchmark that we would follow. The HRSD, or Human Resources and Skills Development, annual average wage settlement index tracks the wage settlements of the Canadian private sector, and so linking parliamentary compensation increases to this index will mean that parliamentarians will fare neither better nor worse than the people whom parliamentarians represent.

I would like to illustrate for a moment how straightforward and uncomplicated the bill is. The index used to measure the wage change is published every February. It documents the wage changes of the previous calendar year. Under Bill C-30, parliamentarians' compensation would receive the Human Resources and Skills Development index effective April 1, 2004.

There is support for making this move that the government is undertaking. I just want to flag a couple of editorials that reflected this. The following was stated in the Regina Leader-Post back in September:

MPs and cabinet ministers...work long, unsocial hours. However, workers in many other sectors can make the same argument, yet an average pay increase of 2.5 to 3.1 per cent is what most Canadians can expect to receive this year, according to government and private forecasters.

The National Post on October 2 also praised the decision by the Prime Minister to delink compensation increases for judges and MPs by stating:

The Prime Minister has also correctly recognized that there should be no correlation between remuneration for judges and politicians and is acting to correct the policy that arbitrarily weds the two to a single pay scale.

How did we end up with this particular index? We looked at number of indices before settling on the HRSD one. It had a number of advantages. For one, it is the only major index of private sector wage settlements that is widely available and easily accessible. When we look at the index itself and how it is made up, it is readily understood by everyone, and I believe, as I am sure many others will if they have the opportunity to look at this index, that it will be a fair and representative indicator of the general wage settlement trends in the economy.

It is also very important, and this again is an advantage of using this particular index, that we use an index that does not include wage increases negotiated by public servants because Parliament, from time to time, may need to legislate on public service compensation. Thus, using an index with a public sector component could in fact be perceived by some as putting Parliament in a conflict of interest.

Some people have put forward the cost of living index, COLA, which is used by Statistics Canada as a possible measure for linking MP compensation. However, what this particular index does is it tracks the prices as they rise and as they decline of the goods and services in the economy. It does not reflect the changes in wage increases received by Canadians across the country. The prices of commodities can rise and fall dramatically depending on trends in the economy. Therefore we believe that we should base salary changes for MPs on what is happening to Canadians in the economy, not on the supply and demand curves of goods and services.

For those reasons the government has chosen to use the private sector wage settlement index that is published by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development as it is an authoritative index. Both the government and industry use it. It is a data source that many use in analyzing wage settlement trends in our economy. It is published monthly in the Wage Settlements Bulletin and quarterly in the Workplace Gazette.

Therefore there is a lot of accessibility and there is I believe an understanding of what this index actually does and what it means for the economy. It covers a broad economy: primary industries, construction, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, transportation, education and health services, finance and professional services.

The index itself measures the average annual salary increase negotiated by collective bargaining for private sector units with 500 or more people. It is comprised of over 430 collective agreements in the private sector and these agreements apply across private sector units of 500 or more people. It means that the wage settlement data that we expect to use as an index are really reflective of what more than 8,000 people across the country are getting in terms of wage increases. It represents mostly a unionized workforce but it also has a very significant component of non-unionized employees as well, so there is that mix in this index.

For the reasons that I have laid out before the House, we think this index meets the test of linking the increases in compensation for parliamentarians to the increases obtained by Canadians. By aligning future compensation increases with changes in the private sector wage settlements, parliamentarians can be assured and will be assured that their salary increases will be the same as those of other Canadians.

The way it would work is that we would look at the average wage increase for the previous calendar year, which is published in February, and have an assessment We would then have the change reflected in the compensation for members of Parliament.

I would like to provide some background. As members know, parliamentarians received a 1.3% increase on April 1, 2004 based on the industrial aggregate average, which is also an index that is used to calculate annual changes in the compensation for judges. The base salary for MPs in 2003 had been $139,200. With this increase under the industrial aggregate average, it moved up to approximately $141,000, which is an increase of about 1.3% or $1,800.

Under the parliamentarians' compensation bill, Bill C-30, parliamentarians would receive increases in line with the HRSD index for 2003 with an effective date of April 1, 2004. The HRSD index itself for 2003, which was published in February 2004, was 1.5%, not 1.3%. If we were to apply Bill C-30, that would mean an increase of about $2,000 to MPs' salaries, or MPs' compensation, rather than the $1,800. I wanted to make that clear because there has been some confusion on this.

The new index would provide for a slightly higher increase than is provided for under the current legislation but that increase reflects the increases received in the private sector in Canada. In effect, it means that parliamentarians would be getting the same increase as the people who they represent.

As we go forward into the future, the legislation would establish a system for receiving salary increases in what I think will be a very uncomplicated and straightforward manner. This is a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians and it is a commitment fulfilled. It is an example of another commitment that we are following through on.

The government has a track record of following through on commitments. We believe that Canadians can benefit from strong communities, a strong economy and from a nation that is a strong player on the international stage.

When we talk about commitments we not only talk about that commitment, but we can also talk in the context of what the government has accomplished and what the government is intending to do. We can look at the health care commitment of $41.3 billion in an agreement with the provinces and territories. It is a deal that will enhance health care for the next decade. It will also provide benchmarks for performance, which is something the Prime Minister talked about and committed to. This will ultimately result in reduced patient wait times for diagnosis and treatment.

Canadians have the commitment with respect to this legislation on parliamentary salaries, the commitment in health care and the commitment, which we are following through on, in the early childhood development and lifelong learning. We are laying the groundwork, which has been laid in conjunction with the provinces and territories. Dialogue is ongoing and ultimately we will end up with a program of early learning and child care.

When we talk about commitments with respect to Bill C-30, commitments in health care, commitments in early learning, in the economy, when we think of the reduction in debt and the $100 billion tax cut, all of these are commitments that we have maintained. What I am suggesting to the House is that the government is committed to fulfilling and seeing this legislation become law.

Through this particular act we have acted on our other commitments, whether it is in health care or on the $100 million investment in the redevelopment of Ford Motor Company in Oakville, or the new deal for cities, we are fulfilling the commitments.

While we talk about our domestic goals and fulfilling those domestic commitments, and this is certainly one of them, it is also fair to say that we also strive as part of our overall objective to strengthen Canada's influence in the world. We have seen a lot of work to that end very recently with the Prime Minister in different parts of the world ensuring that Canada's voice is heard in building and rebuilding fractured states and ensuring that democracy is alive and well, whether it is Ukraine or whether in going to Iraq. We are committed to meeting our goals and objectives.

Bill C-30 is pretty straightforward. There is an index. It will reflect Canadian wage settlements. It will essentially reflect the wage increases that Canadians receive. We represent these Canadians. I believe parliamentarians work very hard and are very dedicated, as are Canadians. They also work very hard and are very dedicated in whatever sector they work.

We have taken the opportunity to bring forward legislation to tie this index to the salaries of members of Parliament. The legislation makes sense. It is clear, straightforward and very transparent.

I do think that we are on the right track on this. That is reflected in a number of editorials. I am hopeful that when others get up to speak on this particular piece of legislation they will look at the legislation for what it is and send it to committee.

This bill will follow the regular process. This is not about bringing a bill into the House just to have it proceed very quickly because it is about MPs' compensation. It is about putting this on the floor of the House to put in place a very transparent and simple, straightforward way of dealing with this issue. I think that in fact this is what Bill C-30 does.

As I have said, this is a commitment that was made by the Prime Minister this September to delink increases in parliamentary salaries from those received by judges. It links them to those received by Canadians in the private sector.

We have moved quickly on that commitment and have introduced this bill, Bill C-30. Members of the House will now have the opportunity to fulfill that commitment made to the Canadian people.

I think I should also be very clear and say that this is up to Parliament. Parliamentarians will decide whether this legislation will proceed. I do believe that once the legislation is reviewed and once we hear from others in the House we will build some support and a consensus that this legislation go through. I believe it is the right thing to do and I certainly hope the members of the House on all sides will come together and help us do just that.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Salaries Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments on this important bill. First, however, I would like to thank the people of Provencher who have seen fit to re-elect me. I thank them for their vote of confidence.

The people of Provencher want this minority Parliament to work. They want their parliamentarian to fight for the issues that are worth fighting for, the issues that are important, but they also want me as their representative to work in cooperation with the other parties to ensure that we get our work done here. I think this bill is one of those cases. Not only is it possible to work together, but I think the principles of the bill are important and we should work together in this particular case. That is why I am supporting the bill.

The purpose of the bill is to modernize the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code to make it both fairer and efficient while preserving the overall framework of the provisions.

In June 2002 the standing committee tabled a report calling for legislative reforms and looking at the Department of Justice consultations on the mental disorder provisions for guidance. The executive committee review that was conducted was as a result of a statutory requirement under Bill C-30, which had been introduced in 1991 and which itself was the subject of many years of consultation.

The report that was put forward in 2002 was approved of by all parties. In fact, the result of the review is an important example of how committees, when they are focused on the issues rather than on partisan politics, can work in a cooperative fashion. This report is a demonstration of that cooperation and the value of committee work.

Bill C-30 had a significant reform provision relating to persons not considered criminally responsible. That bill replaced references to terms such as “natural imbecility” or “disease of the mind” with the term “mental disorder”. It extended its application to cover summary convictions for less serious offences as well. Instead of being found not guilty by reason of insanity, an accused could now be held not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Such a finding no longer resulted in automatic periods in custody. That automatic period of custody was found to be unconstitutional in the Swain decision back in 1991. Instead, the court could choose an appropriate disposition or indeed defer to the decision of the review board, which has already been mentioned here before.

Furthermore, under that provision the courts and the review boards were obliged to impose the least restrictive disposition necessary having regard to the goal of public safety. I think this is very important: this board is not simply looking at releasing individuals as quickly as possible, but also has to keep in mind the issue of public safety. Not only do the boards look at the issue of public safety, they look at the mental condition of the accused and the goal of his or her reintegration into society.

Bill C-30 came into force in February 1992. The proclamation was delayed for three major initiatives: first was the capping provision; second was the “dangerously mentally disordered accused provisions” that would allow the courts to extend the cap to a life term; and third was the hospital orders provisions for convicted offenders who at the time of sentencing were in need of treatment for mental disorder.

Bill C-10 takes into account many of the recommendations of the justice committee's report in June 2002 as well as further input from the Department of Justice consultations with stakeholders. The amendments of Bill C-10 address six key areas: first, the expansion of the review board powers; second, permitting the court to order a stay of proceedings for permanently unfit accused; third, allowing victim impact statements to be read; fourth, the repeal of unproclaimed provisions; fifth, the streamlining of transfer provisions between provinces, and sixth, the expansion of police powers to enforce dispositions and assessment orders.

A couple of concerns have been raised with respect to some of these key areas, for example, victim impact statements to be read at a hearing involving one of these mentally disordered individuals. We must make it very clear that in a criminal proceeding, where an accused is mentally competent, the victim impact statement is very important in the context of whether or not an accused shows any regret, the impact on the victim's family and the like.

However, in this situation where we are dealing with a mentally disordered person, the same concerns would not necessarily arise because we are not looking at the guilty mind of a person. We are dealing with a mentally disordered person and must be careful how we use this victim impact statement.

It is important for victims to have a voice, but we must remember that this victim impact statement in this context does not form exactly the same role that it does in a criminal trial. A criminal may not express any regret for what he or she has been found liable for. It is important for the victim especially in that context to be able to tell the tribunal or the court exactly how that crime has impacted on the family.

The streamlining of the transfer provisions between provinces is another issue. It is important that there is the appropriate consent of the jurisdiction to which the individual is being transferred. We must remember that these facilities are usually under provincial jurisdiction and we do not want to unilaterally push individuals into one jurisdiction out of another jurisdiction. There are issues of costs and other concerns. The bill does attempt to ensure that the appropriate consent is obtained.

The repeal of the unproclaimed capping provisions is also very important. Why were concerns raised about these sentencing provisions? They were raised because it appeared that where a person was found mentally disordered, the period of incarceration or confinement could be a lot longer than a comparable sentence in the criminal courts.

It is important to remember that, for example, if on a regular assault causing bodily harm, a person could get a few months in jail or a conditional sentence. Whereas in this context, we are not looking at strictly the issue of punishment. We are looking at rehabilitation, so the issue then does not become how long is the sentence, but rather how long a period of time in custody is required in order to assist the person to get over the mental disorder to the extent that this is possible.

As I indicated earlier when I spoke about the victim impact statements, again there is a difference in the intent. With the criminal conviction, obviously punishment is one of the key goals of the criminal justice system as well as rehabilitation. When we talk in the mentally disordered context, we are not talking about punishment. We are not talking about rehabilitation in the same way. What we are trying to do is ensure that persons are in custody for as long as they need to be there in order to get the help that they need from the appropriate medical personnel and facilities.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Winko decision that a potentially indefinite period of supervision of a mentally disordered person was not unconstitutional since it was not for the purposes of punishment. However, there is a review process that provides a mentally disordered person with some safeguards.

I am pleased to add my support to this bill. I want to emphasize the work that was done by the member for Fredericton as the chair of the justice committee. I believe he shepherded this bill along in a responsible fashion. I am not going to say that was always the way he conducted himself, but in this case he did and I am proud to support the bill.