Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Before I begin, I want to pass on my condolences and recognize the life of Eugene Dery from my riding. He leaves behind a son, who is approximately 20 years old, Dax, and his wife Kim Galloway, whom I met through my sister. I grew up knowing them and have known them throughout the years. I extend my deepest condolences to the family. May perpetual light shine upon him.
On a more positive note, I want to recognize Ethan Katzberg from my riding. Mr. Katzberg took home gold in the hammer throw. Good for him. We are obviously very proud of him. He is the one to beat, following in the line of Dylan Armstrong. We look forward to seeing Ethan at the Olympics doing his best to represent not only Canada but also Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
We are here today to discuss Bill C-316, an act to amend the court challenges program. This is an interesting act when we think about it. In my research to prepare for my speech, I saw that the court challenges program has existed for a great deal of time. I knew that it existed, but I was not sure exactly how it had operated in the past.
One of the things that struck me is that this bill would enshrine the court challenges program into law. I know that my colleague from Lethbridge did an excellent job in her speech on this issue, but I will be addressing some of the points she made and perhaps some of the points that the sponsor of the bill made. I have some concerns.
The reality is that with this legislation, in my respectful view, we would be legislating an undermining of Parliament in a certain way. Parliament passes laws and the courts interpret them; there is no issue there, and frequently the courts will engage in a dialogue. I raised this with Justice Moreau of the Supreme Court of Canada, although I am not sure if she has been sworn in. She is the chief justice for Alberta for the time being if she has not been.
I asked her about the dialogue between Parliament and the courts. Parliament speaks through its legislation, the courts interpret the law and then Parliament speaks again if it needs to. This bill would essentially fund people to go to court to, in my view, look at ways that Parliament got it wrong. That is not to say the courts need any help. Frequently, the courts strike down legislation passed by Parliament, or they uphold it as constitutional, but those things happen irrespective of a third party like this.
From what I can see, this program costs $5 million at this time. It could be substantially more. By my estimation, about 30% of that alone is bureaucratic costs. We have been talking a lot about heating oil and things like that. How many heat pumps is the government going to buy for people? How many heat pumps would $5 million buy? Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we often talk here in the billions of dollars.
A senior contacted my office not long ago saying they had to choose between putting food on the table and buying shoes. To them, $5 million sounds like a lot of money. I know it certainly was when my family came from Italy. They did not really have two pennies to rub together. Sometimes we lose sight of this.
Not only that, we would create a bureaucratic entity beyond asking people to challenge our laws. There is no issue with the idea that people disagree with what Parliament passes. It happens all the time. That is why the courts will make various decisions. However, this is done routinely when somebody brings an action to the court.
I am going to underscore as well that when we pass legislation here, it goes through second reading debate. Sometimes bills pass with unanimous consent, but very rarely will a significant bill pass that way. I think I have seen it twice so far.
Bills go through second reading debate and then go to committee. Who do we hear from at committee? We hear from witnesses. On the justice file, who are those witnesses? Invariably, they are lawyers, experts who will tell us what is wrong with the bill: “Your bill has this constitutional frailty in this spot and this spot.” Then someone else will come in and say, “Yes, I agree, but I don't think the frailty is here and here, I think it might be over here.” What do we do? We take that and go back, potentially through an amendment. At third reading, we have more debate, and then it goes to the Senate. What happens at the Senate? There is more debate. Then, eventually, we will have royal assent after it has gone through the machinations in the Senate and then it goes to the courts. There is this idea that Parliament does not have ample opportunity to get it right and to hear from the very lawyers who will be making these courts challenges.
However, these challenges are made supplementary to the actual challenge. What I mean by that is, for example, somebody who believes that they are aggrieved by the statute on charter grounds will say, “This offends my section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person”, and they will challenge the law on constitutional grounds. Frequently, I presume, this program will fund somebody to intervene. Well, somebody is already making that challenge in a lot of instances from what I can see, and so I question the efficacy of that.
The other issue I have is that this issue is run through a university. I used to teach at Thompson Rivers University and I will give a shout-out to them, but this is done through the University of Ottawa. Now, we will obviously have in a university faculty, particularly one like law, divides. Some people are going to have one view of the law and some people will have another view of the law. In here, we have Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens and the Bloc. They are going to have different perspectives on how the world works, which is fine; actually, it is more than fine, it is central to a thriving democracy. However, the people who administer this program are going to be, through their perspective, deciding who gets these programs. Invariably, there will be winners and losers, and it does not seem to me that we know exactly how that is going to be administered, especially when it is being administered right now through a third party. That, in my view, does raise some issues.
The importance of people who are writing academically cannot be underscored. It is, in my view, central to anybody who is a professor, particularly a professor of law or political science. We do frequently receive feedback. We, as members of Parliament, are expected to take feedback on our laws. In my view, that is the correct mechanism by which we should be addressing these laws and not funding people who would not otherwise be in court on a matter of their own in doing so.
One of the issues that we have seen about this dialogue is that, in my view, this Liberal government has not necessarily acted well on that dialogue. For example, Bill S-12, the issue of the sex offence registry, was taken literally right down to the last day. It is how the courts work. The courts act and Parliament reacts. Parliament legislates, the courts interpret and it is up to Parliament to react. It took us literally months. We could not actually get this right. That is how things are supposed to be working. We can also look at this when it comes to that extreme intoxication case that we had to legislate on very quickly. However, sometimes, and this is one failing of the Liberal government of many on the justice bill, this Liberal government does not always react.
If we want to look at places where we should be devoting our resources, the courts have said that it is unconstitutional to have back-to-back first degree murder convictions and for parole ineligibility to be served consecutively.
I am out of time and so I will wrap it up there.
