House of Commons Hansard #264 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was institution.

Topics

Bank ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON

No, no.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC

Yes, as a matter of fact. Well, there will be no decentralization, but the fact remains that the Prime Minister indicated to Quebecers there would be some decentralization.

Does my colleague not agree basically, if we consider the situation in a simple and rational manner instead of an emotional manner, that Canada needs to have all his powers in Ottawa, that Quebec feels that its powers should be centralized in Quebec City, and that any attempt to transfer powers from Ottawa to Quebec is bound to fail?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON

Never, Mr. Speaker, will we give the provinces power over our monetary system.

The Bank of Canada's powers are based on its responsibilities for guaranteeing large value transfers, to create a safer, more responsible system for all Canadians, including Quebecers. Why

decentralize? Destroy what? Our monetary system, the Bank of Canada system? That would be stupid, and the hon. memberknows it.

Why, during the referendum campaign, did they ask for the right to use the Canadian dollar? Were they afraid of using another monetary system? Of course they were. Why did they spend so much money to support the Canadian dollar when the markets were almost predicting Quebec's separation? They were afraid. That is why the Bank of Canada must be able to control and guarantee transfers as provided for in Bill C-100.

I will not get into a debate on the other powers that could be devolved to the provinces. There is certainly a great deal of overlap and duplication in powers. Our Prime Minister said that it would be better to work together with all the provinces to better serve Canadians in reducing spending, red tape and duplication.

As far as manpower is concerned, almost a year ago, the minister wrote the Quebec government in an attempt to negotiate something in the sector mentioned by the hon. member. He never received an answer. This shows the hypocrisy of the Bloc in this House. They want to get powers, money and independence without contributing to the debate affecting all Canadians. They will continue to do so, but we will not be fooled. Even without the Bloc's co-operation, we will continue to build with all the other members of this House a more effective, more profitable, more generous, more prosperous country. And we will do so in spite of the separatists.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the comments of the member for Willowdale. I agree completely with everything that he said. The opening comments of my speech on this issue were reflective of that.

Getting to the issue at hand, co-insurance is very important. It is important because there has to be accountability in the marketplace and a responsibility if we are going to have monetary controls, if we are going to be able to give people any sense of comfort.

We must end in a way with the small depositor in particular, having some form of protection. As I pointed out in my speech, the difficulty of having 100 per cent protection and not having co-insurance is that the government then has to step into the monetary market to an extent that the small investor is absolved of responsibility for his or her investment decisions.

That is bad because money is not moral, money is not national. Money is neither of those things. Money is a way of exchanging value within the entire world community. To isolate depositors to federally controlled institutions from the reality of that is to introduce into Canada a system of insulating us from the reality of trading money.

I point out that there is an almost universal consensus for co-insurance. In spite of diverse interests, the banks, the insurance industry, both the present and the past superintendents, the chairman of the CDIC, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, academics, including most recently the Public Interest Advocacy Centre which studied the issue from the consumer's point of view and the Senate banking commission, have supported co-insurance.

In light of this virtual universal acceptance of the idea of co-insurance, would the member who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance support an amendment put forward at report stage by the Reform Party to seek co-insurance, instead of what is currently proposed in this bill?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Much to the regret of the House, the hon. member will not be able to respond because the time for questions and comments has lapsed. As much as the member for Willowdale might like to reply, time has run out.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

John Maloney Liberal Erie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add my voice to those of my hon. colleagues in the government in support of Bill C-100.

The government has taken the position that the state and its officials should not try to do what others can do better. This is particularly true when it comes to the world of business and when it comes to making sure that we do not stand in the way of private sector dynamism. Furthermore, never in Canada's history has it been so important to control the cost of government. Our fiscal situation demands it and so do Canadians, who are suffering from tax fatigue.

I raise these points because they represent important underpinnings for some of the measures before us: specifically, the actions that Bill C-100 will implement regarding corporate governance.

Underlying the changes to the governance framework is a very basic assumption. The simple fact is, no system can forestall any financial institution failure unless it is given the authority and resources to oversee all management decisions and unless institutions are severely restricted in the loans and investments they can make. However the price of such a failure safe system, even if it did work which I doubt, would be to strip that industry from contributing to the dynamism, growth and evolution of our economy.

This is where the issue of cost also raises its head. To try and implement greater micro-management of the financial sector will

require a veritable army of additional auditors and regulators. This is the approach used in the United States. However, at a time when governments must downsize, I do not see this as an option anyone here wishes to embrace.

The alternative is to take a governance oriented regulatory approach by putting greater onus for the well-being of financial institutions on the management and the board of directors of financial institutions. This is an approach employed by the United Kingdom regulators.

Whether either approach could be characterized as a more efficient system of governance is difficult. Each system functions at opposite ends of the spectrum and it would be difficult to advocate that one approach was somehow foolproof in preventing failure, or better than the other, given the global environment in which institutions must operate.

As the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions has argued so well, and I concur, our supervisory and regulatory systems cannot be positioned as a mechanism or regime dedicated to preventing an institutional failure. If we tried to do that, we would limit the potential well-being of the financial sector and its ability to serve the economy and Canadians. Rather, any specific supervisory approach should be built around the fiscal, business and economic environments. It is important that the regulatory tools be responsive to changes in these environments.

The changes in Bill C-100 to the governance for financial institutions strike a balance. They are not intrusive. Rather they clearly recognize that the role of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is not, and cannot be, to micro-manage financial institutions. They give OSFI due authority but not excessive authority to intervene in the governance of financial institutions but only when circumstances warrant.

I should also highlight that the changes in Bill C-100 build on and enhance changes introduced in the wide ranging reform of financial statutes of 1992. It was during the 1992 reforms when the statutes were revised to require that no more than two-thirds of the directors could be affiliated with a financial institution. In other words, at least one-third of the directors would have no relationship with the company and as a result, would not in any way be beholden to management.

The 1992 reforms also implemented the requirement that important board committees, such as the audit committee, be comprised of a majority of unaffiliated directors. These were valid and valuable changes, but they left some unfinished business that Bill C-100 will complete. They enhance the balance which would place onus on management and directors for their own governance and yet allow the regulator to intervene where circumstances warrant.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament should adopt specific measures to enable and ensure access by members of Parliament to all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative hearings held under the provisions of the Immigration Act, the Young Offenders Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Mr. Speaker, the motion exhorts the government to put in place measures that would allow members of Parliament access to what are now closed door procedures under three separate federal statutes. The exhortation is for access, not a procedure for making submissions or representations. It is merely for access, presence or entry into procedures which deal with the rights and liberties of Canadians behind closed doors.

I have three short anecdotes gained from my several years of experience as a member of Parliament where, as have all of us in the House, I confronted barriers to access for members of Parliament when fulfilling our duties.

The first anecdote has to do with an Immigration Act refugee hearing about five years ago. Someone came to me to ask for my assistance in gaining a visitor visa for a brother. I did what I could. In the end after two or three interventions and a lot of work a visa was issued. The brother came and in complete disregard of all that had happened and the good faith of the family, he made an application for refugee status. I knew the man was a liar. I also knew he had put forth false information. I knew that the applicant would be presenting that false information at a refugee hearing.

Therefore I followed it very closely, particularly because what had happened was an abuse of my office and collectively involved the offices of all members of Parliament. I owed a duty to my constituents and to Canadians to make sure that my MPs office was not abused.

I went to the hearing where to my surprise I found that it was a closed door hearing and I could not be admitted. As things turned out, the hearing was adjourned. I made an application for access and it was granted. I was allowed to be present at the hearing but in

the end I did not have to present evidence. The application was denied and the man was deported. Under a federal statute a hearing can take place and under a law enacted by the House MPs do not have access. That case worked out reasonably well but it caused me concern.

There were two subsequent cases, one involving the prosecution of a young offender charged with murder under the Criminal Code. In that case I did not need to have access at the time, but I did take note of the provisions of the Young Offenders Act that can exclude individuals or groups from young offender hearings. A little light went on and I thought it was not healthy to have a statute enacted by the House excluding members of Parliament not specifically but generically. That was another case.

A third case involved parole hearings. Under current legislation there is no provision for access by any of the public to those hearings. In one particular Parole Act statute, and I do not know when it was repealed, MPs and senators were given access to parole hearings. Under the current Corrections and Conditional Release Act there is the absence of any provision to provide access to MPs or to allow the public access to those hearings.

I was at the Warkworth Institution about four years ago and had the benefit of attending a hearing, thanks to the decision of an inmate and his solicitor. It was useful to walk through the process at the time. There is hardly a member of Parliament in this place who will not be called upon at some point in his or her career to address issues involving hearings under the three statutes. My motion raises the issue for consideration by the House.

We are accountable to our constituents for the effectiveness and fairness of every procedure under all federal statutes. We are responsible to ensure the collective rights and liberties of our constituents are protected and are not abused by the procedures. We enact the laws and we are accountable to our constituents for them.

We are legislators but as history has evolved members of Parliament are also ombudsmen. That second role means that we must have as much access and freedom as an ombudsman in any provincial government, in any municipal government or at the federal government level. At the moment in the three federal statutes there are barriers to that access.

To the extent that MPs are unable to access the procedures, we run the risk of impairing our role as ombudsmen. The purpose of the motion is to get us all thinking a bit about our roles in particular under the three statutes. We must consider what we do when we enact statutes in the House and roll back to some degree the present barriers.

For the sake of the record I will cite the sections of the three statutes. In the Young Offenders Act it is subsection 39(1) and subsection 39(3). In the Corrections and Conditional Release Act it is subsection 140(5). In the Immigration Act it is subsection 69(2).

I wish to make a few comments about how the role of members of Parliament has evolved over the years. I have mentioned the legislator role and the ombudsman role. Parliament has evolved over the years, but in terms of the newer role of ombudsman it has not evolved sufficiently. Our ombudsman role is carried out in part based on the privileges of members of Parliament which are fairly well articulated, constrained and referred to directly and indirectly in the Constitution, in the Parliament of Canada Act and in the common law handed down to us when Parliament was created 128 years ago.

I do not have to go over them but I will point out that in every session of Parliament it is important for MPs to resubmit our request to the Sovereign for confirmation of our privileges in the House of Commons. The words read somewhat archaically but in a real way:

We humbly claim all of our undoubted rights and privileges especially that they may have the freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your Excellency's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Excellency the most favourable construction.

As obscure as some of those words are, they are the request for the body of privileges and rights we collectively have in the House of Commons. We need them for the most important modern roles we have as members of Parliament, legislators and ombudsmen.

I was somewhat shocked about two months ago to read a legal opinion submitted to a committee by a body created by the House for the purpose of assuring Parliament and Canadians of the rights and liberties of Canadians in a particular field. The opinion was essentially that the body appointed by a statute enacted in Parliament did not have the obligation to answer questions put to it by members of Parliament at committee. It is a very serious issue for members of Parliament and has been for hundreds of years.

The legal opinion appeared to me to be completely ignorant of parliamentary law, which as I stated earlier is part of the Constitution. It verged on being contemptuous of parliamentary law. I simply put that on the shelf and say that hopefully there will be more on the issues of privilege and disclosure to parliamentarians in the new year.

There are two ways to address our role as ombudsmen. First, we could expand our privileges. Some of us believe that is not a great way to go, that there are more effective ways of addressing the problems. However we need to ensure our rights and privileges are vital, responsive and evergreen in what we need to do in our job as members of Parliament. Second, we can be vigilant when enacting

legislation to ensure that our role as MPs is not impaired in connection with procedures under the statutes. The motion before us today is attempting to roll back barriers that we have placed in the statutes.

Canadians want to know that their MPs are equipped, fully aware and conversant to deal with all of the procedures under federal statutes. We enacted them, so we had better know what is going on under those procedures. In order to know fully what is going on on behalf of our constituents, I say that access is fundamental.

When I say access I am not saying that we have to change the procedures to allow MPs to make representations, submissions, arguments, and get involved in the process; I am simply saying access. We should not close the door to ourselves in fulfilling our work as MPs.

I ask my colleagues, the officials of government, and the ministers to take note of this important issue.

I will not close without putting on the record what should be to all of us in this place self-evident. In our system of government the ministers sit in the House. They have burdensome responsibilities. I am sure they live 26-hour days. However, in doing their work they would be more likely to be ministers of government and less likely to be parliamentarians working for Parliament. Their job as ministers is to work for the government. They sit in Parliament. I suppose that most of them are good parliamentarians, but in terms of addressing the parliamentary agenda, very few of them would take the initiative to address matters directly on behalf of Parliament. That is somebody else's job. Whose job is it? It is not the ministers', it is the parliamentarians' job. It is the job of every member of Parliament and every senator who sits in Parliament.

In dealing with this issue we must not look to government. We must not look to ministers. We must look to ourselves. Hopefully the ministers will acquiesce in the constructive, positive things we do for Parliament.

Everything we do for Parliament will be handed down to our children and their children. We must not let this place atrophy. We must ensure that Parliament and its procedures are responsive to and vital for Canadians. It is our job to do that.

I leave this motion with the exhortation that it is our job to do this. Hopefully there will be support for this type of initiative, not just in this motion but as we pass legislation in the future.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today to Motion M-39, moved on January 18, 1994, by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament should adopt specific measures to enable and ensure access by Members of Parliament to all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative hearings held under the provisions of the Immigration Act, the Young Offenders Act, and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

This motion refers to three acts. As a general rule, court hearings are public. In camera hearings are the exception. It is not very hard to understand that confidentiality may be required when the life, freedom or security of a person could be put at risk by public hearings.

In immigration matters, the court that rules on refugee status claims is the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB.

The IRB is made up of three divisions: the Refugee Division, where proceedings are normally held in camera; the Appeal Division, where normally proceedings are public; the Adjudication Division, where normally proceedings are public also.

Section 69(2) of the Immigration Act provides that: "Subject to subsections (3) and (3.1), proceedings before the Refugee Division shall be held in the presence of the person who is the subject of the proceedings, wherever practicable, and be conducted in camera or, if an application therefor is made, in public''. This is the provision the member's motion deals with.

Subsection (3.1) adds that: "Where the Refugee Division considers it appropriate to do so, it may take such measures and make such order as it considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of any hearing held in respect of any application referred to in subsection (3)". The legislator has therefore established the confidential nature of hearings before IRB commissioners, since the refugee claimant may have to give details about his life and the dangers he had to face. Sometimes, as is the case with rape victims, they have to describe intimate situations and circumstances that the public does not have the right to know.

On the other hand, confidentiality is not needed in appeal cases dealing mostly not with facts but points of law. Thus, sections 80(1) provides that "Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an appeal to the Appeal Division shall be conducted in public". This is the general principle.

The exception is covered by subsection 80(2). It reads: "Where the Appeal division is satisfied that there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of any person would be endangered by reason of the appeal being conducted in public, the Appeal Division may, on application therefor, take such measures and make such order as it considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the appeal".

As for the Young Offenders Act, it states, under subsection 39(1) that: "Subject to subsection (2), where a court of justice before whom proceedings are carried out under this Act is of the opinion a ) that any evidence or information presented to the court or justice would be seriously injurious or seriously prejudicial to

(i) the young person who is being dealt with in the proceedings,

(ii) a child or young person who is witness in the proceedings, or

(iii) a child or young person who is aggrieved by or the victim of the offence charged in the proceedings, or ( b ) that it would be in the interest of the public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice to exclude any or all members of the public from the courtroom, the court or justice may exclude any person from all part of the proceedings if the court or justice deems that person's presence to be unnecessary to the conduct of the proceedings''.

This provision is very clear as it relates to young offenders. This piece of legislation is based on the principle of rehabilitating young offenders. While the need for punishment is recognized, the focus is on rehabilitation into the community to preserve the public peace. That is why it strongly protects the young offenders' identity, disclosure of which to the media, as well as the disclosure of any fact that could give away their identity, being forbidden.

Also, the presence of observers is controlled to ensure fair treatment to all. There is a strict procedure governing admission to hearings, and it is difficult to see why these measures ought to be changed. Once can easily imagine what impact the presence of a member of Parliament in the courtroom would have on a young offender. And what use would this information be to the member, since none of it can be disclosed in any case?

The third statute referred to in the motion is the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Subsection 141(4) of that act provides that: "The commission may, to the extent deemed absolutely necessary, prevent the communication of information to an offender, if it has reasonable grounds to believe that such communication would be against the public interest, would jeopardize the safety of a person or of the penitentiary, or would jeopardize the holding of a legal inquiry".

Looking at the three above-mentioned statutes, I think that Parliament was right, in the specific cases that were mentioned, to allow in-camera proceedings and to protect confidentiality of files, as well as the right to privacy of individuals.

I realize that the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River seeks to facilitate the job of parliamentarians by, among other things, ensuring that they can attend any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative hearing, if only to verify the administration of federal statutes.

However, there are other ways of assessing the effectiveness of a piece of legislation. Let us not forget that separating the legislative and judicial powers is a basic principle to ensure a sound democracy. In that sense, the presence of a member of Parliament, who is a symbol of political power, would not always be a good thing in the situations targeted by the hon. member's motion.

The Immigration Act best exemplifies the negative impact that the presence of an MP could have on a refugee claimant, who may never have appeared before a court in his country of origin, and who does not really know Canada's rules and policies in that regard. Such a presence could often be intimidating for the claimant. This is especially true if the claimant knows that the MP is not particularly receptive to his claim. This is sometimes the case, as in the Malik affair, which took place in Toronto, in 1991, and to which the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River just referred.

These three statutes all authorize in-camera proceedings or public hearings. At certain stages of the process, they require that some restrictions be applied, so as to ensure protection of, among other things, the right to privacy. Why should members of Parliament be allowed to violate these rights, and what use would they make of the information obtained?

This is the real issue. For all these reasons, I oppose Motion M-39.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, in my short period as a member of Parliament this will be the third private member's bill I have had the pleasure to speak to and in favour of. The first two were from the member for York South-Weston and the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.

I am happy to see a motion such as this with the common sense attached to it the Canadian people have been talking about for many years, with government not listening. I am dismayed that common sense motions that reflect the mood of the Canadian people have not been forthcoming from the government and the ministers themselves. They primarily come through private members' motions.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 39 today put forward by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I understand the intent of the motion. It is a terrific motion. It is long overdue.

The motion seeks to open up judicial and quasi-judicial hearings to members of Parliament. The member is quite right when he talks

about how an MP's daily role now takes on the form in many cases of an ombudsman. We are elected to represent our constituents. The people come to us with many concerns they want us to help them with.

A number of constituents have asked me what is wrong with the system. Why is this person in the country when he has such a terrible criminal record in the country he came from? Does no one know about these things? What goes on in those hearings?

The case the hon. member was involved with, the Malik case, was an example. It was not, as I understand it, criminal activity, but the individual had entered Canada under pretences. I understand he applied for a visitor's visa and the member went to bat for him on it, and then when the person arrived as a visitor he promptly claimed to be a refugee. Without the knowledge of this the refugee board would have no idea about the deceptive method by which the person came to Canada.

I disagree with the member for Bourassa when he said that this person's position could have been prejudiced. Truth never prejudices anything. Truth is always what we as MPs should be looking to see prevails in every case.

In his motion the member refers specifically to such hearings held under the Immigration Act, the Young Offenders Act, and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. As members know, in our lifetimes we have been absolutely frustrated and bewildered at times by some of the decisions that have come out of these three institutions.

We ask how the parole hearings can possibly release this person into society. We may never know why some of these things happen. We would never know unless somehow we as MPs, as the ombudsmen for our constituents, had some form of access. I am sure the member is not talking about intervener status or advocacy status. I believe that in the bill he is simply talking about automatic observer access to hearings, so that when he as a member of Parliament, a representative of the Canadian people, sees that something is going on that is simply not right, he will be better able to speak about it in the House of Commons and maybe in some legislation to try to correct the wrong that is being done or the interpretation of the rules that is not conducive to what the Canadian people feel.

Certainly the three institutions the member lists are the very three I have had the most trouble with in my lifetime with regard to their decisions. I support the member's bill with regard to these three institutions.

I am aware that particular members of my own party, the Reform Party, have been involved in the process and have experienced first hand some of the barriers that face MPs when they attempt to attend some of these quasi-judicial hearings. I am referring to the members for Fraser Valley West and Calgary Northeast.

The member opposite thinks this is a joking matter. But the fact is in these two instances a refugee had committed some serious crimes in Canada and the immigration people were trying to get this person out of the country. The person went before a hearing and the member for Fraser Valley West was in fact prevented from attending it. The member had personal firsthand knowledge of some of the things that may not have been brought out there. He was not allowed to present them. I understand that; that is proper. But the members of this quasi-judicial committee were not regarding this case in the fullest sense of the circumstances.

This was of great concern to the member for Fraser Valley West, because he had the protection of society as his first thought in mind. There was the very real possibility that if this individual had been granted refugee status he would have been a threat to the public safety of the citizens of British Columbia. He had a lengthy criminal record, including a charge of rape. However, as these MPs found out, the safety and the rights of victims are secondary to the rights of a criminal before a quasi-judicial body.

I know that the member for Scarborough-Rouge River has had personal incidents where he has run up against the same type of situation, where he was barred from attending a hearing. Motion M-39 would seek to change this situation by permitting automatic observer access to these hearings. Based on the member's own experience, I can fully understand the intent of the motion.

There are a couple of things we have to be very clear and very careful about. I am sure the member in his motion does not imply this in any way, but we have to be careful that MPs are not permitted to interfere in any way with the operations and decisions of these hearings as a participant. Nor should an MP be permitted to put pressure on the people who are conducting the hearings.

I suppose the motion-and perhaps the member for Bourassa has taken this opinion-could be interpreted in such a way that an MP would have some sort of official status or presence in the hearing. I do not think that is the intent of the motion. The wording should be examined very carefully: specific measures should be adopted to enable and ensure access for MPs. The word that needs to be clarified is "access". This could be taken to mean a whole range of things. I agree with the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River that his meaning of this is very specific and narrow. However, it could be interpreted, as it was by the member for Bourassa, as being perhaps prejudicial to any of these hearings.

Time goes quickly when speaking on a bill of such importance, and so I will close. Although this bill will certainly enable the MPs to do their job as ombudspersons for the people they represent and it will go a long way to helping us, I really believe that ultimately this government will have to take a look at the legislation that covers these institutions and make major reforms to them so that

the Canadian people once again can have some confidence in these quasi-judicial bodies that are supposed to protect our society.

My party and I will support the member's motion. We wish him success in this motion, wherever it may travel from here.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to live in a country that is seen around the world as being kind, compassionate and welcoming as a nation. Over the past few decades we have opened our hearts to tens of thousands of refugees. We have been a safe haven in a world of hunger, death and tribulation.

A key element of our refugee determination system is the Immigration and Refugee Board. The board was established in 1989 to allow refugee claimants the right to an oral hearing. These hearings are usually not open to the public. There are a number of very good reasons for this.

A number of applicants are worried that what they say during their hearing with a view to obtaining refugee status might reach the ears of groups involved in persecution in their country of origin. Even if they are safe here in Canada, they fear that relatives and friends may be exposed to reprisals for their statements.

We may have difficulty imagining that possibility from here in Canada. It is sometimes hard to imagine that there are regimes where you could be arrested, tortured, or killed for your beliefs or for the beliefs of your friends and associates. We must remember this. If we want the truth, and that is what the refugee hearings are all about, we need to make sure the claimant feels that he or she has the full opportunity to be heard.

We are also concerned with having a system that is open to the public. Accountability is a vital and cherished cornerstone of our governing system. That is why we have struck a balance between the right of the public to know and the right of the claimant to protection and security.

It is a principle of Canadian law that judicial and quasi-judicial decision making take place in an open and transparent environment. The hearings held by the immigration appeals division, for example, are held in public. But as I have said, sometimes there must be limits on that openness and transparency. That kind of limit is indeed even enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 1, which talks about reasonable limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The balance provided in the Immigration Act between the rights of the claimant and the rights of the Canadian public was intended to respect the competing charter concerns.

There are two ways in which an individual or the news media can gain access to the hearing: either the claimant can consent to the presence of the individual, or the hearing panel can, in response to an application, declare the hearing open to the public. In the latter case, the burden is on the claimant to establish that the life, liberty, or security of any person would be endangered by a public hearing.

It would be very worthwhile for members to let their constituents know what really goes on in these hearings. It would be very difficult to understand an applicant's objecting to the presence of a representative of the Canadian Parliament, except in very unusual circumstances.

Is an amendment needed to achieve this level of access to the hearing process? Are lawyers and other counsel advising their clients to resist access by parliamentarians to the hearings? Are members of Parliament being left only with the recourse of litigating the issue of access before the refugee division and the courts? No, they are not.

Accountability is a hallmark of good government. The Canadian government has always held the public's right to know to be sacrosanct. It is a principle we will never abandon. Liberty, justice, and freedom demand this. Sometimes the need for individual security demands privacy. An individual's right to safety and protection is another cornerstone of our society. It means we often have to strike a delicate balance. I believe our system does this.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Motion No. 39. I congratulate the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for having introduced the motion.

He touches on something even deeper than what he remarked on in his own speech. That is, while we all agree that judicial processes should be as transparent as possible, this is particularly important when it comes to order in council appointments.

One of the things he failed to touch on in his speech is what we are dealing with here are boards and tribunals of a quasi-judicial nature, which may have officers of the judicial body who are appointed by government. The motion is very important in this regard, for if you have a quasi-judicial body that consists of government appointees and you do not have a mechanism whereby the deliberations of that body can always be monitored by a

representative of the elected people or by the public in some way or another, then you have a very dangerous problem.

I looked at the Immigration Act where it describes the conditions for in camera proceedings. I also noted the remark by the member for Bourassa who said that only the refugee status hearings were the ones held in camera. I submit that the refugee status hearings are precisely those hearings where all the action takes place. This is where we measure whether or not the quasi-judicial body is doing its job. This is where we measure whether or not the people appearing before it should be granted refugee status.

When it comes to the role of the opposition and the role of all members of Parliament in all this, I would expect that opposition members and government members would be extremely interested in how a refugee board or a parole board was performing. This is exactly what we should be doing. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River has a very good point that at the very least if we cannot open these hearings to journalists and the public at large, a member of Parliament should be able to attend them freely.

This is no worse a level of entrusting confidentiality than we would to a minister, a priest or any other person who has a particular position of confidence and importance in the public eye. Who could be more important, if I may say, in the public's eye than someone elected to represent the people?

The question that follows is whether the elected member will hear something he or she should not hear. The member for Bourassa was citing examples where there might be descriptions of personal abuse. I expect members on all sides of the House would respect the reasonable confidences of the innocent people whose testimony they may hear.

On the other hand, members hear independently the performance of the judicial board. For example, it is very important in the interests of democracy to make sure that order in council appointments are not gross patronage. We want to know that the people appointed by the government are people of quality who can do the job. How can we do that unless a member of Parliament from either side sits in on the proceedings?

In the final analysis, the MP has an important role in all of this quite apart from checking the quality of the job done by the members of the tribunal or that justice has served the person appearing before the tribunal. The member of Parliament has the ultimate responsibility because he or she is the law maker. We are the law makers. We cannot make laws unless we can see clearly for ourselves in person that the laws are working. If there is any area of government whatsoever where the law maker, the member of Parliament, cannot go in and see whether the laws are working, then we have a very serious problem.

I congratulate the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for raising this matter because it is a very large and important issue. I would suggest to the members of the Bloc that they should consider this very carefully. They are always saying they believe in the parliamentary system, parliamentary democracy and the need for transparency, and I believe them. I would suggest they reconsider this motion and give it their full support.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and support Motion No. M-39 on behalf of the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. This is the second private member's motion brought forward by the member to which I have had the pleasure and privilege of speaking.

The member for Scarborough-Rouge River is once again bringing to all members of the House a problem that requires very little effort to rectify. However it may cause members of Parliament to be left in a difficult position when it comes to giving proper representation to cases involving the Immigration Act, the Young Offenders Act, and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Members of Parliament must be allowed to represent the people who elected them to the full ability they are given under the law and to ensure that they have access to all information concerning the aforementioned acts.

At the present time an immigration hearing is off limits to individual members of Parliament. This is a problem particularly if the member is privy to information which may better represent the truth than the story being presented.

If a family promotes a visitor to Canada through the assistance and help of a member of Parliament and assures the member of Parliament that the person will return to their native land on a specific date, and if the visitor then applies for refugee status upon arrival and asks for welfare in the interim, that is a direct abuse of the system. It may well be that the member of Parliament is the only person aware of the original application and the promises which were made at that time. Therefore, why is the act very specific in section 69(2), which reads that the proceedings before the refugee division, et cetera are to be conducted in camera?

Members of Parliament are elected both to serve as legislators and to act as de facto ombudsmen. In cases where the member of Parliament has an interest and where he or she feels there may be an injustice, they should be allowed observer status automatically. That is not to say that any member of Parliament can attend any closed door meeting going on at any time. The member must be allowed to attend the meeting in which he or she has an interest and may be in a position to dispel some of the myths which are present at a number of these closed door meetings.

In the case of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act of which I am well aware from my experience on the parole board, the parole board may decide at its option to exclude anyone it wishes from the hearing. In other words, it may decide that no witnesses are allowed: no family, no friends or character witnesses who may help the person to gain parole or in fact lose parole. That is allowed under section 140(5) of the act.

Once again a member of Parliament is removed from the role even as observer status in a hearing which may affect the community into which the person could be released on a parole pass, even though the member of Parliament may have important knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the release of the offender.

The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is not asking for a huge change in these acts. It is a change which can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen if the motion is passed. It is a necessary item of business which requires very few administrative dollars. It opens up the system and makes it transparent. It will help all members of Parliament to function in a more complete manner for the people who have elected them.

I urge the support of all members for Motion No. M-39 sponsored by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. Let us open up the closed door meetings of these agencies and allow members of Parliament to further serve their electors in an effort of fairness for all.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, under whose name Motion No. M-39 stands, has asked the Chair if there would be unanimous consent to grant him under right of reply one minute to close the debate. It must be clearly understood that no one can speak after his intervention.

Is there unanimous consent?

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

November 24th, 1995 / 2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up debate on this motion I would like to thank all members for their interventions.

I confirm that the intent of the motion is not to open up closed door hearings completely and not to disclose confidences of witnesses and parties to hearings. It is not to embarrass anyone. It is to facilitate the work which we all do as MPs from time to time. It is to ensure that in the future our legislation is sensitive to and cognizant of the need of members of Parliament to have access to these tribunals, to view them in operation, to see the appointees do their work and to ensure that there is fairness and efficacy in our federal system of government.

Members Of ParliamentPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I thank the hon. member for his co-operation.

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.26 p.m.)