Debates of Nov. 19th, 1996

Judges Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate so far and primarily to the speech by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. The speech that he read sounded to me as though it was a speech written by the Minister of Justice who did not feel it important enough to show up here to read it himself. That being said, looking at the content of the speech, he urged us to deal with this amendment quickly, that we should rush it through in order to facilitate the government's agenda. I wonder why the rush.

As has been pointed out, there is a problem with Madam Justice Louise Arbour, a justice of one of the superior courts in the province of Ontario, who is currently on international assignment. I believe the rush is to legitimize her current assignment.

Section 55 of the Judges Act states:

No judge shall, either directly or indirectly, for himself or others, engage in any occupation or business other than his judicial duties, but every judge shall devote himself exclusively to those judicial duties.

We know that Madam Justice Louise Arbour is not devoting herself to those judicial duties. She is in actual fact working abroad for the United Nations. She has accepted an appointment from the United Nations. Hence the rush by the government.

Also when we listened to the speech this morning, we learned that the Senate had a problem with Bill C-42. As the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River stated, in order to get this bill through quickly and in order to legitimize Madam Justice Louise Arbour's current dilemma of not being exclusively devoted to her duties, the government amended the bill in the Senate and that amendment is now back in the House for debate.

The member spent some time talking about that amendment. However, the interesting thing is that there are two amendments, not one but two amendments. If I heard the member correctly, he did not mention that there were two amendments. He only dealt with one amendment.

Let me read the first amendment which the other House has sent back for our consideration:

1. Page 1, preamble: Strike out line 1 and substitute the following:

Whereas the Canadian Judicial Council has been consulted with respect to certain provisions of this act, particularly section 5, and agrees with the purpose of section 5;

The Canadian Judicial Council is made up of the chief justices and is chaired by Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the highest court in the land and he is the highest judge in that court. Perhaps it is not unusual for them to pass judgment on legislation before it becomes law, but obviously the minister, in the other House, in order to push this legislation through as quickly as he could, decided to introduce this new preamble which says that the judicial council, which is chaired by Chief Justice Lamer, agreed with this particular section of the bill and indeed agreed with the entire bill.

I want to deal with the appearance of independence and integrity. For the record, we all know that Chief Justice Lamer is a man of integrity. His reputation is not being disputed in any way, shape or form. However, I am calling into question very much the fact that the Minister of Justice has put the chief justice in a very awkward position by putting this preamble in the bill in the other House and which is now being debated here.

Why? Quite simply, clause 3 of Bill C-42 confers a benefit on the chief justice and his spouse, who also happens to sit on the federal bench. As far as we are aware, clause 3 of Bill C-42 confers this benefit on the chief justice and his spouse alone. We have heard the Minister of Justice say there is one other couple but he has not divulged their names. Therefore, we are not sure if there is another couple. If there is another couple there is a maximum of four, but we do know that there are two. The chief justice and his wife benefit by clause 3 of section 2 and could very well benefit to a substantial degree.

The Minister of Justice has written to the chief justice of the supreme court asking: "What do you think of Bill C-42? Do you like it?" He reads Bill C-42 and there is section 3 conferring a benefit upon himself. What is he supposed to do? He is put in a most difficult and compromising position, courtesy of the Minister of Justice who wrote to him asking what he thought of Bill C-42. The integrity of the chief justice of the supreme court has been

compromised by this preamble and this preamble is here by the choice of the Minister of Justice.

The point is that the independence of the judiciary is being slighted in the worst way in this odious amendment. And I do say odious amendment because what was the chief justice to say? He could either concur with the bill and accept the benefit which was within the bill. Perhaps he agreed with clause 5 because of the benefit. I hope not. As I said, he is a man of integrity and I would not question his integrity. But I do question very much that the Minister of Justice has placed him in this position. That is why this particular amendment must be defeated. If we have any semblance of respect for our judiciary, this amendment must be defeated.

This morning I rose on a point of order regarding the fact that by this amendment this is now a hybrid bill, a public-private bill because of the fact that Madam Justice Louise Arbour is being specifically mentioned in the amendment.

If I can go back to my point on the situation of the chief justice being dragged into this bill, I would like to quote from the Alberta Report of October 28, 1996, page 27. Professor Morton from the University of Calgary was speaking to the Senate committee regarding this bill. It reads:

Professor Morton instructed senators at length on the importance of judges appearing impartial. The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that impartiality means the "absence of bias, actual or perceived". Earlier this year, the Canadian Judicial Council of which Mr. Justice Lamer is the titular head, said the relevant test of improper conduct by a judge is whether "public confidence would be sufficiently undermined" by it".

Comments recently retired University of Toronto political scientist Peter Russell: "It is very troubling that a main beneficiary of the change is the chief justice. That raises questions of whether there was any communication between him and the government. I think the public deserves some answers".

That was prior to the amendment to the preamble. Now we know there has been communication with the chief justice and this perception is now a very, very difficult situation.

Returning now to Madam Justice Louise Arbour, I mentioned this morning the fact that Madam Justice Louise Arbour's exemption from section 55 of the act is rightly the matter of a private bill. Again I quote the Alberta Report of October 28, 1996, page 27:

Madam Justice Arbour sought and won the UN job herself. Then Mr. Rock agreed to amend the Judges Act to allow judges to take unpaid leaves of absence

If that is not a petition by an individual, a person to have an exemption from the law, I do not know what is.

I quoted a ruling by a Speaker in the other House and I will quote a bit of it again: "A public bill relates to a matter of public policy, while a private bill relates to a matter of particular interest or benefit to a person or persons. A bill containing provisions which are essentially a feature of a private bill cannot be introduced as a public bill. A bill designed to exempt one person from the application of the law is a private bill and not a public bill".

It is fairly obvious from reading the Alberta Report . That Madam Justice Louise Arbour sought and won the appointment by the UN herself and then got the concurrence of the Minister of Justice to introduce an exemption to allow her to obtain the position seems to be a rather odious way of exempting a person from the Judges Act. Independence and integrity are very much being called into question here.

I am looking at Beauchesne's citation 1055 which talks about private bills demanding "peculiar vigilance, lest public laws be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places". The way that the contents of this bill, which are the appropriate subject matter of a private bill, are being passed is certainly not in a vigilant process.

Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and substituting the following therefor:

a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, since Amendment 1 places the Chairman of the Judicial Council in a conflict of interest and Amendment 2 has negatived the original intent of Bill C-42 to amend public policy and now introduces a waiver to s. 55 of the Judges Act for Madam Justice Louise Arbour, which according to the House of Commons rules and practices is properly the subject matter of a private bill and thus should not be inserted in a public bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The Chair will look at the proposed amendment and will advise the member. The hon. member may want to continue with debate.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

I can continue on, Madam Speaker, if you want to have time to rule on whether or not that is an acceptable amendment. I certainly hope that you find it is so.

Regarding that particular amendment, if I may draw your attention to the amendment that I have just given to you, the Speaker ruled this morning, and he quoted certain references and precedents, that he did not have the authority to amend a message from the other place and that the right to amend the message from the other place rested with this House. On my point of order which asked that the part regarding Madam Justice Louise Arbour be the subject matter of a private bill, he felt that the decision had to rest with the House rather than with the Chair. I do hope you will agree that we can debate the motion and arrive at a conclusion by this

House on whether or not we want to proceed with what is being proposed by the Senate as an amendment to Bill C-42.

However, continuing on, the concerns that we have regarding Madam Justice Louise Arbour cannot be overstated. Again, I respect the integrity of Madam Justice Louise Arbour and the work she has done on the bench.

The point is that while she has the reputation as being an eminent jurist and has been selected by the United Nations for this arduous work in Brussels, according to the Alberta Report she sought the job herself. She was not selected because of her reputation around the world. The point is that if she did, this government has acquiesced in a most inappropriate manner, in a retrospective manner rather than in a proactive manner.

The Minister of Justice has told the House many times that his responsibility is to uphold the rule of law. It is his responsibility to uphold the rule of law. We now have a Canadian jurist in another country working for the United Nations to uphold international law and to prosecute horrendous and horrific crimes. We do not doubt the great work that needs to be done over there and we do not criticize the fact that it is an honour for a Canadian to prosecute.

However, we do concern ourselves with the integrity of the judicial system at home. If it requires a waiver of the Judges Act-retroactively I might add-for the jurist to go over there to uphold the rule of law, we are sending the wrong message. The message being sent is that we are prepared to bend and retroactively change our laws to allow this to happen when she is over there to uphold the law. There is an incongruity which needs to be addressed very carefully.

The rules of the House have been circumvented somewhat by the fact that this was introduced as a public bill, that it passed this Chamber as a public bill, is now back before us as a hybrid public-private bill which is not allowed by the rules of the House. There is division in the House whether we should be circumventing the rules in this way. I feel this casts a shadow on the appointment of Madam Justice Louise Arbour to fulfil these obligations for the United Nations. If the minister had wanted Canada's reputation as a prosecutor for justice to go around the world, then he should have been more careful in the way he approached the matter.

I respect the integrity and the competence of Madam Justice Louise Arbour. She is a jurist and in her new job she is to be a prosecutor. It means she will be on one side prosecuting the other side. I do not dispute the fact that she is prosecuting crimes of a horrific nature. But the point is that she is a prosecutor and she presumably intends to return to the bench and to that independent, impartial position. She has in essence removed herself from that independent, impartial position by accepting this position as a prosecutor.

Again, I am very much concerned that when she returns to the bench her impartiality might be challenged. It is a very problematic question. I would have hoped that the Minister of Justice would have thought that through, discussed it with the other members of the House, perhaps even discussed it with members of the other Chamber in order that Canada could have made and endorsed this appointment in order for Madam Justice Louise Arbour to take up these onerous duties and be a shining light for justice around the world and for Canada.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me the nonsense that spews from the mouths of Reformers on occasion. The nonsense has come forward today in relation to this bill, an important bill in a number of respects. The bill would allow one of our eminent jurists to do a very important international duty, to prosecute war crimes at the request of the United Nations.

Canada has always been in the vanguard of justice on the international front. It has always stood for integrity and responsibility in doing our part to ensure that war crimes are punished and that our nation participates in just causes. It is out of respect for the reputation of Canada that Canadians are often asked to participate in such fora.

However, something so good and so noble is being dragged through the gutter by the Reform Party. That ought not to surprise anybody. If anybody is interfering with judicial independence, it is the Reform Party. There is no doubt that Madam Justice Arbour will acquit herself and her country well in her new duties. We feel it appropriate to bring forward the amendments and allow this to happen in accordance with the rules of the United Nations.

Another point has been raised by hon. members of the Reform Party. They have questioned the integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What is being brought forward in this bill is simply an amendment to bring the Judges Act in relations to pensions into equality with public service pensions, members of Parliament pensions and with other pensions. This amendment has been requested for a significant number of years. It has been brought forward along with a number of other amendments to the Judges Act. It is that simple.

The Reform Party questions how many people on the bench are married to other judges. There are four couples that we know of in that circumstance. There may be more but they are not required to report to the Minister of Justice when they fall in love and decide to get married. However, something that is good, something that is

appropriate and something that brings these plans into line with other plans is being questioned and turned into something bad.

This is very symptomatic of all that the Reform Party has stood for and has brought forward. It is to take things that are good and honourable and to turn them into something else. I ask the hon. member, in light of these circumstance, why the Reform Party continues to try and degrade good pieces of legislation which will bring honour to this nation?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly glad to respond to that intervention by the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.

Let me be perfectly clear. In my speech I said that I would never think of challenging the integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I have no intention whatsoever of challenging the integrity of Madam Justice Louise Arbour. I am quite sure that her integrity and the respect which she enjoys is well deserved.

What is not well deserved is the way in which the government has gone about amending the rules. It has put these two eminent jurists in a very difficult, awkward and compromising position. They are not there of their own choosing, they are there because of the government.

If the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River cannot understand that point, perhaps that is why this bill and this government is in the mess it is in today regarding these two situations. The government has created the problem. It is not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. His integrity is impeccable. He has been put in a compromising position by the Minister of Justice.

I do not know too much about Madam Justice Louise Arbour but I presume her integrity is also impeccable. She had been put in a very difficult position by the Minister of Justice who has allowed her to leave her duties on the bench against section 55 of the Judges Act and assume a position prior to legislation being passed by this House and the other place. That is the crux of the matter. Reform members feel that Madam Justice Louise Arbour is now compromised in her ability to prosecute and be a shining light for Canada. We think it is great and fully endorse the fact that a Canadian has been chosen to that high and prestigious position.

As I said earlier, these were horrific crimes and people have to be held accountable according to the rule of law. Surely those who are sitting in judgment, those who are prosecuting and those who are speaking on behalf of the world community that has been shocked by these crimes would want the confidence of knowing that the people who are performing these arduous duties are there without the slightest blemish or hint of problem from the country from which they come.

The point is that the government has put these two people in a most awkward and compromising position.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with some consternation that I keep hearing the Reform members talking about certain things that cause us in Quebec to wonder what planet they are living on.

I do not want to return to the question of pensions and so forth, because I think it has nothing to do with the amendment before us, but the hon. member seems unable to distinguish between a judge appointed to serve an international community, who has an ad hoc mandate, a specific mandate to serve as attorney, which is one thing, and a judge who decides from one day to the next to request leave without pay to act as crown prosecutor in Canada, Ontario or Quebec. These, I think, are two different things.

For a judge to decide to take on a specific assignment to go and serve internationally to help an international community gather evidence to convict individuals who have committed major crimes, that is one thing. However, I do not understand the hon. member saying that once Ms Arbour, in this particular instance, returns to Canada, should she resume her duties as judge, there would be doubts as to her impartiality. What world do the Reformers live in?

Are they forgetting that judges are lawyers, crown counsel or in private practice before they are appointed judges at some point? When arguing his case, is the crown attorney right to question the judge's impartiality because he comes from the private sector, or vice versa?

I have often argued before judges whom I knew to have worked for the crown. Do I fear from the outset that they will not be impartial? It is part of the training of someone in the legal profession to be able to separate things.

To conclude, I would ask the member if he does not think it beneficial to Canadian and Quebec jurists to work internationally showing how we do things. Does he not think international exchanges should be promoted?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, in quick response to the member's question, yes, we have prosecutors and lawyers who are appointed to the bench and they are expected to make impartial judgments. However, this is a different situation. Someone is going from the bench and becoming a prosecutor. That is the opposite direction.

The intent is that at some later point she will return to the bench. She is not being asked to resign; she is being granted a leave of

absence. That issue has never been dealt with before. As far as I am aware, if a judge leaves the bench to become a prosecutor, he or she cannot return.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a few comments to make about Bill C-42 which has come back from the other House.

I would like to make a few initial comments about the justice critic for the Bloc. Obviously he does not remember the path which this bill followed. The bill did not go before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Witnesses were not called. We were assured by the government that this was a housekeeping bill. The government said it was a rather innocuous bill which deserved rapid passage through the House and that is exactly what happened.

If we are to criticize those who have looked at it in a more exhaustive manner, then we should really look at what they are saying about the bill.

The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, who was the one who indicated to our caucus that this was just a housekeeping bill and a rather innocuous one, now says it is a very important bill.

When this motion on Bill C-42 came back, I examined the reasons for it. Why would it come back? It is a housekeeping bill. It is an innocuous bill. It was not an important bill.

I read what witnesses who appeared before the committee of the other House had to say about the bill, as well as some of the senators' comments. In the short time I have I will quote some of the expressions made by one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee in the other House with respect to Bill C-42.

I will quote from the testimony of Professor F. L. Morton. I do not have time to touch on all of his testimony but I would like to quote a portion of it: "The government is concerned, as well it should be, with the current status of Justice Arbour and the implications of her status for those responsible at justice. The government seems to hope that by passing Bill C-42 as quickly as possible it can retroactively legitimate apparent indiscretions by Justice Arbour and possibly others". That is a pretty serious statement. It was not made by someone from the other House, who may be detached from reality, as was suggested by the hon. member from the Bloc a few minutes ago; it was made by a professor of law.

Professor Morton went on to say: "For the past week I have tried to ascertain whether or not Justice Arbour is currently acting within the letter of Canadian law. On balance it seems that there is considerably more evidence to suggest that she is not".

Again, this is certainly something we were not aware of at the time that we examined the bill and the bill passed through this House. We were not aware of those opinions and the ramifications of this bill.

To go on to quote Professor Morton's discourse:

My understanding is that Justice Arbour left for The Hague on August 1 to undertake new duties as "Special Advisor" to the UN Commission on War Crimes; and that as of October 1-that is, more than two weeks ago-she officially took up her new responsibilities as Chief Prosecutor. Apparently the government has attempted to "authorize" Justice Arbour's actions through two orders in council as authorized by section 54 of the Judges Act. Does section 54 authorize leaves for the type of activity that Justice Arbour has already undertaken? Not according to the testimony of Mr. Rock before this committee on October 7.

Professor Morton quoted the justice minister, stating this:

There is no provision in the Judges Act for a federally appointed judge such as Madam Justice Arbour to be granted a leave of absence without pay to work for an international organization such as the UN, nor does the act permit the salary and expenses of a judge during a period of leave to be paid by an organization or entity other than the Government of Canada or, in the case of expenses, by the government of a province.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

With your indulgence I would like to inform the House that the amendment of the hon. member for St. Albert is in order.

Please continue debate, the hon. member for Crowfoot.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, to carry on with the testimony of Professor Morton:

It would appear that Justice Arbour agreed to the appointment before it had been approved by the Minister of Justice (or any other officials), thereby forcing the minister to react to a fait accompli. Furthermore it then appears that the minister, rather than recommending to Justice Arbour that she postpone her new activities pending necessary amendments to the Judges Act, sought to temporarily legitimate her actions by an order in council; and then (because the order in council is conceded to be insufficient) sought to retroactively legitimate J. Arbour's new employment with general amendments to the Judges Act, Bill C-42, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament.

I will conclude my quoting from the testimony of Professor Morton with this passage:

No doubt some will say that this is nit-picking. My response is simple. If the justice minister and appeal court judges cannot be expected to comply with the letter of the law, then who can? Indeed within the last month the justice minister himself pronounced on the meaning and importance of the rule of law. When Mr. Rock referred the issue of Quebec's so-called "right of secession" from Canada to the Supreme Court he declared that:

The rule of law "is a living principle that is fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance it means that everyone in our society, including ministers of government, premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike, is governed

by the same law of the land. We are all bound by the Constitution, by the Criminal Code, by acts of Parliament and the legislatures".

These are some observations. I only have time to refer to Professor Morton's concerns about Bill C-42 but there are others, including former Professor Peter Russell, who have expressed concerns about aspects of the bill. I feel that it is the duty of members of this House to closely examine these concerns.

I conclude by referring to the amendment the hon. member for St. Albert made and which I seconded. I am not completely satisfied with that and I offer an amendment to the amendment which reads: "That the amendment be amended by adding "and that this House respectfully request that Their Honours respond to this message no later than June 19, 1997".

[Translation]

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I am reading the amendment moved by the Reform Party, I find it somewhat dangerous to state in the amendment that the chairman of the judicial council is in a potential conflict of interest. We know that the chairman of the judicial council was merely consulted with regard to Bill C-42 as he is an extremely important player in its implementation.

We only have to look at what happened in the past with highly charged issues such as the case of Judge Bienvenue when all parliamentarians rebelled and rose to condemn the state of affairs. In the end, the people in charge of the issue were the members of the judicial council. To consult the chairman of the judicial council on such a bill is, I believe, necessary and very important.

I would like the member to tell me in what way he believes the chairman of the judicial council is in a conflict of interest with respect to the debate we are having on Bill C-42.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I would like to inform the House that the Chair will reserve its right to look over the subamendment as proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the question from my hon. friend from the Bloc.

The fact is that this bill has not been thoroughly examined by this House. We know the history of the bill as far as this House is concerned. The examination of the bill has occurred by individuals outside this House, particularly members of the other place who called witnesses.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I know that you are in the middle of an answer and I am very reluctant to intervene at this time. If you could keep your train of thought we will get back to you right after question period.

As it is now 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements by Members.

Medal Of Bravery

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to relay to the House an act of bravery and courage by a constituent of mine in the riding of Scarborough Centre.

Ronda Sparkes was recently awarded the Medal of Bravery by the Governor General of Canada for her unselfish and heroic act of bravery.

On November 30, 1993, Ms. Sparkes along with her friend Kelly Kramil, went to the aid of three people caught in a strong Pacific Ocean undercurrent at a resort in Manzanillo, Mexico. As soon as the two women realized that the swimmers were in deep trouble, they grabbed a life ring and jumped into the ocean in spite of the rough waters. Ms. Sparkes and Ms. Kramil managed to keep all three people afloat until a rescue boat arrived and brought the exhausted group back to shore.

I want to congratulate Ms. Sparkes on her Medal of Bravery and extend my praise for her courageous deed.

Agricultural Labourers

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Canadian government is planning to withdraw, by the end of March 1997, its 40 per cent share of the funding of the agricultural day haul transportation assistance program, to which Quebec contributes to the tune of 60 per cent.

In the Lanaudière area only, these cuts will mean an $80,000 shortfall. Some 800 individuals will be affected, mainly students picking berries and canning vegetables. Moreover this will deprive vegetable producers of labourers who live far from their work place and have no other means of organised public transportation.

In order to maintain a program which has a significant impact on this sector of our economy, the federal government must contribute to its funding. If it withdraws, it should at least compensate Quebec financially.

Young Offenders Act

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister is so far out of touch with reality that he will not

even acknowledge the fact that since the introduction of the Young Offenders Act, youth violent crime has increased by over 400 per cent.

It does not take much to conclude that this Liberal oriented document simply is not working. Rather than address this legislation as unworkable, the minister's recent comments indicate the probability of punishing the provinces by removing funding if they do not change their ways.

He claims that 80 per cent of the funding goes to incarceration while only 20 per cent goes to alternative measures. He also claims that provinces are acting more like vigilantes than justice agents.

When will the minister wake up and realize the Young Offenders Act contributes to more law breaking than it prevents? Why does he not recognize the YOA is a joke to most youth? Why does he not scrap the Young Offenders Act in its entirety, introduce programs and measures that will prevent youth crime and penalties to indicate society is no longer prepared to handle youth crime with kid gloves? When will we send the strong message that youth-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.

Child Poverty

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, since Ed Broadbent's motion that called for the abolition of child poverty by the year 2000 was passed unanimously by this House approximately seven years ago, child poverty has actually grown by 41 per cent. This is at a time when the families of wealthy corporate executives, who in the 1980s made 12 times as much as the poorest families, now make 24 times as much.

The Liberals have allowed the most privileged and powerful in Canadian society to turn their backs on the children who make up Canada's next generation. Many Canadian families are under severe stress, while the prosperity of the new economy is blowing into executive pay packets but not into children's lunch buckets or into their educational opportunities.

The leader of the NDP, Alexa McDonough, has called for the restoration of balance into our economy. We are calling for a cap of $200,000 or less on executive salaries that can be deducted from corporate taxes as a business expense and to direct the tax savings to programs to reduce child poverty.

Doug Thomlinson

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate a resident of Ingersoll who worked with the Canadian Executive Services Organization, or CESO, as a Canadian volunteer adviser.

Doug Thomlinson, a former teacher at Fanshawe College, hosted a Czech technical college teacher. He familiarized him with training programs for entrepreneurs, community college courses and counselling services for small businesses. The visitor will develop a plan for the future tourist trade in the Czech republic.

CESO volunteer advisers are professionally skilled men and women, usually retired, who share their experiences with businesses and organizations in developing nations and aboriginal communities in Canada. Since 1967 some 7,000 CESO volunteers have completed over 30,000 assignments in more than 100 countries and throughout Canada. In 1995, their 19,000 days of service were valued at $7 million.

I thank Doug and all CESO volunteers for their significant contributions to international development and prosperity.

Evan And Joan Whitehead

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate the outstanding volunteer efforts of my constituents who recently returned to Canada after working overseas for CESO.

Mr. Evan Whitehead, accompanied by his wife Joan, went on assignment to Ghana in Africa. He had been asked by a stock brokerage and investment banking firm to train staff and to assist the firm in marketing its services.

Mr. Whitehead put in place a revised organizational structure with responsibilities well defined. He trained senior staff and management in marketing and also made recommendations to address computer software and hardware problems. He redesigned office space and layout, introduced the concept of weekly meetings and set up a recruitment program. Before Mr. Whitehead left Ghana, interviews were set up to recruit additional staff.

CESO is a volunteer organization supported by CIDA and hundreds of Canadian corporations and individuals who willingly share their years of experience with needy businesses and organizations in developing nations.

My congratulations to Evan and Joan Whitehead who reside in the riding of Lambton-Middlesex.

Pornography

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents have written to me to express their concerns

over the harmful effects of pornography. I join them in an expression of anger and sadness that women, men and children are exploited through pornographic material and that such material continues to circulate in our society.

Pornography has a corrosive and damaging effect on our culture and it has pushed the margins of acceptability and decency.

The campaign against pornography is the people's attempt to push back. Due respect for the dignity for all persons is the strongest measure in seeing the blight of pornography removed from our society.

I applaud and support the efforts of those who are trying to raise public awareness on this sad but important issue.

Women In Non-Traditional Jobs

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to draw attention to the courage and determination of women in non-traditional jobs.

In my riding, several women have managed to find work in occupations that traditionally excluded them. They are linewomen, welders, assemblers, surveyors, electricians, machinists, mechanics, truckers, engineers, and policewomen.

The Partance group and its board of directors recently published a directory containing information on and statements by 49 women holding non-traditional jobs.

I commend these women as well as the co-ordinator and counsellors of the Partance group, who, through their work, show that change is possible when the desire is strong enough. This is an example the people of my riding of Drummond follow with pride.

Bill C-216

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the people of this country, for once, enjoyed a small triumph in this House. Despite the best efforts of high-priced Ottawa lobbyists, the culturecrats and the full weight of the Deputy Prime Minister, the House adopted a bill to ban negative option billing.

Bill C-216 has moved just a few metres down the hall to the other place and, lo and behold, our unelected and unaccountable senators are playing games with this bill.

I ask citizens and consumers: What is the similarity between backroom events in this House and in the other House? Lobbying. Lobbying on the part of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the CRTC and powerful lobbying buddies, former politicians and bureaucrats. All these unelected senators and lobbyists are working overtime to bury a bill which was passed by the elected members of the House of Commons.

If there are any responsible members in that other place I would urge them to stand up and be counted on the side of consumers and quit their shameful blockade of the will of the Canadian public.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would remind you about criticism of the other place. We are getting very close to the line. Please be very judicious in your choice of words.