Debates of March 27th, 1996

Committees Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I am presenting a petition originally signed by 6,300 people in the riding of Shefford, which I represent in this House. This petition represents over 10 per cent of the adult population and the names were collected in five days. It asks that Granby's Canada employment centre, with all the existing services, be maintained.

The Granby CEC is an economic development tool essential to the Granby area. I would like to thank all those who helped collect the signatures, especially the Granby Chamber of Commerce, which organized and piloted the petition.

The petitioners call on Parliament and the Minister of Human Resources Development to re-evaluate their decision, in order to maintain the existing services at the Granby CEC.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions under Standing Order 36. The first is from Red Deer, Alberta. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and aged.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from Strathroy, Ontario. The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre. The first group of petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals' receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married people.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the second petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.

Tobacco Products

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, these petitioners make the following comments. They note that tobacco and its products are related to a number of illnesses, such as cancer, heart disease, strokes, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis.

They further note that they contain 4,000 chemical products that cause problems, 43 that cause cancer, and that perhaps 38,000 premature deaths can be attributed to cigarettes and the other products every year. They want it to be identified as a dangerous product.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first, with 325 signatures, is from my constituents echoing their frustration over another example of high taxation caused by government overspending or the potential of that.

They draw to the attention of the House that they oppose any increase now or in the future in the federal excise tax on gasoline.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from Sun Hope in memory of André Castet. This is a petition to ask that the rights and protection of victims take precedence over the rights of criminals and that substantive change happen to the Young Offenders Act over and above the ineffective changes of Bill C-37.

The third petition, again from my constituents, calls on the House to recognize that dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles

should be locked up for life, violent offenders should serve their full sentences, that we should have a control registry of names and addresses and that we should keep offenders incarcerated if they are a risk to society.

Among other things the petitioners from my constituency ask for these changes.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a group of taxpayers who I know will be pleased that the finance minister obviously heard their message and did not increase tax on gasoline in this year's budget.

I am sure they would want the message presented to Parliament for consideration for next year's budget.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the second petition I have is from several hundred residents of this region urging Parliament to follow through on the commitment of the government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by numerous constituents of my riding.

The petitioners ask that the House not amend the Constitution, as requested by the Government of Newfoundland, and refer the problem of schools back to the Government of Newfoundland.

One of the instigators of the petition, Al Selinger, also states in an accompanying letter that such an amendment would abrogate the rights of a minority.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Law Commission Of Canada Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-9, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada.

I would first like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for their work in reviewing and amending the bill in the previous session. The amendments adopted by the committee, incorporated in Bill C-9, will contribute positively to the implementation of the legislation.

The passage of the legislation fulfils an important commitment made by the government in the red book that we would restore at the national level an independent capacity for law reform.

Bill C-9 will achieve that goal and it will do it in keeping with the government policy of ensuring that advisory organizations provide essential services that are cost effective and efficient. It is part of a broader effort to establish a more efficient and effective legal system.

We have made every attempt to reflect the results of our nationwide consultations in the legislation before members today. The legislation proposes a lean commission, flexible in form, multidisciplinary and inclusive in function with an emphasis on streamlining the legal system.

The preamble provides a guiding framework, a philosophy by which the new commission would be governed. This framework takes the form of specific principles identified in the consultations including openness, inclusiveness, responsiveness, a multidisciplinary approach, innovation and cost effectiveness. The law commission visualized in Bill C-9 will be different from that of the

former commission in its attention to the process of reform and the stakeholders involved.

The commission's mandate will be to study and to keep under systematic review in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the common law and the civil law systems the law of Canada and its effect with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform that will ensure a just legal system that meets the changing needs of Canadian society and of individuals in that society.

In exercising its mandate the commission will provide advice on the development of new approaches to the law; measures to make the legal system more efficient, economical and accessible; partnerships and co-operative arrangements with other communities in Canada to stimulate critical debate; the elimination of obsolete laws an anomalies in the law.

An important consideration underlying this legislation is the particular balance struck between the independence of the commission and the need for accountability.

The commission will be an independent arm's length body reporting through the Minister of Justice to Parliament and will set its own agenda. This independence would be balanced by a requirement in the legislation ensuring that the minister be consulted before the agenda is set.

The legislation provides for a ministerial reference power but also requires that the minister consult with the commission before making such a reference.

The commission, through the minister, would table study reports, agendas and annual reports before Parliament. Similarly, the minister would be required to respond to any report received from the commission.

The commission will consist of five commissioners, a small permanent secretariat, a volunteer advisory council and volunteer subject panels. The president will be full time while the other four commissioners will serve part time. Instead of retaining a large in house staff to conduct studies, the commission will contract for research from outside sources or enter into joint arrangements with existing institutions and agencies.

To provide the commission with the capacity to examine the law of Canada in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the two juridical systems in Canada, common law and civil law, an amendment was introduced by the committee to require that members of the commission be chosen, taking into specific consideration the need for commissioners as a group to have knowledge of the two legal systems.

As an indication of the desire for the new commission to conduct business in an open and inclusive fashion, the advisory council will be established in legislation to provide advice on the strategic direction of the commission and to review its performance.

To further ensure that the commission will be provided with advice reflecting the principles enunciated in the legislation's preamble, the committee proposed that the same factors be taken into consideration when appointing members to the advisory council, as in appointing the commissioners.

Therefore although membership is not limited to the legal community, members should be broadly representative of the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of Canada, represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of common and civil law systems. I believe this amendment enhances the legislation and the ability of the commission to fulfil its mandate.

I mention the amendment made to the mandate of the advisory council, clause 19. Rather than operating at the request of the commission, the advisory council will have an obligation to advise the commission in matters related to its strategic direction, program of studies and performance.

In other matters related to the purpose of the commission the advisory council will have discretion in exercising its advisory function. This amendment, introduced in committee, is critical to ensuring a transparent and inclusive process intended to be open and responsive to Canadian society. I strongly support this amendment.

The existence of the advisory council and the ability to create subject panels will be a significant departure from the structure of the former Law Commission of Canada. It is through these bodies that consultations will be institutionalized.

In addition, the commission will be designated a departmental corporation to enable it to receive funds from outside sources, from private and voluntary sectors and to generate revenues through the sale of annual reports and other publications.

In conclusion, the commission envisioned by the legislation represents and number of significant differences from the former Law Reform Commission of Canada. Its broadened approach to the process of law reform is to be inclusive, multi-disciplinary and open to all sectors of Canadian society. There will be greater emphasis on the efficiency and economy of the legal system. It will have a leaner budget and a structure employing part time commissioners, a small secretariat and the use of outside researchers optimizing joint arrangements, collaboration and partnerships, notably with the academic community. It will have a more inclusive manner of operating, using an advisory council and subject panels. Innovative approaches, including new information technol-

ogies, will support a commission which will approach its task with more vigilant attention to cost.

The purpose of the bill is to bring a wide ranging, integrated approach to the improvement, modernization and the reform of the law of Canada. The law is the infrastructure of our social and economic life and in this context, law reform is an essential ingredient to nation building.

I am confident that the Law Commission of Canada as proposed in Bill C-9 will make an important contribution to this vital enterprise. I urge the House to pass this bill.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, here we are at third reading of Bill C-9, which provides for the creation or rather the exhumation of the Law Commission of Canada. Whatever the case may be, the Minister of Justice today wants to revive this useless body, which cost taxpayers $105 million over its 20 years of existence and which made few recommendations that Parliament actually used.

The Law Reform Commission was established in 1971 under the Law Reform Commission Act. Its role was to systematically study and review Canada's laws. It did three main types of research: substantive criminal law, criminal proceedings and administrative law.

In its last year of existence, the commission had a budget of $5 million. In addition to the commissioners and employees, the commission hired a number of consultants on contract. More than 82 per cent of the commission's expenditures went to salaries and special professional services-primarily university researchers and lawyers hired as consultants for short periods. In this area, the accent is on research and not on practical management.

Unrealistic research programs and astronomical costs were the two main reasons the government of the day chose to abolish the commission.

When the commission was dismantled, the Department of Justice received interim credits so that the work that was furthest along could be completed, particularly the work in the multiculturalism and justice project, undertaken at the request of the minister.

In addition, in June 1993, Treasury Board gave final approval to the funding needed for the Department of Justice to set up and implement a long term law reform strategy. One of the aims of the program was to provide the department with the resources it needed to study more law reform issues internally, for example, by paying experts on a contract basis in the areas under study; to work with other organizations such as the Quebec law reform institute and other major institutions in the field of justice.

The annual budget for projects in the law reform division ranges from $500,000 to $600,000. The studies funded by the division dealt not only with multiculturalism and justice but also with a whole range of problems related to law reform such as human rights, euthanasia, changes to the preliminary investigation procedure, jury selection and many others.

The division now includes three full time and one part time employees. The minister wants to set up a new commission when there is already a competent staff ready to respond to the government's requests.

The division is doing a very good job. The minister could very well entrust this law reform division with all the work needed to direct and reform Canadian law and to find innovative solutions to endemic problems. When I think about how this government is slashing the budgets of the NFB, Telefilm Canada and the CBC, I feel like hitting someone.

The Canadian government would rather waste $3 million a year on a commission that will carry out consultations. The Minister of Justice finds it desirable to appoint 29 federalist friends to this commission. The minister of consultation may not like it, but Bloc members will not be fooled. Ironically, it is the law reform division that, in May 1994, distributed a consultation paper and questionnaire on the creation of a new law reform commission to 884 individuals and organizations.

Of the 884 questionnaires that were mailed out, 126 were returned to the department. These are the extensive consultations referred to in the bill's preamble. Former members and researchers of the old commission were undoubtedly consulted. However, it is not so clear that consultations were held outside that community. But the consultation paper and questionnaire were distributed to all senators and members of the House of Commons.

One thing is clear: the provinces as legal entities were overlooked. The desire to seek out people's views is expressed several times in Bill C-9 but nowhere in the text could I find some concern about consulting the provinces as major stakeholders in Canada's legal community. According to the constitutional distribution of legislative powers, the federal government must legislate in its areas of jurisdiction. By creating a new commission, the federal government may well overstep its jurisdiction.

What concerns me the most is that the new commission's mandate is, and I quote: "to study and keep under systematic review, in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the common law and civil law systems, the law of Canada and its

effects with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform that- meets the changing needs of Canadian society and of individuals in that society".

In light of this statement of principle, we must conclude once again that the federal government is seeking to centralize reforms and to standardize legislation across the country without taking regional disparities into consideration and above all without considering Quebec in its study and review of both legal systems in Canada. It is outrageous on the federal government's part to claim to be reforming and reviewing ing Quebec's civil law, since it has absolutely no jurisdiction.

The Minister of Justice should reread carefully section 92 of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is very upsetting to see him condone such inappropriate legislation. What are the real motives and goals of federal authorities concerning the new commission's role? Will the commission be yet another centralizing instrument? Is this not an indirect way of doing what is prohibited by the Constitution? The federal government's intentions are clear: It wants to standardize the law, whether civil or criminal, across the country.

The unavowed dream of federal authorities is to move into various areas of provincial law under the cover of direct consultations with the public, while ignoring the provinces. They want a single federal law from coast to coast.

This emphasis on the consultation by the commission can only be done at the expense of the research component, particularly if its budget is two million dollars less than that of the former commission, even with the use of new communication technologies. Indeed, these technologies involve costs which will probably be as high as the travel expenses incurred by the former commission, if not higher.

One has to wonder how an agency such as this one, with an annual budget of $3 million, can truly conduct or commission research and develop various programs to that end, while also holding major public consultations.

Bill C-9 provides that the research and analysis responsibilities that are incumbent on a reform commission will be assumed primarily by various social bodies independent from the commission itself. This is how the federal government will ensure the financing of its initiative.

Indeed, the Minister of Justice seeks to have the provinces indirectly finance research activities relating to law reform by having such activities conducted by university research centres, and even the Institut québécois de réforme du droit.

Under cover of a partnership and a streamlining of resources, the federal government is once again showing us that we have to keep a close eye on it. The cost of the research conducted by the commission will be borne by the provinces.

The mandarins in Ottawa, led by the Minister of Justice, view the provinces, and Quebec in particular, as nothing more than pressure groups, on the same footing as a gun manufacturers association, a seniors club or a chamber of commerce.

The bottom line is that the field of action of the new commission will not be limited to federal law. On the contrary, it appears from the policy statement and the preamble that the federal government will not make any bones about stepping into the provinces' fields of jurisdiction. The consultation paper published May 16, 1994 was already ominous. It says, and I quote: "-the need for law reform stems from the inability of existing laws to deal effectively with problems, and the root causes of those problems often involve the complex interaction of social, economic, health, education, and other factors".

What is the most worrying is that, with Bill C-9, Quebec loses its guarantee of representation on the commission. In effect, subsection 4(3) of the old Law Reform Commission Act guaranteed that two of the five commissioners came from Quebec. Not only is the federal government not consulting Quebec in the areas that concern it, but it is also excluding it outright by not having a representative from our province.

In addition to the absence on the commission of Civil Code experts from Quebec, the skills and abilities of the commissioners are extremely vague. I note in passing that the government has completely ignored the recommendation by the Canadian Bar Association that women be represented equally in the composition of the commission.

If we look at clause 7 of Bill C-106, before it went to committee, all we find is the following passage, and I quote:

1. As a group, the Commissioners should be broadly representative of the socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canada and represent various disciplines.

In committee, we attempted to reason with government members, but they turned a deaf ear. At the very most, and as often happens with this government, we are left with an empty shell, in the form of clause 7(3) as it now stands:

7.(3) As a group, the Commissioners should be broadly representative of the socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canada, represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of the common law and civil law systems.

This means that, if the commissioners have a knowledge of the civil law, they do not have to come from Quebec. What explanation can there be for this lack of logic? What explanation can there be

for the only province in Canada with civil law and which comprises one quarter of the Canadian population not being represented on the commission?

The federal government's intention to shove Quebec aside is still more obvious in the English version of Bill C-9. It states, and I quote, that the commissioners "represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of the Common law and Civil law systems". In the English version, then, they need only reflect a degree of knowledge of the Quebec system and can, just as easily as not, come from British Columbia or the Yukon. This is shameful.

Not only does the federal government wish to interfere with areas that are not within its jurisdiction, but it has the audacity to do so in a cavalier fashion. This is a situation in which incompetence comes very close to deception.

The composition of the Supreme Court ought to have been the exampled followed. The Supreme Court Act calls for at least three of the nine judges to be from Quebec. It is totally logical for the highest court in Canada to reflect the two legal systems in the country. Why did the Minister of Justice not subscribe to the same logic?

A final consequence of the federal approach is that, by allowing the future commission to address provincial law, the provinces face the risk of bowing to pressure for uniformization. This will be even stronger, to the point of being unbearable, if the provinces do not have a hand in determining the composition of the commission and its mandate, and in approving that mandate. For this reason alone, Bill C-9 is unacceptable.

This is not all. Unlike the former Law Reform Commission Act, clause 4 of the bill accords less importance to the new commission's research role and focusses more on lucrative and other organizational and promotional activities. This contradiction is striking, to say the least.

These new requirements are indeed surprising and a long way from the role that should be played by a commission responsible for reforming the law and carrying out the mission set out in clause 3 of the bill. The reason is simple. The Minister of Justice wants to make his commission into a propaganda tool through a basic shift in its mandate.

Not only is he broadening the scope of the commission in order to encroach in areas of provincial jurisdiction, not only is he dropping Quebec's representation on this commission, but he has the gall to use his new commission as a marketing tool to promote federal interests.

How do you expect the Bloc to support such a bill? The minister wants us to believe that his commission will be independent. In clause 3, the bill clearly provides, and I quote, that:

The purpose of the Commission is to study-the concepts-of the common law and civil law systems-with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform-

This is bunk. The appointments of the five commissioners are clearly partisan. It reeks of payment for loyal services. The five commissioners will be appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Department of Justice. The commissioners will also be appointed during pleasure. In other words, they will be relieved of their duties if they are unsuitable and fail to follow the party line and the legislative program of the government in power.

Following their appointment, the commissioners then appoint the members of the advisory council. There will be 24 of them. They too are appointed during pleasure. They are not paid for what they do, but do receive travel and living expenses. These 29 people will make up the Law Commission of Canada. With 29 partisan appointments, the Minister of Justice is creating his own fan club of intellectuals, who will philosophize over the ins and outs of the law.

They will be so far removed from reality, that the Minister of Justice will soon realize his error and put an end to this commission.

In a different but equally important connection, any reform agency has problems inherent to its nature and mandate. The former commission never overcame the intrinsic problem of time. The more complex and lengthy the bill, the longer its consideration takes and, consequently, the higher the chances that the sociopolitical context has changed drastically between the time when the commission started studying the bill and the time when it finished, which makes it more difficult to adopt reform proposals as submitted.

The former commission was severely criticized in this respect by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada in the House of Commons. In 1985, the auditor general's office conducted an in-depth audit of the operation and management of the former commission. In his report, the auditor did not mince his words about the project management approach of the commission.

One excerpt speaks volumes; it says, in essence, the following: "Since 1972, the commission has neither reviewed its initial research program nor submitted a further program, in spite of the fact that its work has changed considerably. There were also major delays in the implementation of its research program and major cost overruns compared to 1972 cost estimates. For example, not one of the completion deadlines were met, and in many cases, projects have yet to be completed 10 years after the original completion date".

In paragraph 10.30 of his report, the auditor general points out that the absence of written guidelines and procedures has caused deficiencies in the commission's contracting process. The report cites among other examples the fact that the basis for selecting

various consultants or researchers were not put in writing. The report concludes that, unless it goes to tender, the commission should justify its choices in writing to ensure that any given choice was reasonably motivated.

Bill C-9 does not act on the auditor general's recommendations. A follow-up audit conducted by his office in 1998 showed that, three years after it was initially recommended that it do so, the former commission still had not undertaken a comprehensive review of its program effectiveness.

If I interpret the commissioners' complaints correctly, the former commission was in greater need of direction and control than of an arm's length situation and mandates as broad as they are ill-defined. The justice department never assumed its responsibility as a regulatory body. The situation had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the government did not have a choice any more. It had to get rid of the commission and integrate some of its resources into the Department of Justice, hence the establishment of the law reform division.

I would like to say that the justice minister cannot be serious when he describes the future commission as a streamlined law reform commission of Canada. If he was serious about streamlining, he would let it be. A streamlined commission already exists within his department.

The Minister of Justice did not learn from the mistakes of the former commission. He chose to ignore the report in which the auditor general severely criticized the former commission. It has not gotten through to him yet that there is already, within his own department, a division whose sold purpose is to reform Canadian law. By failing to learn from past mistakes, he runs the risk of making the same mistakes.

Moreover, and the minister will not be warned again, Quebec will not be fooled by this cheap trick aimed at invading its areas of jurisdiction, spending public money needlessly in the process. The Bloc Quebecois cannot condone this kind of manoeuvring.