Debates of May 29th, 1996

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

I thank you for providing this information. I was asked to take the matter under advisement. I want to find out what the policy was in months and years passed. The Chair will make a decision if necessary.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while we are sitting around waiting for the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to come, I wonder what the chances are of me presenting a couple of petitions? Is there time?

[The Speaker]

Right now they wouldn't be so hot.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

We only have 45 seconds and, hark, I think I hear somebody coming.

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General of Canada in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (nuclear undertakings) and to make a related amendment to another act-Chapter No. 12.

Bill C-9, an act an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada-Chapter No. 9.

Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts-Chapter No. 11.

Bill C-14, an act to continue the National Transportation Agency as the Canadian Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or repeal other acts as a consequence-Chapter No. 10.

Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions-Chapter No. 6.

Bill C-16, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts-Chapter No. 7.

Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts-Chapter No. 8.

Bill C-275, an act establishing the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians-Chapter No. 13.

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Justice

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report to the House on a matter that involves the management of the Department of Justice for which of course I am responsible.

My reference is to the communications that took place recently between Assistant Deputy Attorney General Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Julius Isaac of the Federal Court of Canada.

The communications related to a number of citizenship revocation cases that are pending before the Federal Court. The circumstances in which those communications took place have raised concerns that require an appropriate response.

Canada has one of the finest judicial systems in the world. Its strength is derived in great part from the principle of judicial independence and from the confidence of the public in the integrity of those who administer the system.

Canada's Department of Justice has a special responsibility to ensure that judicial independence and the integrity of the system are maintained. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I, in turn, am answerable for the department and for its officers.

I can tell the House that in its dealings with the courts and with other counsel, the Department of Justice takes its responsibility in this regard very seriously. And so do I.

This brings me to the particular matter. I want to note at the outset that as soon as the department became aware that Mr. Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac had met, and as soon as the correspondence between the two came to light, the department provided copies of that correspondence to the lawyers acting for the three persons involved in the revocation cases pending before the Federal Court.

The communications in question are now the subject of litigation before the honourable Mr. Justice Cullen of the Federal Court. The

Court must now decide whether the communications between Chief Justice Isaac and Mr. Thompson justify staying the proceedings in the three revocation cases.

Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for me to argue the details of that issue in the House but hon. members should know that justice counsel are opposing the motion for a stay. Our counsel have formally acknowledged in court that this meeting between Ted Thompson and the chief justice ought not to have taken place without other counsel being present.

Counsel are arguing that staying the proceedings is not the appropriate response. Quite apart from the court proceedings, I have a larger responsibility to ensure that appropriate steps are being taken internally to evaluate the conduct of my own officials in the matter and to respond as required.

In that regard, I want to inform the House of three developments. First, Mr. Ted Thompson has, on his own initiative, written to the Law Society of Upper Canada to inform them of this incident. He has asked the Law Society, which is the governing body for lawyers in this province, to decide whether his actions constitute professional misconduct.

He has agreed to make himself available to the Law Society to answer all questions and to produce any documents that relate to these events. This is the right thing to do. I would have expected no less from Ted Thompson, who is an excellent and an experienced lawyer and has served the Department of Justice long and very well.

Second, the deputy minister of justice has retained the services of the Hon. Charles Dubin, the former chief justice of Ontario who has particular expertise in these matters to review the facts surrounding Ted Thompson's communications with the court and to determine whether his conduct or that of any others in the department departed from the standards expected of a departmental employee.

I believe that within the Department of Justice the principles governing the relationship between the courts and judges on the one hand, and justice officials on the other, are well known and are broadly understood.

Notwithstanding that, we have also asked Mr. Dubin to suggest any steps that he thinks I should take, or that my officials should take, to ensure that in our dealings with the court, the department does nothing to harm the independence of the judiciary, or to reduce the public's confidence in the integrity of the justice system.

Mr. Dubin has been asked to provide his advice as soon as possible. Once Mr. Dubin's advice is in hand, the deputy minister will discharge his responsibility to decide what steps, if any, should be taken as a result of it.

I will advise the House of the deputy minister's actions and the reasons for them at an appropriate time, having regard to the proceedings that are pending.

Third, I should tell the House that Ted Thompson has decided to take leave of his current position as assistant deputy attorney general until Mr. Dubin reports to the deputy minister.

I conclude by emphasizing that I take this matter seriously. Allegations of impropriety against officials of the Department of Justice are quite exceptional. It is precisely because the department has a deserved reputation for understanding and maintaining the principles of judicial independence and impartiality, and for respecting the highest standards in its dealings with other parties in the courts, that I have felt it necessary to address the House today.

I will, of course, keep the House informed as to the ultimate resolution of the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am outraged at the way the Minister of Justice is dealing with the Ted Thompson issue.

This is a case of a senior official from the federal justice department interfering with the judicial process. An assistant deputy attorney general, Ted Thompson, tried to influence the Chief Justice of the federal court to speed up the proceedings of a case involving the federal Department of Justice. This is why I am outraged.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Mr. Thompson threatened to make a reference to the Supreme Court if proceedings were not accelerated. Threats were made. Given such a blatant case of undue interference on the part of one of his senior officials, we expected the Minister of Justice to take quick, energetic and decisive action. However, the minister is doing just the opposite.

First, he sets up a non public inquiry which must report at the earliest opportunity, but with no specific date set. Given the seriousness of the incident, the public has a right to quickly know all the circumstances surrounding this matter. It is unacceptable that such a serious incident be investigated behind closed doors.

The minister must pledge to release the full report of the inquiry that will be conducted by Mr. Justice Dubin, a report that will

undoubtedly condemn the action taken in this case. Let us hope that the Minister of Justice will have the decency to make the results of this report public when the House is sitting, and not at some quiet moment, as the government has unfortunately taken to doing recently.

Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the minister can fail to address in his statement the threat made by his assistant deputy minister to take a reference to the Supreme Court. It is completely unacceptable that the Department of Justice of Canada can hold this authority as a threat over courts of first instance.

The minister has a responsibility to reassure the public about the integrity of his department and to state clearly that the threat to exercise authority to take a reference to the Supreme Court is completely intolerable, and instead of trying to cover for his official, he should have expressed his disapproval and dismissed him immediately.

Of course, Mr. Thompson has decided to take leave of his position while awaiting the results of the investigation. However, the minister cannot shirk his responsibilities by hiding behind his investigation. Furthermore, he himself admits in the statement he has just made that he is answerable for the actions of his department and its officials.

In addition, before the court, lawyers from his own department admitted that Mr. Thompson had approached the chief justice. So what more is the minister waiting for? On the very face of it, it is clear that the deputy attorney general has committed a serious error that the minister must indicate his disapproval of through an immediate dismissal. This he refuses to do, instead singing the praises of Mr. Thompson in his statement.

Another fundamental point is completely absent from the justice minister's statement. Two Federal Court judges, one of them the chief justice, have demonstrated a flagrant lack of impartiality and integrity in their task as guardians of justice. In fact, instead of showing Mr. Thompson the door, the judges complied with these requests, thus violating their duty to remain neutral and impartial. The presiding judge, Mr. Justice Jerome, even had to remove himself from the case as a result of this incident.

I would remind the minister that, as he himself pointed out in his statement, responsibility for ensuring the independence of the judiciary rests with him. The two judges in this case, Chief Justice Isaac and Associate Chief Justice Jerome, have obviously not fulfilled their duty of integrity. What is the minister waiting for to refer these two cases to the Canadian Judicial Council?

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is outraged by the insignificant and not very convincing actions taken by the justice minister in response to such a serious case of undue interference in the judicial system. The minister is clearly shirking his responsibilities as watchdog of the integrity of the judicial system. We are asking the minister to launch a public inquiry, to take immediate action against Mr. Thompson, and, in particular, to file complaints about the actions of the judges in this matter.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respond today to the statement made by the justice minister regarding the communications which took place between Assistant Deputy Attorney General Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Julius Isaac of the Federal Court.

This is an extremely serious matter. Many questions have not been answered and we must get to the bottom of this whole situation before we can rest assured that the independent integrity of the justice system is in place and working.

I agree with the statement of the Minister of Justice that Canada's Department of Justice has a special responsibility to ensure that judicial independence and the integrity of the system are maintained. We must have a very distinct line between those who create the law and those who enforce it. That is a very firm principle on which we all stand, including the Reform Party of Canada.

The minister said that the justice department provided the defence attorneys acting for the three persons involved in the revocation cases with copies of the correspondence between Mr. Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac as soon as it was aware of the situation.

The minister did not disclose today when the information regarding this judicial interference was brought to his attention. The meeting between Mr. Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac took place three months ago. Did the minister just recently learn of the March 1 meeting, or has he had knowledge of it for months? This question remains unanswered. If the minister wishes to clear this matter up we must know who knew about Mr. Thompson's intervention and when. This must include the minister. We must know when he first became aware of this matter.

Editorials appeared in both the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen on May 23. The Globe and Mail made this observation: ``Nobody seems to be paying much attention to the attempt by a senior justice department official to influence a judge''.

The Citizen stated: ``Allan Rock and Federal Court Chief Justice Julius Isaac owe the public an explanation about the latest and potentially worst official blunders, and they owe it right away, because the independence of Canada's courts has been jeopardized''.

In view of these recent editorials it is rather suspect that the minister has just now, three months after the fact, publicly stated an internal departmental investigation is taking place.

Many other questions remain unanswered, questions the minister has not made reference to today. It must be determined who authorized Mr. Thompson's private meeting with the chief justice. If the Minister of Justice did not authorize this meeting, nor did the deputy minister, was Mr. Thompson acting on his own? If it is determined that Mr. Thompson was acting on his own, on how many other occasions that have not been made public has the assistant deputy attorney general interfered in judicial proceedings?

The minister said he has the responsibility of ensuring that appropriate steps are being taken to evaluate internally the conduct of officials in the matter and to respond as required. In my opinion the only appropriate response is for the minister to ask for the immediate resignation of Mr. Thompson. The evidence is quite clear. Mr. Thompson crossed the line, which is absolutely unacceptable. Chief Justice Isaac crossed the line as well.

The minister made absolutely no mention today that any action be taken against the chief justice of the federal court in this regard. The minister has not laid a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, which is the only appropriate course of action.

I leave the House with the 1986 landmark decision of then Chief Justice Brian Dickson: "No outsider, be it government, pressure group, individual or even another judge, should interfere in fact or attempt to interfere with the way in which a judge conducts his or her case or makes his or her decision. This core continues to be central to the principle of judicial independence".

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 19th report later today.

I also have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference from the House of Commons on Thursday, March 7, 1996 in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 with regard to vote No. 20 under the privy council chief electoral officer. The committee reports the same.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration relating to settlement renewal.

Constitution Act, 1867

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

Mr. Speaker, this has taken over a year of research and effort on behalf of my own staff, my lawyer in legislative counsel and the diligent staff of the Library of Parliament. I thank all of them for their hard work and expert assistance. I also thank those members of Parliament who jointly seconded my bill.

My property rights bill amends the Canadian bill of rights and adds two new sections to the Constitution Act of 1867, thereby strengthening property rights in federal law.

If passed, the bill would specifically guarantee that every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's property and the right not to be deprived of their property unless the person is accorded a fair hearing, is paid fair compensation, the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially, and that the compensation is paid within a reasonable amount of time.

Every person's property rights would be guaranteed in every law of Canada unless it is expressly declared by an act of Parliament that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights. An adoption of a notwithstanding would require the votes of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons.

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

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among parties and groups in the House and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the adoption of the following motion. I move that the first report of the

Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, presented Wednesday, April 24, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present two petitions which have been circulating all across Canada.

The first comes from Calgary, 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. They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against traditional families that make the choice to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the disabled or the aged.

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 the aged.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from South Porcupine, 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 by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

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 to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 100 residents of the city of Burlington, Ontario. They are praying that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions and I have grouped them into three groups.

I present two petitions signed by 48 Canadians who ask Parliament to enact legislation that would prevent criminals from profiting financially from their crimes. Currently there is no Canadian law that prohibits convicted criminals from selling their stories for publication through books, movies or video tapes.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the second group of petitions I have the honour of presenting there are 16 petitions signed by 375 concerned Canadians primarily from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario who draw to the attention of Parliament that there are over 100,000 therapeutic abortions performed each year in Canada at a cost of over $50 million. Since Canadians deserve a say in how their scarce health dollars are spent and which health care procedures they consider essential, these petitions call on Parliament to support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next general election to determine whether Canadians are in favour of federal government funding for abortion on demand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also have 30 petitions signed by 697 Canadians from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario who are opposed to the inclusion of the term of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. These petitioners feel homosexuals are already protected by law and that the inclusion of the term of sexual orientation would only lead to special rights for homosexuals. These special rights would in turn infringe on the fundamental rights of Canadians such as freedom of religion, conscience and belief. I am pleased to present these petitions.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions signed by approximately 200 residents of Scarborough, Markham and North York.

The petitioners call Parliament's attention to the difficulties associated with the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in the human rights act and the possible effect that may have on other Canadians' rights and freedoms and they ask Parliament not to further proceed with any such legislative amendment.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government House leader when I can expect to receive answers to my questions on the Order Paper Nos. 2 and 4.

I requested an answer within 45 days. As of today 93 days have already passed. Also, before the House prorogued they were on the Order Paper for 71 days. That is a total of 164 days. The answers to these questions are a matter of public safety and include government liability for injuries suffered by prisoners under its care and the unsafe storage of firearms in police and military armouries.

The government keeps assuring me there is to be an answer but so far none has come forward. When can I expect and answer?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his patience and endurance. We expect to provide him with some information very soon.