Debates of March 30th, 1998

Judges Act

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill, who is a lawyer and who has brought her expertise on legal matters to this party which has been greatly appreciated.

In the beginning of her speech she mentioned that the justice system has ground to a halt. She brought forth a heart-wrenching example. This is a situation that we are faced with across the country. Justice is being delayed. Justice delayed is justice denied. If we want to make sure that justice is done, it has to be done in an expeditious fashion.

The problem is that the government has failed to adopt any of the constructive solutions that have been put forth to ensure that we have an expeditious criminal justice system so that people who are arrested get a fair trail in a timely fashion, in a reasonable timeframe. The system right now does not provide for that.

I ask my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill whether she can provide to the House some constructive solutions that the government can adopt to ensure that individuals who are in our criminal justice system will go through the system in an expeditious and fair fashion.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would like a long dissertation on this subject and I would be happy to provide one. However, I will limit my comments to just a minute or two.

There is a lot of frustration over the length of time it takes a lot of these cases to be dragged through the courts, not just on the criminal side but also on the civil side. When this matter was studied, and it has been studied to death by the Canadian Bar Association, by the trial lawyers association and by various task forces, one of the main recommendations was to change some of the rules of courts to limit the grounds upon which adjournments can be granted and to ensure that there are specific timeframes given within which steps in a case must go forward.

Some of my colleagues who have dealt with the justice system or who are lawyers themselves will know that adjournments are routinely granted for almost any reason. This can happen even though people have taken time off work to appear as witnesses in support of a plaintiff or the accused. All of a sudden, in two seconds, someone stands and says “I am asking for an adjournment” and it is off the docket until another time. This is very frustrating and very inconvenient.

That would be one simple way to bring things forward. There are a number of recommendations along that line. Perhaps I will get to them at another time. I believe that is enough said on the subject, except to add that this is an enormous frustration not only for the constituents who I just spoke about, but for literally thousands and thousands of Canadians who have to deal with the justice system.

If the government were going to be responsive to the wishes of Canadians, then it would do a lot to move in that direction instead of dealing with some of these other matters that we have talked about today.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-37. This bill seeks to amend the Judges Act, something which the government has put forth on a number of occasions. I will go through this bill briefly and provide some constructive solutions for the government so it can truly make meaningful amendments to this act.

The primary purpose of the bill is to increase the pay of federally appointed judges. They will receive a 4% increase both for 1997-98 and for 1998-99. Their salaries have been frozen like those of the rest of us for several years. That is a fact of life, given our fiscal restrictions. No one has any complaints about that. Our judges should be paid fairly. No one has problems with that.

Let us take a look at what the judges make here and what they make in the United States.

What are the yearly salaries for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada? The chief justice makes $163,800. The yearly salaries of judges of the federal court are as follows: the chief justice of the federal court makes $139,700, an associate chief justice makes $139,700, the 13 other judges of the trial division each make $127,700. As I said before, no one has a problem paying for competence.

Now let us look at what judges make in the United States. I will look at the salary reports in the U.S. as of January 1, 1997. The average salary of associate judges of the highest courts was $101,782. For intermediate appellate courts the average was $100,400, and for judges of general jurisdiction of trial courts the average was $91,000.

To put this in perspective, we can see that our judges make roughly one-third more than judges in the United States who have a relatively equivalent stature.

While the judges are receiving an 8% increase in their salaries, the people in our military are receiving 1.5%. There is no equity. As well, the proposals for MPs' salaries were much higher than what anybody else in the private sector would get. All we are asking for is some fairness and equity for people across this country who are being paid, in effect, by the taxpayer. In other words, one group should not get much more than other groups.

There are enormous opportunities for the government to really deal with this issue. I just returned from the United States. They have done some innovative things in California to put accountability back into the judicial system. They elect their judges, instead of appointing them. Competence is ensured through the electoral system. I will illustrate how they do this in California in the hope that the government will adopt it so we can elect judges in our country.

In California they use one election system for trial court judges and another for appellate court judges. The judges serve six-year terms and they compete in a non-partisan election. That is important. It has nothing to do with politics. It is a non-partisan election in which individuals run on what they will offer and on what they have done as judges. Anyone who gets more than 50% of the vote is declared elected.

The justices of the supreme court serve 12-year terms and are on the ballot in November every four years. There is a revolving door, with one-third of the judges being on the election ballot every four years.

Individuals from the public who will be putting their ballots forward can get information on the judicial candidates in a number of ways. They can read the local newspapers which cover the judges. They can call the county bar association. They can read the candidate's own campaign literature and evaluate the campaign literature of the judges themselves. This way the public can evaluate the judges based on what they are going to offer in the position. Again, they will be evaluated on the basis of merit.

There was a supreme court judge in California who tried to overturn this. The judge tried to strip the ability of citizens to have the power to decide whether an individual should run as a judge. Every state in the United States has a system of election and all but one, Rhode Island, has a term system of six, eight or twelve years. It does not extend for life.

Any enlightened court system has to blend executive appointments with public votes. It is probably the most sensitive way of ensuring that our judicial system is non-partisan, has merit and ensures that the people are the ones who are going to judge the people who are going to judge them if they come into a court of law.

I would ask the government to consider the suggestion of an elected judiciary. I urge the government to look at the California system. The California system also has the ability to review the behaviour of judges.

Not so long ago there were a number of court rulings that had members of the public shaking their heads. There was a man who was charged and convicted of sexually assaulting a five-year old girl. The judge gave this person an extraordinarily low penalty. His argument was that the five-year old girl was being sexually provocative by sitting on the man's lap and rubbing herself up and down on him. Five-year olds do not think that way. This was a judgment that was beyond comprehension and it let somebody who had committed a foul, egregious crime out onto the streets to probably do it again. Where was the accountability? It simply did not exist.

Competence and a continual review process has to be in place. In California they have a system whereby a judge can be reviewed when his or her behaviour has been completely out of line.

We have to ensure that the judiciary is independent of the House. Their behaviour has to be independent, but competence and accountability in what they do as individuals has to be ensured. We are all accountable in this country.

Let us look at the incredible costs that exist today in our legal system. We have a legal aid system which is costing us billions of dollars. Perhaps there is another way to ensure that people who cannot afford the system will be able to get a good, competent legal defence and a fair trial at an affordable price.

In the United States, as well as a system of crown prosecution there is a system of crown defence. People are appointed to defend a person who cannot afford to pay for his or her defence. These appointed individuals give a good competent defence as salaried lawyers within the department of justice. This works very well in the U.S. I urge the government to look at that system. Perhaps Canada could appoint public defenders to give a good, competent defence to individuals who cannot afford a lawyer.

To streamline and expedite the system is extremely important. Unfortunately I am not a lawyer. Sometimes I wish I were. However, we have a system which enables individuals to put forth constructive solutions. I have a challenge for all the good, competent lawyers who work in the trenches in the legal system. I would ask them to provide us with good constructive ideas on how we can streamline the system, to come up with a good and fair legal system, an expeditious system that ensures people get a fair trial within a reasonable time.

Right now we have such a morass that we have justice delayed and justice delayed is justice denied. Justice denied is not justice. There are ways of doing this. Let us look at those ways and ensure these changes are made to the system. My colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill mentioned an example of adjournment proceedings where they are far too lenient with how those adjournment proceedings are performed.

Crime and punishment is another situation where our party has been accused of being, for want of a better word, far too right wing on the issue. We have really been given a hard time with this. Fortunately for us it is not true.

We look at justice in two ways. We look at it in a balanced way. We say that for those people who have been proven to be a threat to society, who are a danger to society and particularly those who are violent, it is the role of the justice department to ensure that those people do not go out and harm innocent people again. Those people should be met with the full force of the law, the objective being to protect innocent people.

There is another group of people who are non-violent and perhaps there are alternative ways of dealing with them such as the use of restorative justice. There are some very good programs in my province of British Columbia where restorative justice is used to ensure that people are going to be able to pay a penalty to society, pay a penalty to the victim and also ensure that they receive the rehabilitation and treatment they require, that they do not go into the cycle of crime, punishment and recidivism that takes place in far too many cases.

There is also the issue of prevention. Many months ago I introduced in this House a private member's motion calling for a national headstart program. There have been horrible shootings in Arkansas where 11 and 13-year-olds have been charged with committing some very foul murders, and in some recent tragic situations within our own country such as the terrible murder of Reena Virk in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. Their history does not exonerate these individuals from their actions but at least by looking at it we will be helped to understand that the origins of crime in many of these youths start at time zero.

It has been estimated that half the people in jail suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading cause of preventable birth defects in this country. These individuals have an average IQ of 68. It is preventable. We can do something about that. But it has to start at time zero. We have to identify families at risk. We have to ensure that those families receive their basic needs and the children receive their basic needs. There are programs that have done that.

The member for Moncton, from the government, has been a leader in the Moncton headstart program, a program that has been very effective at preventing children from entering into lives of crime at worst or at best suffering indignities that give them fractured psyches and make it very difficult for them to interact with society in a constructive fashion.

There is the Perry preschool program in Michigan, the Hawaii headstart program, the Montreal longitudinal study with Professor Tremblay which shows very clearly that if we are to address and prevent crime starting at time zero, when the building blocks of a normal psyche are developing, when we prevent the trauma to that developmental process, we will have a cost effective and indeed humanitarian way of preventing crime in the future.

This is how we prevent crime. The Reform Party is really taking a multipronged approach to crime. I know there are members across this House who have been working very hard, members from the NDP, members from the Liberal Party, members from the Conservative Party, members from the Bloc and members from our party, the Reform Party, who have been working very hard to develop a balanced approach to crime and punishment.

Many of us came to this House to ensue that we would have sensible proposals to crime and punishment so we can change the tide of what is occurring in our streets today. Let us not forget that with respect to youth crime the number one victims in youth crime are youth. They are the ones who have the most to lose and the most to gain from what we do in this House. They are also people who are not represented well in this House because none of them sit in this House. They are too young to be elected.

Let us do our job and ensure we can put our minds together to put forth these sensible, constructive, pragmatic and cost effective solutions to prevent crime. Headstart programs work. Let us introduce one. It does not have to be some huge sink hole of money. It can be done within existing resources.

I was in Atlanta where schools along with medical, professional and existing resources are used to make sure that basic needs are met. Parents need to know what proper nutrition is. Members would be surprised to know the number of parents who are in underprivileged situations who often had parents who did not teach them how to be parents, who do not know what proper nutrition is, who do not know what proper discipline is, who do not know what setting appropriate boundaries are for children, who do not know what substance abuse and violence do to the development of a child.

These are not just words. These are cold, hard scientific facts. The medical community has done studies and has ways to look into the brain through something called positron emission tomography which illustrates how brains work. Using a PET scanner we can see how the brain develops and how the brain is affected by various things. We can prove conclusively and scientifically that the traumas I mentioned before have a deleterious and disastrous effect on the development of that child's psyche.

We can prevent this. I hope the government uses the collective knowledge that is in this House today and all the tremendous experience and expertise in our country and in others to build these constructive solutions, work with the medical community, work with the counsellors, work with the schools and we will have a comprehensive plan to do this.

Of course it is absolutely essential that the government work with the provinces because most of the control has to be on a local basis where they can meet and fit with the needs necessary for the local community because not all communities are the same. An aboriginal community off reserve is different from an aboriginal community on reserve. It is different from a multicultural setting in urban Toronto. They are different. They have different needs but they can all be modified to address those needs.

It may be difficult to argue for it but pragmatically if we deal with the facts we will ensure that our society and our country will have a dramatic benefit in the next 10 years. The cost savings are massive.

With crime costing us $44 billion a year, even if we shave off 5% that is over $2 billion saved. Imagine what we could do with that $2 billion. We could provide tax relief to ensure that families are able to better meet their needs, strengthen our social programs, strengthen our health care system, strengthen our education system. These are cold, pragmatic arguments for this approach and it can be done.

Getting back to this bill, there are some innovative solutions to revamp our judiciary. I have mentioned them in my speech and my colleagues have mentioned it in their speeches. I hope the Minister of Justice takes these suggestions and implements them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear at the closing of the hon. member's remarks that he decided to get back to the bill at hand.

He was speaking to childhood nutrition and crime prevention which are of course very important issues. I always have time for my hon. friend in debates here in the House, though he may stray from the point of debate. He and I attended high school together in Scarborough just a few years ago.

Some of his colleagues have not provided me with so many things to listen to. His colleagues have chided the government for not having a list of priorities by placing this bill ahead of other bills they believe should be at the top. One of the members mentioned two items they felt were of priority. One was amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code and the other was amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

I was here in the last Parliament but I am not certain the other hon. member was. I have to remind the House that the government did amend both those items in the last Parliament. The government chose to amend section 745. The government chose and Parliament adopted legislation amending Young Offenders Act. This increased the penalties for murder and provided for the transfer of violent young offenders to adult court. Those were government priorities.

To the speech at hand, I could not help but note the references to the salaries of U.S. judges. I think they were in $90,000, $110,000, $115,000, $120,000 range. The member suggested they were one third less than the salaries proposed for our Canadian judges.

In fairness, did he forget to take into account the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canadian dollars? If he did, it is unfair to use those numbers. Would the hon. member like to recalculate judges' salaries either in Canada or the U.S. to incorporate the exchange rate? A member on this side did a quick calculation and if we take the U.S. numbers, apply a 40% exchange rate, we would have the U.S. judges being 7% ahead.

However, would my colleague like to correct this for the record? Having not applied the exchange rate, the discrepancy between the judicial salaries is not as great as he suggested and it would help to put that on the record.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and fellow graduate of Neil McNeil high school in Scarborough for his question.

All things being equal, we do not equate salaries within a country based on what the exchange rate du jour happens to be. That is irrelevant. All salaries are based within the confines of our own country. The salaries of judges in the United States are one third less than the salaries of Canadian judges.

It would be nice if our salaries were taken into consideration according to the exchange rate. That is not the reality we live in. I will put this in his lap. He has been very constructive throughout many of the debates he has entered in this House. I hope the hon. member works with the Minister of Justice to deal with the issue of civil courts and what is happening with the civil court situation.

We unfortunately are moving toward the situation in the United States where civil courts and cases they are hearing are becoming spurious. I bring up the situation involving McDonald's. A woman had a cup of McDonald's coffee sitting on her lap. She spilled the coffee and received burns. She also received an extraordinarily high million plus dollar judgement in her favour.

We as a Parliament have to seriously look at the civil court situation to ensure we do not get tied up in spurious civil litigation that has a very onerous effect and very restrictive effect on society. It makes for a very fearful society. I hope the government and my hon. colleague will address the situation and use his expertise in the area.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member whose great concern for the well-being of society in general has manifested itself in many of the debates and certainly the exchanges in the standing committee meetings.

In listening to him three points came to my attention. With what is happening in the United States in particular with the murder of young children by young children, does he not think that perhaps there ought to be a change in the attitude of his party that he could deal with? I believe his party has a view of gun control that is not in the best interest of preventing this very dangerous equipment from being close at hand for young people. The member also might want to think about the fact that the number one killer of women are guns.

Also I would like to ask my hon. colleague about his concern with respect to the salary of judges. I am much more concerned about the election of judges. Does he not believe that this might put judges in a conflict of interest situation and open to potential abuse? I have serious concerns about the misuse of power in the hands of an elected person.

The last question I would like to pose to him is in light of the particular bent of the Reform Party. The member is talking about enabling legal aid. Does my colleague not realize that is provincial jurisdiction and perhaps it would be best for him to encourage his colleagues in the provinces to take a look at the way they allocate funds for legal aid? I do agree that many things need to be changed.

When he talks about the fact that we do not have a comprehensive plan and that he is approaching this whole debate with a comprehensive plan, it might be most informative if they looked at the work we are doing in prenatal parental care and the grants that we are giving to ensure nutrition, public health and a better understanding as mothers.

They should also look into the field of prevention undertaken jointly by the provinces and the federal government, the question of the aboriginal head start and the $1.7 billion child tax credit which is not enough but it is certainly on the way.

The concern of the hon. member is being addressed in a way that can end up being a consolidated approach to better child development and learning.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Montreal who has repeatedly demonstrated in the House her deep interest, expertise and experience in the issue of crime prevention.

I would like to address a couple of points. I am glad she mentioned the Reform Party's attitude toward gun control. If the gun control bill, Bill C-68, would make our streets safer this party would vote for it. I looked at all the data in this regard very carefully. In fact, I appeared before the House standing committee on justice. I would be happy to speak with the member on this matter, to deal with the facts and to have good discourse with her. We feel very strongly. We would do anything to ensure that guns were not in the hands of 11 and 13 year olds.

We are completely in favour of responsible gun control. We would fight along with the government to ensure that firearms are not in the hands of children and to ensure that automatic weapons are not in the hands of criminals. We want restrictive gun control laws to ensure that guns and weapons which are not useful to hunters and such would not be in their hands. We have fought very hard for that. Unfortunately Bill C-68 would make our streets less safe by taking money out of the judicial system to put into gun registration.

We wanted to divide the bill into two sections. We supported the good parts of the bill but wanted to get rid of the bad parts that would make our streets less safe. We wanted to support the government in its pursuit of a bill that would make our streets safer. My colleagues and I would be very happy to speak to the member about that issue.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like other members of the Chamber I enjoy the opportunity to speak to Bill C-37.

What does Bill C-37 basically boil down to? It means that judges will receive a raise in a two year period of 8.3%. How many other public servants or how many other people in the country, period, can expect a raise of 8.3% in that short period of time?

There is a comparison to make. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have gone five years with a wage freeze. Are judges somehow more important? Do they have a higher priority with the government than those who enforce the law, than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? It appears so. They are misplaced Liberal priorities, things that both you and I have problems with, Mr. Speaker.

How many other Canadian workers can count on a retroactive pay raise like the one under Bill C-37 for judges? It just does not exist for other people. It is not on the Liberal agenda for other people and it is a crying shame.

As well there is nothing in Bill C-37 that addresses the patronage process for appointing judges. It is a shame. I am sure members know only too well that it is Liberal lawyers who go on to become Liberal justices. That has to end.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

I hear rumblings from members opposite who think that should be the case. Good for them. I encourage them to make amendments to Bill C-37 to make changes to the patronage process that awards justiceships to Liberals.

Let us speak to the lack of priorities for a second if we may. On the Young Offenders Act we have seen no substantive changes coming out of the government since it was elected. We still have serious repeat offenders who are being treated with kid gloves under the Young Offenders Act. Yet the priority of the Liberals is to raise the salaries of judges.

Surely taking care of serious repeat offenders, young offenders who violate the act again, again and again, must take a higher precedence not only in the eyes of the Canadian public but also in the eyes of the technocrats here. That must be more important than a raise in the salary of judges in this land.

Regarding section 745, I heard the Liberals claim that they have made changes to it. Tinkering they must be, for otherwise I would not have had to appear on the steps of some of the Alberta courts in 1997 with Darlene Boyd, a mother who lost a child and wanted to make sure the individuals who killed her child would not be getting early parole under section 745. If there had been substantive changes to section 745, mothers like Darlene Boyd would not need to make appearances before courts hoping that the killers of their children would not be set free.

I also speak to the lack of priorities in terms of the backlog of the courts. Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we have an address of the issue of the backlog in the courts. Surely this is something of high priority and concern. Yet we see nothing to deal with the backlog in the courts. Once again, they are fast to want to raise the salaries of the judges under Bill C-37.

My fourth point in terms of lack of priorities is that we have prison overcrowding. Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we see an address of the issue of prison overcrowding. Yet they are quick to raise the salaries of the judges in this land.

Maybe it is that Liberal politicians do not like to actually make laws in the House. They would rather abdicate the supremacy of parliament to the judiciary. As a result, they only see fitting that taxpayer money and their salaries go toward paying judges because they write more laws and make the laws, not the Liberals who like to abdicate that ability.

My fifth point is that street gangs are becoming a problem. Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we see an address of the issue of the rise of street gangs, but it certainly speaks to the raise in judges' salaries.

My sixth point concerns lack of priorities and once again speaks to the whole idea of judicial activism. I touched lightly on the idea that the justices rewrite and write the law of the land. It should be a supremacy of parliament that is respected. We as members of the House of Commons should write the law, not the justices. This does nothing to speak to the judicial activism that goes on and what is happening now with the justices' writing the law rather than elected members of the House of Commons.

The six reasons I listed are all perfectly justified. They give a clear indication of the lack of priorities of the Liberals in criminal justice. They would rather raise the salaries of judges than deal with the six substantive points that should take precedence over raising judges' salaries.

Now I will speak to the money. When the money trail is traced that is usually when these matters get interesting. Let us take a look at the lack of priorities in terms of money. A lot of working poor do not have the luxury of colour cable TV but our prisoners do. By committing a violent act they earn the right to have colour cable TV but the working poor do not have that right.

It is a misappropriation of government resources to raise the salaries of judges while it continues to give colour TV to our prisoners. This money could be better allocated to hiring more judges or RCMP officers to hopefully get rid of the backlog.

There is a lack of priorities when free condoms are handed out to prisoners in jail. I do not see the purpose of handing free condoms to sexual offenders in jail. They are not supposed to be having sex in jail. That is not the whole point, yet money is spent on handing out condoms to prisoners. It is a Liberal priority to hand out condoms to prisoners.

Bleach is given to prisoners to sterilize their contaminated needles. They should not be using needles in jail. Once again that is a Liberal priority.

We have a situation where prisoners have the right to sue and use public funds to initiate charter challenges. How is this justified? How is a charter challenge on behalf of a prisoner more justified than hiring an extra RCMP officer or an extra judge to look after the backlog in the courts?

Money is spent to make sure that the prisoners have a right to vote with all the logistical costs involved in that process. Paul Bernardo had an opportunity if he so wished to cast a ballot in the last election, which I believe was in your riding, Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly. How could anybody justify to a constituent in Kingston that money should be spent to allow Paul Bernardo to vote when there are other things that are much more needed?

Money is spent on pool tables in our prisons to make sure that our prisoners are entertained. There are many people in Kingston or in my home town of Calgary who would love to have unending amounts of time to play pool. They do not have that luxury because they have to pay taxes to the government and they have to work for a living. They cannot play pool as many hours as they might like to while away the day. Certainly Canadian prisoners have that ability because it is a Liberal priority.

Many other people would like to spend some more time on golf courses but the Liberals are allocating money to make sure prisoners have golf courses. I do not understand the logic in providing pool tables or golf courses. Why not hire more police officers?

The working poor would not be able to afford an exotic meal of eel, but such foods are shipped in to make sure the requirements are met for the Inuit serving time in our penitentiaries so that they have access to foods that are part of their traditional diets. We spend a lot of money on these types of perks and privileges for our prisoners.

It does not speak to the real needs of the Canadian justice system to hire more police officers or to hire more judges and not give them raises. Certainly none of these things speak to the priorities.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 6.30 p.m. we will now proceed with the adjournment motion.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago I asked the Secretary of State for Africa and Latin America a question concerning Sierra Leone, a small west African country, arguably the poorest country in Africa.

The country's legitimate government was overthrown in May 1997 by a so-called armed forces ruling council which itself was removed from power recently by a Nigerian led west African peacemaking force. I was very pleased to learn that the secretary of state will be visiting Sierra Leone tomorrow and gathering information about the state of affairs in that country.

The news reports from Sierra Leone are very serious. There is a crisis brought on by food shortages. Continued sporadic fighting in certain areas has also contributed to a serious refugee problem. Some reports put the number of people in need of food as high as half a million. This situation is extremely volatile. The west African force that I just mentioned which ousted the military junta replaced it with the civilian government which had previously been in power and which was led by former President Afmed Tejan Kabbah.

Freetown right now and a number of the other major centres such as Bo, Makeni and Kenema have been secured but there are still areas where there is sporadic fighting.

There is a great deal of suspicion about the intentions of the Nigerians in Sierra Leone. A recent article in The Economist magazine suggested that Nigeria may be interested in Sierra Leone's mineral wealth, which includes deposits of rutile, bauxite and diamonds.

Sierra Leone's recent history is a continuing tragedy of enormous proportions. Since independence in 1961 the country has been on a downward spiral brought on by political instability, greed, corruption and repression.

Within the last 30 years Sierra Leone has witnessed three conspiracies to overthrow the government, six attempted and five successful coups d'état. Over the last few years the political problems in neighbouring Liberia and Sierra Leone have created nearly one million refugees in the region.

My personal interest in Sierra Leone goes back about eight years when I first visited the country as a member of a delegation sponsored by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I was a participant from the city of Nepean. At that time I was involved in a municipal development project sponsored by CIDA involving the town of Bo.

I made a total of three trips to Sierra Leone, in 1990, 1991 and 1993. I was very pleased and proud to be involved in several projects including the construction of a new market building in the town of Bo.

What is Canada's interest in Sierra Leone? Apart from the Canadian aid and development agencies that have operated in the country for many years, including CAUSE Canada, the Red Cross and CUSO, there is a longstanding historical connection between Canada and Sierra Leone.

Many freed slaves from Nova Scotia made their way back to Freetown in the early decades of the last century. In this regard I understand there still is a community to community link which exists between Halifax and Freetown.

As an English speaking Commonwealth country, Canada shares many of the same traditions and institutions as Sierra Leone. It is interesting to note that as Commonwealth countries, Canada and Sierra Leone are at the top and bottom respectively of the United Nations human development index.

Although blessed with many mineral resources, Sierra Leone has simply been incapable of exploiting these resources for the benefit of its people who remain the poorest of the poor.

When the minister returns from his visit to west Africa I hope he will provide this House with a report on what he discovered in Sierra Leone, in Ghana and some of the surrounding countries.

Canada in relation to Sierra Leone has promised aid. I am sure many members of this House will probably share the view that we can and should do better in terms of food aid, medicine and reconstruction assistance to a country that has been seriously devastated.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this question to the attention of the minister and members of the House.

The hon. member asked what help we are extending to Dr. Tectonides. I am very happy to announce that Dr. Tectonides has returned to safety and to his family in Canada.

Throughout this crisis Dr. Tectonides' family was kept fully informed of all developments in Sierra Leone and of those concerning his whereabouts. On various occasions Dr. Tectonides' family expressed sincere appreciation for the fact that the Government of Canada and the international organization Médecins sans frontières were working together to secure the release and the return to safety of the doctor and the French logistician who had been abducted with him.

At present Dr. Tectonides is looking forward to his next assignment with the same organization, Médecins sans frontières.

On the issue of Canadian assistance to Sierra Leone, as the secretary of state mentioned in the House, we have provided $600,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross as an initial grant to the ICRC humanitarian assistance aiming at alleviating the suffering of the local population.

During his current visit to Sierra Leone in the context of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, the secretary of state, the hon. David Kilgour, will be in a better position to evaluate the humanitarian and other assistance needs of the Sierra Leone government.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I remind the hon. member not to refer to other colleagues in the House by their names. I am sure she forgot.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this adjournment motion in relation to a question I asked the minister on February 26, 1998 as to whether it was normal that employment insurance now allows no more than 40% of unemployed workers to receive benefits, compared to 83% in 1989.

This program is inappropriate, inefficient and unacceptable to Quebeckers and Canadians because fewer than 50% of the unemployed are entitled to benefits. This deprives the system of all credibility and integrity.

A very clear political message was sent during last year's federal election, and again just recently in the Nova Scotia election. This totally contradicts what the minister said, and I quote:

Canadians are perfectly happy that we had the courage to change the EI system.

What would take real courage would be to put the reform back on the table, to make it humane and acceptable, and to make sure that the program is really one which will give people a decent income when they are between jobs.

We have already managed to get the minister to admit that there were not as many cheats as former minister Young claimed. Today, the statistics indicate that no more than 3% are defrauding the system, which is more or less the figure for all systems.

What we want is a system for the 21st century, a system that will make people want to work, not one that leads systematically to welfare. Between 1990 and 1998, 200 000 Quebeckers and 750 000 Canadians were forced onto welfare by employment insurance reforms. That is not an incentive but a disincentive to work. It is an encouragement to get out of the work force, and the federal government has an important responsibility in the battle against poverty. It is encouraging an increase in poverty, rather than a decrease.

We want a 21st century system that will give people working for themselves access. The minister said:

—we are going to look into the matter and make the right decisions.

We have reached the point where it is urgent to take action. We are heading into the period of the year called the spring gap, in which people, with the new conditions of the system, lack an income for six, eight or ten weeks. These are people in the seasonal industries. These are people in fishing, agriculture and tourism. For a period of six, eight or ten weeks, the very survival of these people is threatened. They are penalized and often do not even qualify for social assistance.

Can we expect a decision from the government, despite the position taken last week in committee by the Liberals, who refused to report to the House on the first evaluation of the employment insurance reform? Is there no way to heighten their sense of responsibility and to get the government to act and change the employment insurance plan in keeping with the six bills, the constructive proposals of the members of the Bloc with the support of the NDP.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has indicated on many occasions that his department is conducting a review into why the percentage of unemployed Canadians receiving benefits is declining. We do not believe it is simply due to changes in the EI system. We believe the problem is far more complex than the hon. member is suggesting.

It may be that changes in the economy and labour market are resulting in more self-employed workers who are not eligible for EI. It could also be discouraged workers returning to the labour market as the economy improves. They have no recent work experience and therefore are not eligible for EI. That is why we are focusing on re-employment measures.

In terms of making changes to the employment insurance system, as the member knows, the former unemployment insurance program was 25 years old and in need of a massive overhaul to meet today's new demands. Canadians would not be satisfied with a step backward to an obsolete system as recommended by the opposition. Instead the federal government is working with the provinces to provide real solutions for unemployed Canadians.

We will spend an additional $800 million per year on active employment benefits under EI bringing federal funding to more than $2.7 billion annually by the year 2000-01. These benefits are about helping Canadians with the assistance they need to get back into the workforce.

We are also creating more new durable jobs by using the three year, $300 million transitional jobs fund that is now in place to help high unemployment regions.

We are also co-operating with provincial and territorial governments to deliver these benefits in the best possible way. Labour market development agreements are now in place or under discussion in all provinces and territories. Decisions on the best way to help the unemployed get back to work must benefit from the knowledge and insight of those most closely in touch with local markets.

We have confidence that these measures will be successful in helping the unemployed return to productive employment. As employment growth continues and the number of unemployed falls, the ratio of benefits to unemployed should also rise again.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)