House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was commission.

Topics

National Defence ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Division on this motion stands deferred until tomorrow.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Liberalfor the Minister of Justice

moved that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Ahuntsic Québec

Liberal

Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, judicial interdependence is the cornerstone of our democratic society, a principle clearly reflected in—

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could not get any translation through my earphones but I was of the understanding that our party was to speak next. The translation did not come through when you said resuming debate. I did not get any translation at all. I do not know if it is working or not.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

We are following the normal rotation on Bill C-37. Was the member referring to Bill C-37?

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Madam Speaker, if we are following the rotation that is fine. It is just that I was not sure what we were doing because I could not get English translation.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC

Madam Speaker, judicial interdependence is the cornerstone of our democratic society, a principle clearly reflected in and protected by sections 96 to 100 of the Canadian Constitution.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently reiterated that financial security for judges is a constitutional requirement established to ensure public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

On September 18, 1997, in the reference on the independence of provincial court judges in Prince Edward Island, the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that financial security for judges is a constitutional requirement established to ensure public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

In 1981, in recognition of the importance of judicial interdependence and the unique constitutional role of the judiciary, Parliament provided for an independent commission to examine the adequacy of judges' salaries and benefits. In its recent decision, the supreme court underscored the importance and necessity of the role played by such independent commissions in ensuring public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Canadian judiciary.

A key part of that decision is to require public justification by government for a decision not to implement or to only partially implement the recommendation of such a commission. The most recent commission on judges' salaries and benefits, chaired by Mr. David Scott, reported on September 30, 1996 and the commission's report was tabled in Parliament on October 11, 1996.

This government continues to support the principles that led Parliament to institute the judicial salary commission process 17 years ago. In light of those principles and the enhanced constitutional role of independent salary commissions following the supreme court decision, we have given serious consideration to the recommendations of the Scott commission. Bill C-37 would implement those recommendations which the government is prepared to accept.

Regarding judicial remuneration, the Scott commission recommended that judges' salaries be gradually increased by 8.3% from the date when the salary freeze was lifted: April 1, 1997.

By proposing only prospective increases, the Scott report reflects a position endorsed by the government and according to which it would be unreasonable for the judiciary not to be affected by the necessary budget restraints that were imposed from 1992 until just recently on all Canadians paid by the federal government.

This government agrees with Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada when he stated in Beauregard v. Canada: “Canadian judges are Canadian citizens and must bear their fair share of the financial burden of administering the country”. This view is echoed in the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the chief justice of Canada observed: “Nothing could be more damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and the administration of justice than a perception that judges were not shouldering their share of the burden in difficult economic times”.

At the same time, in deciding what was reasonable the Scott commission recognized that a complex range of factors must be considered in establishing an appropriate level of remuneration, including the need to ensure levels of compensation that attract and keep the most qualified candidates for judicial office.

The government is also aware that a number of provincial governments across Canada reacted to the recent supreme court decision by increasing their judges' salaries and that, in some cases, retroactive adjustments were also made to remedy previous salary cuts or freezes.

That is why the government proposed to amend the Judges Act to increase judges' salaries by 4.1% per year for two years, as of April 1, 1997.

Bill C-37 would also implement certain pension related amendments to the Judges Act, including the rule of 80 which will permit retirement when a judge has served on the bench for a minimum of 15 years and the sum of age and years of service equals at least 80.

The government agrees with this recommendation which responds in an important way to the changing democratic profile of the judiciary. More and more judges are being appointed at a younger age and many of these younger judges are women.

The current provision, although based on the rule of 80, requires the minimum age of 65. A judge who retires before 65 has no right to a pension at all. Therefore a judge appointed at the age of 50 can retire with a pension at 65 with 15 years of service but a judge who is appointed at 40 must serve 25 years, a situation that is increasingly considered unfair.

This situation is even more unacceptable when we consider that it has a particular impact on women judges, who constitute the majority of those appointed at an early age. The rule of 80 would allow older, longer serving judges to retire when they feel they no longer wish to continue in that role. Permitting this would be good for them and for the court as an institution.

The Scott commission has proposed a different retirement option for the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada who would be permitted to retire with a full pension after serving a minimum of 10 years on the bench. The government agrees with the commission that the immense workload and heavy responsibility inherent in membership on that court justifies the proposed retirement provision. However, the government proposes to limit it to those judges who have reached age 65.

The bill would also make a couple of other changes to judges' pensions in the interest of fairness. It would allow common law spouses to receive surviving spouses' annuities and it would give a judge who marries after retirement the option of receiving an actuarially reduced pension which continues until the judge and the spouse have both died.

These are both common features of other pension plans. The common law provision in particular is an equality issue which recent jurisprudence suggests is overdue for inclusion in the act.

I want to point out that while the government has given serious consideration to the Scott commission recommendations, we are not prepared to accept them all.

The Scott commission recommended that the judges' life insurance coverage paid by the government be more in line with that of deputy ministers. However, before responding to the proposals made by the Scott commission, complex and serious matters must first be considered, including the equity issue arising from the potential diverse impact on younger judges, including women judges, of the resulting increase in a taxable benefit.

While there has been some discussion of the range of approaches to this issue, fuller consideration of this and other options is required. This is therefore an issue that would be appropriate to refer to the new commission once established for further study and recommendations.

A very important part of Bill C-37 is improvements to the judicial compensation commission process that are responsive to the supreme court decision and are designed to reinforce its independence, objectivity and effectiveness.

The judicial compensation and benefits commission would conduct an inquiry into the adequacy of judicial compensation once every four years. However, to provide flexibility timeframes would be extended on agreement.

The commission would have nine months to complete its inquiry and submit a report to the Minister of Justice. Again flexibility is provided by providing that the period to report be extended on the agreement of the minister. In addition, the minister could submit a matter to the commission for full inquiry, make recommendations at any time and establish the timeframe for a report in such cases.

The independence of the commission would be enhanced by our proposal that it have one member nominated by the judiciary and one nominated by the Minister of Justice. The representatives of each side would in turn nominate a third member who would be chair. Members would be appointed by the governor in council for a fixed four year term on good behaviour, removable for cause. Terms could be renewed once on renomination.

The bill also includes a proposal that the Minister of Justice be required to respond to a report of a salary commission. This is responsive in part to the recommendations of the Scott commission that would require the Minister of Justice to table the report of a commission in the House of Commons, together with the government's response to the report and the government bill.

More important, perhaps, this proposal is designed to comply with the new constitutional requirement that commission reports be dealt with in due dispatch.

The government is proposing a response that differs in two respects from that recommended by the Scott commission, however.

First, we are proposing that the minister respond, at the latest, six months, and not three, after the report, so as to allow the time required for careful study of a commission's reports.

Second, the government cannot agree with the recommendation that bills should be tabled within a set time frame. Control of legislative priorities and of the House agenda are the government's prerogative and this prerogative must not be hampered by rigid or inflexible deadlines.

I am very happy that this bill also follows up on a promise we made in the 1997 budget to expand family courts. It proposes adding 24 new judges positions, paving the way for the largest increase yet in these very important courts.

We support the model of the unified family court in part because it allows one judge to resolve all family law issues resulting from separation or divorce. This reduces complexity, delay and costs, and helps ensure that these matters are presided over by expert specialist judges.

It is equally important to point out that the courts are based on a model which we have supported from the outset and have discussed with the provinces and territories interested in establishing or expanding courts, and which would see extrajudicial services incorporated into the conflict resolution process.

These services include information on family law, educational programs on the effects of separation on children, home studies, referrals to counselling and other community services, information on alternatives to litigation and access to such services, including mediation, and supervised visiting programs.

Including these services with appropriate safeguards for power imbalances and special measures where required to ensure equality of access can reduce the level of conflict both during and after the resolution of the matter and promote resolutions which are acceptable to the parties and likely to last.

From the perspective of the children involved, better long term outcomes can be expected from the lower levels of conflict, quicker resolutions, greater focus on impacts on children, increased durability of outcomes, and from the emphasis on an integrated service intensive approach to child protection, child support and custody and access issues.

In conclusion, the bill includes an amendment requested by the Government of Ontario, which is calling for the appointment of three new judges to that province's court of appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is by far the busiest appeal court in the country but, with its complement of 19 full-time judges, it is only the second largest of all provincial appeal courts, and its combined staff of full-time and supernumerary judges equals that of two other provinces.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is facing significant delays, particularly in civil appeals. The civil appeal backlog increased from 1,400 in 1990 to over 2,300 at the end of 1996, notwithstanding that between 1990 and 1996 the court increased the number of civil appeals yearly by 100%.

To deal with this growing backlog the court embarked on a number of innovative measures to further increase its productivity. As a result of these initiatives, in 1996 the court heard about 50% more civil appeals than it did in 1995 and, as I indicated, 100% more than it did in 1990. Notwithstanding this very significant productivity improvement, the growing number of new appeals that were filed resulted in the civil appeal backlog decreasing only marginally in 1996 over 1995.

The province's increasing population and overall economic activity suggest that the court's workload will increase rather than decrease in the years ahead, contributing further to the backlog situation.

The Ontario and federal governments, as well as the court itself, have examined the nature and extent of the court's case load. The consensus is that an increase of three to the court's full-time complement of 19 would result in a significant reduction in the backlog and a concomitant reduction in the delays experienced by litigants before the court.

The bill includes other technical amendments, including amendments arising from changes in the names of the Ontario Court, General Division, and the Ontario Court, Provincial Division, made by the Government of Ontario.

In conclusion, these amendments will serve to strengthen what is already one of the best judicial systems in the world by enhancing the independence of our courts and improving access to justice.

The improvements to the judicial compensation process will ensure continued public confidence in the independence of our judiciary. Increased judicial resources for unified family courts combined with provincial commitment of support services will improve the way our courts respond to families and children in crisis. Increased court of appeal judges will improve access to justice generally.

I hope we can look forward to the support of all members in the House in moving these important amendments to the Judges Act quickly through parliament to the benefit of all Canadians.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the first on behalf of the Reform Party to respond to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and to explain why we cannot support the bill.

First and foremost, this is the third time the Liberals have amended the Judges Act. During the last parliament in 1996 they introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42. Both were inconsequential pieces of legislation and of little significance to Canadians concerned about their safety.

Here we are again spending our precious time on judge's salaries and benefits. The Liberal government has failed to introduce a victims' bill of rights. It has failed to amend the YOA. It has failed to limit the Conditional Release Act. It has failed to address the parole system, which is failing constantly in a number of cases.

It fails to deal with the safety of Canadians but we are to talk about judges' pay and benefits. We will occupy our time doing that instead of dealing with important issues like maybe amending some law pertaining to drinking and driving. The government will wait for forever. In the four years I have been here we have hounded the government to make important changes, but, no, not yet.

At the heart of the legislation is the fact that it increases judges' salaries retroactively from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 by 4.1% and an additional 4.1% or a little more from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. In other words judges will get an 8.3% increase over two years. With the average salary of a judge being approximately $140,000, this means they will make in excess of $151,000. This is a substantial increase.

My question is simple. How many other public servants have received pay raises in a two year period of 8.3%? I hope all security guards will hold up their hands and shout hurrah for the 8.3% raise the judges got who went from $140,000 to $151,000. I hope the lady pushing the carpet sweeper and broom and emptying garbage cans in front of my office this morning is pleased to hear that judges will now make $151,000 instead of $140,000 because of a pay raise. I hope bus drivers do not get too disappointed because they have not had a raise for nearly seven or eight years.

What about prison guards? I spend a lot of time in the prisons. The guards have been crying out for nine years that some of them have not seen a raise or pay increase of any kind. They go to work in the morning and are at high risk and in high stress day after day. It is a dangerous and difficult job. Yet the government makes certain that the judges receive an increase from $140,000 to $151,000 while the guards in our institutions who have been asking for a pay raise for seven to nine years simply do not get one.

When I arrived in Ottawa in 1993 the weepy teared deputy prime minister said the government had to do something as there were a million children starving and living in poverty. Today there are still a million or perhaps more children in this situation. The government does not have time to address that. It can give away $25 million worth of flags and not worry about starving children living in poverty. It goes on, and four years later there are still a million children living in poverty. Yet it has time to deal with the judges and give them another big raise, increasing their salaries to $151,000.

The government would simply say it is extremist and does not care. It shows its caring by making sure senior bureaucrats, possibly their frontline officers in caucus and judges are all well looked after with their bonuses. Let us not forget big business grants. It has several millions of dollars to give to big businesses. Maybe they are donors to the Liberal Party. I do not know.

These are the kinds of issues we hoped would be solved when we came here. However, what are debating today? Judges' salaries and benefits. The government is not worried about those million children. It has not worried about this issue for four years so why worry about it today? It is not worried about prison guards or security guards in this building. They have not had a raise for seven or eight years. The government will not worry about that today. It has to look after judges.

Usually judges come from a lawyer background as do most of the people on that side of the House. There is a good industry going on here. Maybe we need to protect that industry. I wish the government would show a little more caring about some things that are going on.

People in my riding are being evicted from their homes because they cannot afford to pay the rent or their mortgages. They have children. I could name three families who are being evicted from their homes because they can no longer afford to pay their mortgage payments. The government does not deal with that. It deals with high wages for the bureaucrats and all the highfalutin Liberal garble. It gives them bonuses and makes it look good. It goes on and on. When will it stop? When will it begin taking care of the needy instead of the greedy? When will that happen? The caring government of the day, huh.

Another point about the bill brings some things out in me that should not be brought out. There will to be a commission that has to report but not to parliament. There will not be opportunity for members to respond. The commission is a creation which will provide the federal government with another opportunity to make more patronage appointments.

Is that not good news? More appointments in a government where the Prime Minister said many times that he was going to put an end to that, much the way he said he was going to put an end to the GST. Instead there are more and more appointments. It is going to be a patronage heaven by the time they get done.

Members will hold office for four years and they are eligible to be reappointed for another term. One will be appointed by the justice minister. Another one will be appointed by the governor in council. A couple more will be recommended by somebody else. Another patronage appointment, welcome to Liberal world. Patronage heaven, what a great place to be. How can this government ever be seen as being accountable when the patronage appointments process is rejuvenated again and again, bill after bill, more patronage, appointments galore.

In the government's press release on compensation and benefits, the supreme court underscored the importance and the necessity of the role played by such an independent commission in ensuring public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Canadian judiciary. This clearly does not mean a system of patronage, yet that is what we got.

They clearly know how to talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk. The public confidence is at an all-time low because of these kinds of patronage patronage appointments. Club Chrétien with its exclusive membership is already at 124 members. This legislation will open the door for more. Is that not good news? More patronage appointments.

Have a good time taxpayers of Canada. You think your taxes are high now, they are going to go up and up. We are not going to really address the needs of the nation. It is not a priority of that crowd over there.

The third highlight of the bill increases the number of appeal court judges from 10 to 13. It is no wonder this has become necessary in light of the shoddy pieces of legislation, such as conditional sentencing. In B.C. alone there have been a record number of cases appealed because of Bill C-41 in the last Parliament. What does all does that mean? What is happening?

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

An hon. member

The Liberals are doing it to B.C.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

That is exactly what the Liberals are doing to B.C.

Let us take a good close look at this. I want to refer to a case as I move into the next area regarding backlog. They are going to increase the number of judges in the family court from 12 to 36 to take care of the backlog.

There is a case going on in Calgary right now. In June 1996 Christopher Goodstoney was charged in an accident which took the lives of four people. He was accused of being drunk and was found guilty. His first court appearance after the accident in June 1996 was on June 27, 1996, the same day the four children who were killed were to be buried. Because of the snail's pace of our justice system, these grieving families have yet to lay their children to rest. The overloaded courts are squarely to blame.

Let me show the chronology of this event as in the eyes of Carla Powell, the only surviving sibling of all the families. The other four were killed in the automobile wreck:

We were normal families. Ben Keuben is a house painter; his wife Darlene is a school librarian. Gordon Smith is a long time employee of the Calgary Sun ; his wife Susan is an executive at Hewlett-Packard. Douglas Powell is the custodian of the Big Country Educational Consortium in Drumheller; his wife Jean is an English instructor with the Alberta Vocational College in Calgary in the outreach program in Drumheller. Carla Powell, the only remaining sibling of the three families, has a B.A. from the University of Calgary and is presently employed by the University of Saskatchewan. Craig, her brother, who was one of the victims in this wreck attended SAIT in welding engineering technology and was employed by All New Manufacturing in Calgary. Amber, who was another victim, attended the University of Lethbridge and planned on continuing her studies at Mount Royal College. Brandy and Stephanie, the other two victims, were fun-loving teenagers who had just finished their school terms when they were killed. Not only is there a past but also there is a future that we have helped plan and optimistically anticipated.

We feel that we must explain the journey from our perspective rather than that of the courts or the accused.

On June 27, 1996, the day of the funerals for all of our children, Christopher Goodstoney, along with his lawyer, Larry Hursh, made his first court appearance before Judge John Reilly and he was remanded into custody until August 13 charged with five counts, four of criminal negligence causing death and one of criminal negligence causing injury.

On July 3, at which time five more counts had been added to his charges, four of impaired driving causing death and one of impaired driving causing injury, he appeared in Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary before Justice Ernest Hutchinson and was released into his community with no cash bail because of the tremendous support shown by members of his tribe. However, he was given very strict bail conditions. He was not to drive, he was not to drink, he was to live with his mother and he was to report on a regular basis to the Cochrane RCMP.

On August 13, Goodstoney appeared in court in Cochrane for a minute or two and the proceedings were set over to September 24. Sometime along the line, an 11th charge of being over the legal blood alcohol limit of .08 was added to the charges.

On September 24, the appearance of Goodstoney in court was, if that is possible, even shorter than the previous time, but a date was set for the preliminary hearing.

On March 19, 20 and 21, 1997 a preliminary hearing was conducted. After three days of testimony, the proceedings were adjourned until May 6.

On May 6 the court heard from a witness who had been out of the country for several months. The defendant was ordered to stand trial on 11 charges and an arraignment date was set for June 11.

On June 11 the proceedings were postponed until August 13 because the defendant said he needed more time to find funding for his lawyer. His lawyer told the newspaper he needed the time to make a deal with the crown prosecutor. All deals were refused by the prosecution.

On August 13 the same argument of needing more time and requiring money was presented to the Court of the Queen's Bench and the arraignment was set over until September 10.

On September 10 Goodstoney's lawyer quit and Goodstoney was told to be back in court on October 8 with a lawyer. At that time, however, the trial date for the case was set down for days starting on March 16, 1998.

I was there on March 16 and what we were waiting for was his sentencing. We listened to one lawyer on one side and another lawyer on the other side debate for an hour or two about this person who had been charged with drunk driving, who had killed four people because of his actions two years ago and guess what, they did not arrive at a sentencing. The judge was a little confused about what was being said and so it was postponed.

Eighteen court trials on a clear-cut drunk driving case where people were killed. The driver of the vehicle said that he was guilty, that he was sorry and he wished he had not done it. He wanted to be dealt with and have it over with. It has now been two and a half years and 18 court trials on a case like that.

And the government is coming in with a piece of legislation that is going to help all this backlog. There is one judge in Ottawa who, if he does not get a raise, I will be glad to take out for a steak because he hit the nail on the head in an article “Judge scolds greedy lawyers”.

One of Canada's most senior judges has blatantly condemned the legal profession's growing preoccupation with making money. This judge of the Supreme Court of Canada said “Law has become more of a business than a profession or a calling and many lawyers are rapidly losing sight of their obligation to the public and to the pursuit of justice”. I will take that judge out for a steak if he does not get his raise, and an Alberta steak at that.

There were 18 court cases on a clear-cut case of negligence causing death over two years ago. This goes on and on. Pockets are getting fatter and fatter. The victims and even the families of the criminals are not satisfied. They want this to come to end but the system carries it on and on.

Our wonderful solution givers over on that side of the House will create more positions for judges to help get rid of the backlog. It is too bad we cannot do something to get rid of the Liberals. They are the cause of the whole mess to start with. The sooner that happens the better it will be.

One of these days the time will come when victims rights are a priority in this land. Victims rights will come first. Some day, and it will be real soon. One day the Liberal honeymoon will be over. The voters who say that the Liberals are doing a wonderful job will soon wake up and smell the roses.

They keep feeding these greedy little parasitic fraternities that exist across this land. The longer they keep that up, the worse it is going to get. Please taxpayers of Canada, stop feeding these greedy people and stop nurturing this kind of appetite.

Let us look after those million kids who are living in poverty. Let us look after the soldiers we were talking about earlier so they do not have to go to the soup kitchens and food banks to survive. Let us look after these public servants who serve us in this building who have not had a raise for eight or nine years.

Let us start doing what we ought to be doing instead of having a greedy little political are we not great attitude. That attitude stinks and it is time to get rid of it.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I think it is now the turn of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm. However, since it is almost 2 p.m., I will give him the floor after oral question period.

It is almost two o'clock and we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Centaur Thermal SystemsStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, last week marked the launch of a new technology poised to revolutionize the automotive industry. Centaur Thermal Systems of Cambridge unveiled its new heat storage system.

In the dead of winter this new technology will provide near instant heat to a vehicle's interior, decrease windshield de-icing time, reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency. I congratulate Mr. Klaus Woerner, president of ATS, for his vision. I encourage the Canadian automotive industry to follow its European competitors in adopting this remarkable technology.

FirearmsStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has tabled 142 pages of firearms regulations just in time for April Fool's Day. We can all breathe easily now because violent criminals are going to be lining up to get possession licences and to register their guns which, once registered, will be non-lethal.

The $85 million price tag forecast by the previous minister has already been exceeded by a multiple of three with nothing to show for it. There is plenty of money for this idiocy but nothing to upgrade the national highway system. That is something that would really save lives, but it would not give the pleasure, the rush, that Liberals get from stepping on the necks of their fellow citizens.

Safe highways are unaffordable but there will be hundreds of millions of dollars for this useless bureaucratic exercise in people control.

Canadian National Institute For The BlindStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Dromisky Liberal Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON

Mr. Speaker, today Canada celebrates the 80th anniversary of the birth of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The CNIB aims to better the condition of the blind of Canada, to prevent blindness and to promote sight enhancement services.

The number of Canadians with seeing disabilities is projected to reach almost one million by the year 2015. The role of the CNIB is growing ever more crucial.

Prominent among the many services the CNIB provides is a national library service for print handicapped persons. This library is a major source of books and information in alternate format for print handicapped Canadians in both official languages.

I call upon all Canadians to congratulate the CNIB for its valuable service to Canada.

Hugh YikStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Claudette Bradshaw Liberal Moncton, NB

Mr. Speaker, 15 year old Moncton skater Hugh Yik captured his first consecutive junior men's title at the 1998 Bank of Montreal Canadian figure skating championships in Hamilton, Ontario in January 1998.

Hugh Yik is a grade 10 student at Moncton high school and is the first male skater in more than 20 years to win the national novice and junior titles in back to back years. This win will probably give him the opportunity to participate in the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.

Hugh Yik is currently a member of Canada's figure skating team. From now on, he will compete at the international level.

We are supportive of Hugh Yik's athletic career, and we wish him the greatest possible success.

Canadian National Institute For The BlindStatements By Members

March 30th, 1998 / 2 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 80th anniversary of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Over the last 80 years the CNIB has worked tirelessly to improve the conditions of the blind, to prevent blindness and to promote sight enhancement services.

Through its work at home and abroad, the CNIB has made a positive difference in the lives of the blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind persons.

In recognition of this, in 1996 CNIB President Dr. E.J. Herie was elected president of the World Blind Union which consists of both service providers and consumer organizations. The WBU brings under its umbrella 150 million blind and visually impaired persons in 160 countries.

I am proud that the CNIB Ottawa office is located in my riding. Today I would like to recognize Mr. Garrick Homer, chairman, and Dr. Euclid Herie, president and chief executive officer, for their hard work and dedication to this issue. Congratulations on a job well done.

Aboriginal AffairsStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs has failed to take timely action on two major issues affecting the well-being of grassroots aboriginal people living on the Fairford Indian reserve in my riding.

The chief and council have mismanaged the band's finances. One serious aspect of this is that the band has not paid the Lakeshore school division for off-reserve schooling to the tune of $121,000. The children will not be allowed to attend school this fall if the payment is not made. The children are under emotional stress and the local taxpayers are under financial stress.

The second situation involves the appeal of the October 4, 1997 Fairford band elections. Political instability on the reserve is causing massive problems.

These are only two of the problems on the reserve but they are two that the minister has a direct responsibility to resolve. The minister has been aware of these problems for a long time and still no resolution.

I am asking the minister of Indian affairs on behalf of thousands of my constituents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to make payment to the school division and to adjudicate the election appeal forthwith.

CurlingStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, last weekend the women's and men's junior curling teams took gold at the world junior championship held in Thunder Bay.

I am proud to congratulate the Canadian team and would like to make special mention of a member of the men's team from my riding of Bruce—Grey.

Andy Ormsby, the junior men's team second, is from Meaford, a great and beautiful small town on the wonderful shores of Georgian Bay.

Curling is one of the many sports where Canadians are showcasing their skills and dedication to excellence. As a former high school coach, it is wonderful to see another generation of Canadians come to the world stage as effective team players and skilled performers.

On behalf of all Canadians I want to congratulate our junior men's and women 's curling teams for a job well done.

Learning DisabilitiesStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, March is learning disabilities awareness month and it is our responsibility as members of the House to do everything in our power to increase awareness of this issue and to acknowledge the contributions of those dedicated to this task.

As a member of the Learning Disabilities Association of Kitchener, I would like to thank it for the good work it does, the Saturday morning clubs it runs and the summer camps my son went to which foster self-confidence through skills development, the parenting courses, the annual conference which arms parents with coping strategies and teach both them and their children with learning disabilities how to be effective advocates for themselves within the school system.

Universities are beginning to adjust to accommodate the different learning styles of students with learning disabilities. The 1998 budget acknowledged the needs of Canadians with learning disabilities.

Society needs to continue to address these barriers to this invisible disability. Learning disabled children do not have limits on their abilities. Simply, they learn in a different way.

Learning DisabilitiesStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

AgricultureStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to express my concerns over this Liberal government's double standard when it comes to the issue of federal aid for Canadian farmers.

The 1997 fruit growers in Okanagan and Similkameen valleys were devastated by hail and other weather related disasters. The B.C. government sought help for the farmers affected by these disasters through a cost sharing program with the federal government like the new B.C. whole farm insurance program. This government continues to stonewall.

After the central Canada ice storm it took less than a month for the federal government to give aid to the maple syrup producers. Orchardists in British Columbia have been waiting almost a year.

The rules determining which farmers qualify for federal disaster relief assistance should be the same for all Canadians and should not be based on what part of the country they live in. The Liberal government must end this double standard today and announce financial aid for B.C. fruit growers.

The EnvironmentStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, on March 27, Canada became the first country to ratify the amendments to the Montreal protocol dealing with ozone depleting substances.

The purpose of the amendments approved in Montreal this past September is to strengthen the treaty's provisions. These amendments include the prohibition of imports and exports of bromide between countries that have not signed the protocol, and the establishment of a world system to monitor the movement of ozone depleting substances.

The amendments to the Montreal protocol will only come into effect after being ratified by 20 states. This initiative demonstrates the Canadian government's determination to follow up on its decisions regarding the environment.

PovertyStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Human Rights Act does not include poverty in the prohibited grounds of discrimination, but poverty is a real threat to equality and should have no place in a democratic, free and open society.

In this regard, I would recall article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family”.

It is shocking to realize that in Canada 1.5 million poor children do not manage to meet their basic needs. The real responsibility for this mess lies with the Prime Minister and his cuts in transfers to the provinces, with the Minister of Human Resources Development and his attack on the unemployed and with the Minister of Finance, who is hiding the employment insurance fund surplus.

With these choices, the Liberal government is directly attacking the dignity of poor children and their parents.

Millennium FundStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister met with the premier of Quebec to set up a committee to look at how the millennium fund is implemented in Quebec. Nine other provincial governments are still waiting for a call. Students who want to see a national grants program based on need have also yet to hear from the Prime Minister.

The government has been running a great public relations game on the millennium fund. However, we still do not have any idea how it will meet the needs of students or how it fits in with existing student assistance programs.

I am calling on the federal government to recognize the serious flaws within the millennium fund and immediately work with all provinces and student groups to come up with a program that genuinely meets the needs of students.

Don AttridgeStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jim Jones Progressive Conservative Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to a constituent of mine and a resident of Markham. Mr. Don Attridge has received the prestigious Adrien Pouliot award. The award recognizes individuals or teams of individuals who have made significant and sustained contributions to mathematics.

The 1997 award was given to Mr. Attridge as part of a team including Edwin Anderson, Ronald Dunkley and Ronald Scoins. The team was honoured because of its creation and development of the Canadian mathematics competition which began in 1962 with 300 children from 19 schools in rural Ontario participating.

The original mathematics competition was created for students in grades 9, 10 and 11 in order to better prepare them for more senior competitions. Mr. Attridge, in addition to being a major contributor since the first Canadian mathematics competition was launched, taught mathematics for 37 years. Until his retirement in 1992 he was also the mathematics consultant for the York region board of education.

Mr. Attridge's award is just another example of the tremendous contribution that Markham residents and businesses make to Ontario and Canada.

Thanks to Mr. Attridge for making Markham proud.