Debates of June 4th, 1998

Judges Act

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House for the following reason. I have introduced an anti-scab bill which has not yet been drawn, but some six months ago, I moved a motion calling for an inquiry into penitentiaries.

In the penitentiary about which I called for an inquiry, it seems that things have settled down, that things are better now, so I ask unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No. 244 calling for a public inquiry of the administration of the maximum security penitentiary at Port-Cartier, which is scheduled for debate tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

I believe that you would obtain the consent of the House if you were to ask it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[An hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Motion No. 2 which is asking for legislation to establish a mechanism for reporting a decision made by a commission back to the House of Commons.

I have to support the motion. Over the period of the four or five years that I have been here I have watched how parliamentary democracy is being undermined by a government which continues to transfer regulatory authority and other authority to boards, commissions and the executive branch of government, cabinet, without considering bringing those decisions to parliament and allowing elected officials to discuss, debate and make comment on matters that will have dramatic effects upon Canadians.

I have been very concerned about the tendency for this to occur. It is just another indication or another vehicle where we see parliament being removed from the decision making aspect or even the accountability aspect of what the government is doing. That is a very dangerous precedent for us to support.

As parliamentarians who have been sent here to represent Canadians, people across the country, it is imperative for us to be watchful that parliament retains its authority and its ability to watch and check things occurring in government agencies and boards.

There is a need for an arm's length commission to make decisions on salary and pay benefits. The concern raised by the electorate outside the House on pay increases for members of parliament is a good example of what happens when people have a benefit to reach in making decisions.

An independent commission was established to look at the pay and benefit packages of members of parliament. That commission put out a report. The report from that independent body was completely ignored by the government. We are faced with parliamentarians once again having to deal with changes to their pay and benefit packages. That should not occur.

Parliamentarians should never be in a position of having to debate and having to support or not support their salary and pay benefit packages. That should be totally removed from people who benefit from those decisions.

I suggest the same point should be considered in terms of this commission. We have a commission made up of individuals who belong to the judiciary one way or another, or who are attached through the justice department, the judiciary committee or whatever, to a decision on what pay and benefit packages the judges will be given. That is wrong. It should be an independent arm's length group that makes those decisions and those decision should be reviewed by the Parliament of Canada.

I may sound repetitive but I cannot express it enough. I do not think Canadians are aware of what is happening. I do not think Canadians realize how much authority and decision making is being removed from members of the House. I do not think Canadians are aware of how powerless the House is becoming because of legislation that hands over responsibility and authority to non-elected boards and removes them from any accountability or follow-up.

We have seen it with parole boards and immigration review committees and this commission and that commission. We saw it once again with the commission struck by the House, or by somebody, to review our pay and benefit packages. Committees and commissions come up with decisions which do not have the support of the Canadian public that has no recourse.

We have often asked questions about semi-judicial committees and boards. We have been told that they are arm's length and cannot be held accountable. Who can hold them accountable if it is not the House or a committee of the House?

The motion makes a whole lot of sense. All it is asking, as I understand, is for a commission to report back to a parliamentary committee so that the parliamentary committee can review its report and can make a judgment on behalf of Canadians whom we represent as to whether or not the report should be supported or the recommendations should be legitimized.

If for a moment we stop trying to hold commissions, committees and the executive branch of government accountable to parliament, we are undermining the whole parliamentary system that Canadians think exist.

I have absolutely no problem and I would encourage all members of parliament to support the motion which asks for parliament to know what is going on, to be able to ask questions about what is going on, and to be able to bring it into the public forum so that the Canadian public knows what is going on.

Much of what happens outside the House, committees, commissions, boards and the executive branch of government, cabinet, is held behind closed doors. It is not public information. The discussions are not public. Whenever that happens Canadians become suspect and often with very good reason. They become cynical. They feel that if it is not a debate that is happening in public there must be something somebody is trying to hide and they become less willing to support the end result.

We see it in the judicial system. We see it in the parliamentary system. We see it in the immigration system. I could go on and on. Canadians are losing respect and their support for what we are trying to do because of the things done behind closed doors.

It is very important that in the 36th Parliament we do everything we can possibly do to bring our discussions and debates into an open forum. We should not only allow Canadians but encourage them to participate in the discussions and in making decisions that have to be made about where Canada is to go in the next millennium, what kind of direction we should be going in and what end result we are trying to reach.

This is one measure with which we can start opening up the process, opening up the dialogue, opening up committees, commissions and boards, and letting Canadians know that we are not afraid of talking to them or of including them in the discussions. We should encourage them to enter into what is happening in the House.

I would like to see support by all members of the House. It would send a strong message to Canadians who are wondering what we are doing that we are open, have nothing to hide and want accountability. We want to be able to bring forward boards and commissions that are accountable to parliament. Then we could stand behind the decisions we make. We could review issues in a House committee and the House committee could make suggestions. Then the executive branch of government could respect the decisions, the reports and the recommendations that come before it.

If we had a government and an executive branch of government that respected parliament and the decisions made by committees and commissions which are held accountable through parliamentary committees and parliamentary sessions of the House of Commons and its members, Canadians would become less cynical about government and about politicians and certainly less cynical about the justice system and the judiciary.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to set out the government's position with respect to Motion No. 2 and to point out that Standing Orders 32(5) of the House of Commons already provides for the referral of any tabled report to the appropriate standing committee.

The second part of my submission would be that Standing Order 108(2) allows the justice committee or any other committee of its own volition to make a study at any time of a matter within the jurisdiction of the departments it oversees. As a result it seems to me that this is a redundant section. I do not know if it is appropriate to override House standing orders by statute.

Standing Order 32(5) states that reports laid before the House in accordance with an act of Parliament, which is what this would be, shall thereon be deemed to have been permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee. The point is that it is already referred to us. It does not need to be referred by statute because the standing orders already do that.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is free to determine whether public hearings are in the public interest. I want to point out too that at the time of tabling, it is always open to the House to make a motion requiring the committee to report back. That has been done from time to time.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has a busy schedule but there is no reason why such a report could not be studied by it and should not be studied by it, if it is the will of the committee.

I thank the member for her submission. It is an interesting one. It is helpful to have these debates, but I would suggest that Motion No. 2 is unnecessary in this legislation.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to continue debating Bill C-37, at this time on Motion No. 2 put by my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot. It would amend the bill to require that a report of a commission established to review judicial compensation would require a hearing at presentation with discussion, debate and the appearance of witnesses at committee, presumably the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights chaired by the hon. member who just preceded me.

That hon. member said during her remarks that already there is provision which can allow for reports of this nature to be tabled at committee and to be discussed at committee and commented on by witnesses. That is at the discretion of the government. The report need not be tabled at committee. It only is tabled at committee if the government decides that it should be tabled at committee.

What we are seeking to do through Motion No. 2 is to require full public scrutiny and transparency of reports of this nature so that the people who are paying the bills have a chance to comment on them at committee stage. It is entirely different from the status quo arrangement to which the hon. member opposite referred.

This really begs the question, whenever we have an opportunity to broaden parliamentary scrutiny of matters of this nature, why is it that the government is always opposed? Why does it always oppose greater parliamentary scrutiny? These people when they were in opposition were the great champions and heroes of parliamentary scrutiny, democracy and transparency in such matters.

Whenever a motion such as this one is brought forward on a bill of this nature the government members always predictably oppose it. I ask why. What are they trying to hide? Who would be harmed? What damage would be done to parliament, to the government's agenda, to the independence of the judiciary were reports of this nature on judges' compensation to be tabled and heard with the comment of witnesses at committee?

I submit that no damage would be done. The only damage that could be done would be to the government's ability to control the agenda and to sweep these things under the carpet. That is why the government is opposing it.

Let me be consistent because we are going through a similar exercise right now. By way of analogy, the Parliament of Canada Act requires that after a general election a commission be appointed by the Governor General in council to review indemnities and allowances for members of parliament. This was followed of course by the government.

Following the election the government appointed the Blais commission, three independent Canadians to sit on a commission to review MP compensation. This commission reported back to parliament but the hearings were held in camera without the appearance of witnesses.

Now we have a report tabled by the committee on procedure and House affairs which has not had public scrutiny or input. An independent commission is set up that reports but with no public comment, no opportunity for public scrutiny, no opportunity for witnesses to appear. Then a report is tabled in this place and presumably will be passed.

I have a serious problem with this procedure, not just as it affects judges but also as it affects MPs or anybody else in the public sector. When we are discussing raising compensation for people from the public purse, in a sense taking money from taxpayers, using the coercive power that we wield in this place to levy taxes on people, to pay additional compensation to ourselves or to others such as judges, that ought to be done with the greatest of possible public scrutiny.

That is precisely what Motion No. 2 seeks to do with respect to Bill C-37. I really wonder why the government is opposing this. Once again, it raises the whole question not just of the compensation of judges but of the lack of transparency in the manner through which judges are appointed.

Canada is probably the only one of the modern democracies that does not allow for candidates for the judiciary to first be screened by, questioned by or to testify in front of members of the national legislature.

We know that our friends to the south require a senatorial review of judicial nominees before they can be confirmed. It is a sensible policy because it ensures that there is a check and balance on the power of the executive in loading people who support its political agenda on the judiciary.

Let us not be mistaken. While we have many marvellous hardworking justices who simply interpret the law narrowly and strictly, we also have on the benches of this country many judges who regard themselves as glorified legislators. They sit on the bench and legislate from the bench. They do not interpret the law. They make the law.

We have no means as the representatives of the people, as the guardians ultimately of the Constitution to ensure that the people appointed to that bench are going to interpret rather than to legislate from the bench.

I ask that we have greater transparency when it comes to compensation for judges in Bill C-37. So too, we call for greater transparency in the appointment of judges so that the public and its representatives in this place, in the upper chamber, know what they are getting when the Prime Minister and the Governor General in council, when the cabinet decides to foist on the bench some radical politician who calls himself or herself a judge.

I also suggest that this principle should be applied throughout the public sector. We ought not to isolate judges. Whenever we are discussing compensation increases for senior people in the public sector, including ourselves, why should we not allow for complete, full and absolute public scrutiny?

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? There is nothing to be afraid of. It is quite possible that experts and ordinary Canadians would look at a proposed pay increase or adjustment to compensation such as the one proposed in Bill C-37, an 8.3% increase over two years and would say “Hey, this is well deserved. These people work hard. They have earned this increase”. Let us not prejudge the wisdom of the public. That is what we are doing by shutting out public commentary and expert commentary through witnesses on this matter.

I commented earlier that I find it hard to believe the kind of bizarre judicial decisions we see coming with greater and greater frequency from federally appointed judges.

I commented earlier on the Feeney decision where a judge appointed by cabinet decided that a man who was clearly, unquestionably guilty of first degree murder was acquitted. Why? Because an RCMP officer failed to secure a search warrant in a rural area in British Columbia when he followed the trace of evidence to this man's residence. What did he do? He announced himself as a peace officer. He asked for permission to enter. No one responded. He went in and found the accused passed out on the bed covered in the blood of the murdered victim. The judge in that case, a judge appointed by the government without parliamentary oversight, allowed that man to be acquitted.

This happens all too often with respect to sentencing and conditional sentencing. It happens all too often when judges decide they are going to make the law in their own image claiming some specious authority in the charter of rights and freedoms.

Now we are proposing to give those very same judges who are accountable to utterly no one but themselves a pay increase almost uncontemplated anywhere else in the public sector, and I would submit the private sector, in a country where people are earning less now than they did 20 years ago. At the same time the government is telling us that we cannot even put such a report before a committee before it comes to the House to allow for proper disclosure and proper transparency.

I know from private conservations that there are members opposite who are very concerned about Bill C-37. I ask them to test their whip for once and vote for greater transparency in this place by supporting Motion No. 2 on Bill C-37.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the amendment put forward by my colleague from Crowfoot.

The amendment initiates the process to scrutinize and review the commission's report calling for witnesses and reporting its findings to the House.

For the record I would like to say that the concern is that the commission, which is comprised of three members appointed by the governor in council: one nominated by the judiciary; one nominated by the Minister of Justice; and one, who shall act as a chair, nominated by the first two nominees. Does anyone think they will be objective in their deliberations? That is precisely the point and it is the concern of the public and our constituents. These members may not be objective as they have a vested interest in increasing their and their colleagues' salaries and benefits.

The issue here is optics in that it just does not look right and it will not sell. From a political point of view I cannot understand why the government would put forth such a bill with such an amendment.

I would like to briefly return to the issue of the 8.3% pay raise over four years. The bottom line salary today of judges is $162,300. If this bill passes there will be a retroactive raise of $13,000. A lot of my constituents in Dauphin—Swan River do not even make $13,000 on an annual basis.

The real issue is not about a pay increase for judges. If this government really wants to do some real work in terms of reforming our judicial system, it needs to deal with those issues and not about pay.

How many people in my own riding would support this pay increase? I do not think too many would. My constituents would say that there are lots of issues and problems in the judiciary system so why are we not addressing them first?

More and more people are feeling unsafe these days because of youth crimes. For years we have talked about the Young Offenders Act. In fact as early as 1991 when I was first elected as a councillor I remember very well a municipal initiative calling on the federal government to deal with the Young Offenders Act. I remember filling out surveys sent out by the solicitor general's office asking for input on how the Young Offenders Act could be changed and reformed. Fortunately the municipal organization co-operated and did submit its surveys but unfortunately there was no response on the part of the government, and this is going back as early as 1991 and 1992. The people of this country want to see change but unfortunately the government at this level at that time did not deem it important enough to follow through on.

Therefore people have very little faith in our judicial system, the lack of a justice system. We have heard figures of 52% of the country having very little faith in the justice system. Bill C-68 is another indicator where the government is treating law-abiding citizens like criminals. The government knows that with expenditures of $1.2 billion projected to implement the registration of all firearms this has no effect whatsoever on crime control. A whole new bureaucracy has been established and I am sure thousands of people will be hired to implement another bureaucracy which will cost taxpayers more money.

There are many components to a justice system. My colleagues speaking on this subject indicated that politicians are included. I agree, politicians are part of the problem. Perhaps they are the problem. Politicians know that people want changes in sentencing practices. The public wants changes victims rights to be addressed by the politicians. As I indicated, we all know the public wants changes in the Young Offenders Act. The government has to be more accountable for this current situation. The government can respond to make judges more accountable and to make changes to the Young Offenders Act.

What I am basically trying to say is although we have said many things about judges I think the politicians need to take some of the heat as well.

Governments cannot use the judicial system as a vehicle when they believe it is expedient, as we have experienced in these latter years of our history. Judges need to answer to this House because this is the supreme house of this country.

I ask all members in the name of democracy to support the amendment put forth by the member for Crowfoot.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2 was put forward by the Reform Party and adds a few lines after line 34 on page 3 of the bill:

“(6.1) A report that is tabled in each House of Parliament under subsection (6), shall, on the day it is tabled or if the House is not sitting on that day, on the day that the House next sits, be referred by that House to a committee of that House that is designated or established by that House for the purpose of considering matters relating to justice”.

The amendment goes on with two other parts related to getting some accountability into the system.

Some years ago there was an attempt to roll back judicial salaries as part of the cost cutting measures of the government. The supreme court actually ruled that any attempt to roll back judicial salaries was an interference in the independence of the judiciary.

It is amazing that rolling back salaries is an interference in the independence of the judiciary but increasing its salaries is not. Is that not amusing, that one is an interference and one is not?

The court ruled that the government had to set up a commission to set judicial salaries. It issued it as an order to the government. Theoretically the government does not actually have to obey the order. It could say we are certainly not going to take orders from the judges. But if the government did not accept the position put forward by the supreme court, it would find itself in court. What a sort of rigmarolic circle we would get into then with the government trying to legislate itself out of court and the court trying to take the government to court and all from the starting point where the judges felt the government had no right to set their salaries.

Many of the examples my colleagues have given throughout the day indicate quite clearly that the general public is quite dissatisfied with what is happening at the judicial level in this country. The poll mentioned in July 1997 showed more than 50% of the population dissatisfied with the performance of judges. The examples I gave in my speech earlier today are just from the North Vancouver area over the past few months. They are decisions people were outraged to see, short sentences, failure of people to appear in court, no arrest warrants issued, simple instructions, please turn up next time.

Judges are acting as if they are running classrooms and not courts of law. This lack of confidence in judges has caused the opposition to look at this bill and ask what on earth is going on. Judges are telling us what to do while as the supreme level of justice in Canada we should be setting the rules. That is the reason for the number of motions being put forward to alter this bill. It is unfortunate that as usual the government will not accept any of them. It will overrule all of them. No matter how good the ideas might be, no matter how logical the arguments, it will use its voting power to overturn anything we propose.

We can get up and talk to the bill or speak in favour of any of the amendments here but we know in our hearts that none of them will pass. If nothing more, at least we can get the message out to the people of Canada that we are speaking on their behalf, that we are telling the government side and this place that people are dissatisfied with what is happening in this thing called the justice system which the average person is now calling the legal system and is not even respecting it anymore for what it should be. It is time we took action in this place to correct the problems. That is the main thrust and the main reason the opposition is taking a position of opposition to this legislation.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 2 put forward by my hon. colleague from Crowfoot.

It deals with the issue of accountability. That is where this amendment is going. It drives home the point that the commission to be set up under Bill C-37 to review the benefit packages and the pay of judges should be scrutinized. If this amendment were passed the commission would come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. That is what this amendment accomplishes. I do not see the problem with that.

A Liberal member stated earlier that in her opinion she felt this amendment was redundant since the committees in exercising their independence already have the ability to call witnesses on virtually any subject that falls under their domain. As one of my Calgary colleagues indicated during his brief and brilliant presentation, everyone, certainly those in parliament, knows the simple fact that the government has a majority position in the standing committees.

The minister of a particular department to which a standing committee is connected basically sets the agenda through their parliamentary secretary who sits on that committee. Those are the facts.

We can pretend these committees are basically independent but it is simply not the facts. The facts would indicate the cabinet and the minister responsible for that portfolio set the agenda.

Clearly in this case the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretary and their appointed chairman of the standing committee all desire that this report from the commission not be reviewed by the standing committee. They crack the whip as they do in the House of Commons. They get all the government members on the standing committee to stand and they simply would not bring that forward to be scrutinized.

That is the point of this amendment because if this amendment were passed there would be no choice in the matter. The commission's report would have to come before the standing committee and there would be public scrutiny through the committee.

When looking at Bill C-37 and this 8.3% increase in salary that it will bestow on our judges, what is the view of the people in the real world? What would they think about this piece of legislation?

As has been clearly laid out by a number of my colleagues, when we look the tough times a lot of people are having to make ends meet today, they would certainly question the need for judges who on average are making $140,000 a year to receive a retroactive pay increase of 8.3% at this time.

This is something the average person has no control over. This is something that will ultimately result in higher taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Where will it come from? It will come out of the pockets of taxpayers and therefore this type of increase should be defensible. It should be scrutinized by the general public through the standing committee, which this amendment calls for. I see my time has expired. I always I get interrupted by question period.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he knows how important question period is to the opposition as well as to the government. I assure him that he will have five minutes remaining in his time after question period.

D-Day

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Canada's important role in the D-Day invasion of France which took place 54 years ago this Saturday.

A number of men from my riding of Sault Ste. Marie fought in the battle of Normandy, including Bill Bentley, the honorary lieutenant colonel of Sault Ste. Marie's 49th Field Regiment.

Canada was assigned Juno beach, one of the five beaches targeted in the invasion. By the end of the first day our troops had advanced farther and reached more objectives than either the British or the Americans.

Canada's losses were considerable but our soldiers did not die in vain. Their remarkable courage and sacrifice helped ensure the defeat of Hitler and the liberation of Nazi occupied Europe.

On June 6, I encourage all Canadians to remember that the freedoms we enjoy today came at a high price, a considerable portion of which was paid in blood and horror on the beaches of Normandy.

Pensions

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

Canadians do not trust the federal government to deliver on promises for pensions at the time of retirement. Canadians are looking for a secure alternative.

Reformers listen. Canadians tell us that in their retirement planning they want choice, fairness and security. Last week in London, Ontario, the Reform Party brought forward a proposal that will deliver all three.

In terms of choice, the choice to stay in a government plan like the CPP or to place workers' premiums in their own individual privately managed retirement account.

In terms of fairness, a pension that treats all generations fairly and does not burden the young with excessive taxes.

In terms of security, a secure, fully funded pension, personally owned and not subject to the whim of future governments.

Reform offers a fresh alternative. Retirement planning under Reform government means choice, fairness and—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Davenport

The Environment

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ontario stands out for allowing up to 579 parts per million sulphur content in gasoline. In Alberta and Manitoba the sulphur count is only 198 parts per million and in British Columbia, 260 parts per million.

Canada's Minister of the Environment will soon decide on national standards for sulphur in gasoline. We urge the minister to set a standard for a low sulphur content in gasoline of 30 parts per million as recommended by the government working group on sulphur in gasoline.

A reduction to 30 parts per million would help in reducing smog and protecting the health of Canadians.

Human Rights

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate the innocent lives lost on June 4, 1984 when the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab, India, was attacked by the Indian government.

Thousands of innocent devotees peacefully worshipping within the temple were massacred by army tanks, mortar and machine gun fire.

This act of cruelty demoralized an entire people. Twenty million Sikhs around the world still feel the deep and scarring pain of this unjustifiable act of violence.

State violence against its citizens, as seen when China attacked students during the Tiananmen Square democracy protests or India's action against the Golden Temple, is a symbol of a government that has forsaken democracy and the rule of law for the power of the gun and the rule of violence.

Canadians must remember these tragic events and promote human rights by condemning state violence whenever and wherever it occurs in the world.

Immigration

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in condemnation of the inflammatory comments made by Ontario Premier Mike Harris and by the Reform member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast with regard to 10 middle eastern refugees currently in jail in Israel who may be considered refugees in Canada.

It amazes me that these democratically elected politicians could cast aspersions on the validity of refugee claims by people simply because they are in political prison. Have we forgotten that Nelson Mandela was also in prison? Had he been offered refugee status in Canada these politicians would surely have condemned his application because of his supposed status.

As chair of the subcommittee on human rights I am aware of accounts of real human rights violations and would not be so smug as to make a judgment on the cases of these men without the aid of an investigation.

If the Reform Party were in power its motto would be guilty until proven innocent.

Employment Insurance

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's own mother goose egg, the finance minister, has added a new nursery rhyme to the repertoire for our children and it goes like this:

Old McMartin had an EI fund E-I-E-I-O With that fund he had some fun E-I-E-I-O With patronage here, patronage there, Liberal spending everywhere Old McMartin spent that fund I-O-I-O-U

Members will see that in this rewrite of the old nursery rhyme that EI fund now equals IOU. I am sure members will agree this non-existent fund for a rainy day rates a place with the best fairy tales of our time.

Immigration

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this might be entitled a tale of two résumés.

Canada continues to welcome to its shores in excess of 200,000 people annually. Unfortunately when they arrive they cannot always find jobs commensurate with their skills.

I recently received two résumés from one individual. It discloses a Ph.D. in history of international relations and foreign policy from Kiev State University and an MA in international relations. He lectured at Kabul University, faculty of law and political science, and speaks at least three languages.

The second résumé is for an entry level position in hotel management. He has a certificate in sanitation, safety and hygiene.

In Canada he does pizza deliveries twice a week and organizes chairs in hotel rooms. Canada cannot continue to waste its human capital.

Peacekeeping

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our peacekeepers in Bosnia-Hercegovina. These men and women, the majority of whom are stationed in CFB Petawawa in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, are doing a remarkable job under very adverse condition. The 1,285 Canadians who stand watch in this region represent Canada's largest peacekeeping commitment.

I had the distinct privilege and pleasure of meeting a number of these soldiers on a recent trip to the area as a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affair.

Canada's peacekeeping efforts are recognized and respected throughout the world. These brave men and women who are now serving in this troubled sector are representing us in an exemplary fashion.

I want to say thanks on behalf of my riding and on behalf of all Canadians to the members of the Canadian military who leave their families and friends to serve their country. They serve it well.

The Senate

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Senator Cogger has been convicted of the offence of unlawfully using his influence. This disgrace within a high office has been a reminder of the need for Senate reform.

The Reform Party has been calling for a triple E Senate for the last 10 years. Canadian are tired of this political ineffectiveness and corruption.

This senator's actions serve as another disappointing example. Do the right thing. Senator Cogger must resign his seat. An election should be held to replace him. An election can be held without constitutional amendment. It is happening this fall in Alberta.

This senator must not be allowed to keep the pay and benefits of the high position he was just convicted of abusing. If he refuses to resign the Senate should send him out.

Patronage pork is out. Let Canadians pick an elected Senate. It is overdue.

Reform Party Of Canada

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last night's attempt in Quebec City to improve relations between Reformers and the people of Quebec was a big public relations fiasco.

We saw the look of disdain on the faces of Reform Party members, which are demanding cuts to funding for associations of francophones outside Quebec.

Can anyone tell me why the Reformers are so resentful of francophones? We have known for a long time that the Reform Party did not look kindly on the groups and associations of francophones outside Quebec, but for them to go from that to cutting their funding is taking things just a bit too far.

Quite frankly, the leader of the Reform Party has a lot of gall to think he might represent the people of Canada. With a speech like that, clearly he will have a hard time making any headway in Quebec and finding his Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine.

I find the Bloc Quebecois' association with them offensive.

The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the successor program to TAGS has been decided by the federal cabinet. It is reported that the size and terms of the program were conveyed by the federal government to the provincial Newfoundland government yesterday.

This is an affront to members of the House who were assured they would be briefed on the content of the post-TAGS program by the minister of HRD.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador also have a reason to be angry. First, TAGS is being wound up prematurely, a year earlier than promised. Second, rumour has it that sums involved in the new program are insufficient to address the scale of the human distress created by the collapse of the cod fishery. It does not appear that there will be a provision for a license buy back, traditional income support or early retirement packages.

Instead of a community based and administered program designed to help the fishers and plant workers of Atlantic Canada, the Minister of Finance and his officials concocted this plan so as to wipe their hands of this file. Their callous treatment of the people of Atlantic Canada will not soon be forgotten.

Reform Party

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the marriage between the Reform Party and the separatists continues with the Reform leader now saying that he would like to hold meetings with his new found friend, Lucien Bouchard. His party called the Parti Quebecois yesterday to ask if it could make a formal presentation to the national assembly.

After meeting with the Bloc in Quebec yesterday Reform MPs have even come out in agreement with the separatists in opposing the millennium scholarship fund, endorsing an end to support for anglophone groups in Quebec and claiming that the 1982 Constitution was not democratically adopted. I do not see how those ideas would be very popular in western Canada.

I challenge the Reform Party to repeat that at its joint meeting with the Bloc in Edmonton tonight. Many Reformers would be smart to pick up the Calgary Herald and read what it had to say:

The Reform leader must never forget that the sovereignist idea—includes the unshakeable belief in an independent Quebec—The adherents to this belief will never be satisfied with parliamentary reforms and decentralizing modifications that Reform has in mind.