Debates of May 14th, 1999

Shared Parenting

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

Mr. Speaker, last week thousands of Canadians, myself included, were anticipating a favourable response from the justice minister to the report “For the Sake of the Children”. Despite five and a half years in this place, even I was holding out hope for the necessary change.

What a difference a week makes. Instead of bringing forward legislation or even an action plan, the minister announced another three year delay. She even went so far as to say that divorce reform must be accompanied by spousal abuse laws. What an insult to the millions of fathers whose marriages have failed for a variety of reasons, almost all of which have nothing to do with violence or abuse.

I am particularly frustrated with the minister because I have brought forward two private members' bills relating to these completely separate issues: Bill C-25 calling for shared parenting laws, and Bill C-494 calling for protection for abused spouses and their children whose lives are in danger.

If the justice minister really wants to do something about spousal abuse she should pledge her party's support to the quick passage of Bill C-494.

Gérald Larose

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the CSN congress begins today and will choose a successor to the man who profoundly marked Quebec, Gérald Larose.

With 25 years of commitment and devotion to the cause of workers in Quebec, 16 of which were spent as the head of the CSN, he will remain an important figure in the history of the union movement in Quebec.

During his long career, he was a part of every struggle for social progress. Yesterday, in an interview in Le Devoir , he proposed a new way to look at the relations between society and government. We should pay attention to the words and ideas of this man of great experience.

An open and direct man, he always communicated with feeling the faults of a free market society and the need for a more equitable distribution of the collective wealth. He is also an ardent defender of the idea of a sovereign Quebec, which, for him represents as much the normal democratic and national course of the people of Quebec as social justice.

The Bloc Quebecois salutes this great man and wishes him good luck in his next undertaking.

Supreme Court Of Canada

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Justice Peter Cory will celebrate his retirement from Canada's supreme court. Speculation abounds that Louise Arbour is likely to be the Prime Minister's first choice to replace him.

Ms. Arbour is clearly an impressive candidate, but whether it be her or someone else, why is the Prime Minister afraid to bring someone of that calibre before parliament so that we can review that appointment before it becomes a fait accompli?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no announcement of any decision on the replacement for the very distinguished Mr. Justice Cory.

The system we have been using, involving a recommendation by the Prime Minister to cabinet and the decision by cabinet, has in the past led to an outstanding supreme court. I am sure that the application of this system in the future will lead to an outstanding replacement for Mr. Justice Cory.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just because a system has been around 130 years does not mean we cannot make improvements on it.

Canadians realize the importance of the role played by Canada's supreme court. It is a critical link in our democratic chain and yet choosing our next chief justice is left to two or three people hunkered down behind closed doors in the Prime Minister's office.

The Canadian public wants and deserves a better system, a system that consults the public by way of their elected officials here in our democratic institution, the House of Commons.

Why is the Prime Minister so adverse to the public scrutiny and accountability that a public review process would bring to the judicial appointment?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member undermines the premise of his question when he says that Mr. Justice Cory is the chief justice. He is a very distinguished member of the court but he is not the chief justice.

In any event, the accountability is there because when a decision is made by cabinet of a replacement for Mr. Justice Cory that decision is subject to the scrutiny of parliament through question period, through debates in the House and through parliamentary committees. The accountability is there and we are pleased to accept the responsibility and be accountable for the decision.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister fails to consult parliament on the most important judicial and symbolic appointments. He signs treaties and even commits Canada's troops to war without an actual vote in this democratic institution, the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister has a perfect opportunity to bring the judicial appointment process, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. He can do it now with a “made in Canada” review process.

Why does the Prime Minister not seize this opportunity to enhance the role of the supreme court and its accountability to the Canadian public by bringing that appointment process for review in the House of Commons?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he is calling for a “made in Canada” system but he seems to be calling for the American system. What we have seen in the press about the American system leads us to believe that what we are doing now and what we will continue to do has brought good results. It has not brought the court into any disrepute. In fact, we have a very strong court and we want to see that continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, whenever we challenge the government it seems to come out with an anti-American comment.

Review of the appointments to the country's top court is an international phenomena. Countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and others all have such systems. Besides this, provincial justice ministers, a retired supreme court justice and legal experts from across the country all believe the current system should be changed.

Why is the Prime Minister so afraid of parliament? What is it?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the last person to be afraid of parliament, especially when it comes to being afraid of the official opposition.

The Minister of Justice consults widely in making her recommendation to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister brings the recommendation to cabinet, which makes a decision. That decision is a matter that is subject to the scrutiny of parliament.

We are accountable to parliament and through parliament to the Canadian public. We will continue to be accountable for a system that has led to one of the most outstanding supreme courts in the world. We want to keep it that way.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the government fails to realize is that in Canada parliament is losing its supremacy. Courts have been undoing the work of parliament for far too long.

We are elected here by the will of Canadians and we are held accountable at least every five years. However, judges, particularly supreme court judges today, have extraordinary legislative powers but no accountability.

Why will the Prime Minister not send a clear, positive message to the courts and Canadians by having the supreme court nominees at least appear before parliament before they are appointed to the bench?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, judges do not have legislative roles like the House of Commons and like the other place.

The hon. member is wrong in suggesting that parliament played a role in the past in appointing judges. It has never played any such role.

The hon. member is again giving me the opportunity to say we have an outstanding supreme court and this outstanding supreme court has come into place because of the system we are using now. He wants to change a system which has given us an outstanding supreme court.

I say that Canadians want to have our court continue as a high quality body. We will continue with the system that has led to its greatness.

Minister Of Human Resources Development

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is having a very hard time defending himself against the information commissioner's accusations.

In his letter of April 23, the commissioner wrote that “the minister's office put its interests ahead of those of the applicant and defied the legislation throughout this period. This is completely unacceptable”.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that such behaviour will not go unchecked and that he intends to relieve the minister of his duties if the minister does not have the decency to resign?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the information in question is already in the hands of the person who requested it. The minister has said he is in the process of reviewing his department's procedures and instituting improvements.

I therefore think that the minister acted in a completely appropriate manner, and I wonder why the hon. member continues to raise these pointless questions.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by refusing to discipline the Minister of Human Resources Development, who contravened the Access to Information Act, the Prime Minister is setting an important precedent that may, to all intents and purposes, make this legislation ineffective.

What message is the Prime Minister sending to other ministers and senior officials who might receive politically embarrassing requests from journalists under the Access to Information Act? Are they not being told to do as they please, because there is no penalty for defying the law?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister released the information. It is already in the hands of the applicant for his use.

I can assure the House that the government and all ministers consider the Access to Information Act to be a very important piece of legislation and that, if its enforcement in a particular department needs to be tightened up, it will be.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner is not just any public servant at the service of the Prime Minister. He is accountable to this parliament and his job is to ensure that the Access to Information Act is complied with. The commissioner is now accusing the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development of having defied the act for political protection.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the purpose of an information commissioner is, if ministers can ignore him, defy the act and not only get away with it, but even be congratulated for it?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we believe the commissioner is a very important officer of parliament. This is why the minister already said that he took the information commissioner's comments very seriously. The minister has already taken measures to improve the provision of replies by his department.

As I just said, we are not keeping the information secret. It is already public knowledge.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, four months later in the maritimes.

In the family trust scandal, the Liberals blamed the auditor general. In the Somalia scandal, they blamed Mr. Justice Létourneau. In the tainted blood scandal, they blamed Mr. Justice Krever.

Are we to understand that, in this new scandal about the withholding of information by the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Liberals are blaming the information commissioner for making a tempest in a teapot?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if there is a scandal, it has to do with the questions put by Bloc Quebecois members, who are using oral question period to ask useless questions on a case that is already closed.

First, the information is public and, second, measures have already been taken to make the necessary improvements.

Immigration

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister originally opposed the head tax as not Liberal. The heritage minister opposed it. The revenue minister says that he still opposes it. In fact the only person who seems to love the head tax is the finance minister, its creator.

When will the finance minister finally get the message that Canadians do not want refugee families treated as revenue sources?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using the wrong terminology. There is no head tax. There is a right of landing fee which is applied to help people applying for permanent residence to deal with the costs of the applications.

The question is totally premature because we are dealing with refugees entering under minister's permits. There is no fee or tax of any kind applied to those permits. If these people later on want to apply to stay permanently there is a fee in place, there is a loan program applicable to that fee.

This is a matter we can look into when the time comes. Right now it is purely speculative and hypothetical.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the time already came for the refugees who paid it last year, the year before and the year before. Last year alone the finance minister extracted $11 million from refugee families with his head tax.

The finance minister also gave $11 million extra dollars to the Senate. In fact, he could eliminate the head tax altogether if he would just say no to the Senate.

Which one really needs a break: refugee families who have lost everything, or the finance minister's friends in the Senate?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as usual has her facts wrong. Refugees do not pay the right of landing fee. They enter under minister's permits for which no fees or taxes are payable. If later on they apply for permanent residence other considerations apply.

When it comes to the Kosovar refugees, many of them at this stage say they want to go back to their home countries. If they later decide they want to stay permanently, other considerations arise and they can be examined at that time.

Airbus

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, now that the RCMP has abandoned the criminal investigation into Bre-X Minerals Ltd., perhaps it will reconsider the wisdom of its politically motivated airbus fiasco.

Bre-X is the biggest alleged market fraud in Canadian history, yet the RCMP gives up because Bre-X board members refuse to talk and it is costing millions.

With the encouragement of the Liberal government, the RCMP continues to waste taxpayers' dollars on the airbus investigation that today has found no evidence, not a shred.

When will the solicitor general take responsibility for the RCMP, put an end to this continuous embarrassment and focus on solving real crime, not settling Liberal vendettas?