Debates of Nov. 6th, 2002

Supply

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the PC Party has the position that farmers would vote on this, which is different from what the Canadian Alliance would do. Is it the position of the PC Party that the 50.1% of farmers who want a monopoly can impose on the other 49% of farmers, i.e. 45,000 farmers, that they cannot do what is in their own best interests economically?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately we do live in a democracy. I believe very strongly that producers want to have a say in how they market their own goods. We as a party are saying to give producers an honest, open question so that they themselves can give their own say as to how they want to market. Yes, if it is 51% to 49%, in a democracy 51% in fact does make for a winning team and a winning vote.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I recall that back in 1997-98 when we were beginning the debate about how to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the hon. gentleman from Brandon and I had a number of very animated conversations about what needed to be done. Quite frankly, I would say that his views did have an important impact on the legislation that finally emerged.

He raised earlier in the House today a question having to do with $7 billion in ongoing debt charges relating to previous trade in Canadian Wheat Board grains. His question was whether or not the existence of that debt in some way obligated the Government of Canada to the continuance of the Canadian Wheat Board. I simply want to tell him that it is in fact guaranteed by the Government of Canada. All of that debt originated prior to 1993. None of it has come up since 1993. It has nothing to do with the continued existence of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is an obligation of the Government of Canada whether or not the Canadian Wheat Board exists.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the numbers for the year ending for 1993, but I will get them. I do believe that some of this debt certainly has been incurred since 1993 and I will find out just how much that is. In fact it is a guarantee from the government. It is $7 billion that has to be accounted for as a liability when and if the Canadian Wheat Board no longer exists. I do thank the minister for giving me that answer. I will find out the amount from 1993.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the first comment I will make is that this week my constituents are raising the question of why is the government, whether it accepts the responsibility or not, putting farmers in jail for selling their own product? In essence this is the message that they see on television.

I have been a member of Parliament since 1997. I know that in the constituency of Dauphin--Swan River the majority of farmers support the Wheat Board. The reason is the history of being a farmer. Most of the people in Dauphin--Swan river are of an older age. They remember the Depression. That is the reason the Wheat Board became a reality.

I would say that the older the farmer, the greater the support for the Wheat Board. The younger farmer tends to move toward choice. Also, the farther the farmer is from the U.S. border, there is a greater tendency to support the Wheat Board.

The reality is that for a small producing country such as Canada to have 20% of the monopoly in the world is quite a feat. However, as my colleague from Brandon—Souris stated, this is 2002 and things do change and farmers do want choice. I am told that farmers want choice in terms of marketing their own product.

As members have said, farmers put in investment dollars. They want to have the choice of where to sell their product. Probably the easiest way around the problem is to give farmers the choice and perhaps peg it with a limited term. If a farmer elected to opt out, then for the next five years the farmer would not be selling under the board.

Farmers are interested in more than just the Wheat Board. They are really interested in what the country is doing about our food industry. When we look at the food industry as a whole, there are a lot of problems that are much bigger than marketing the product. Value added has been mentioned. Rural Canada is losing its population. There are no jobs in rural Canada. All the jobs are moving to the big cities.

That is the position of the people of Dauphin--Swan River.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order. It being 5:55 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Supreme Court of Canada Appointees

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, appointees and potential appointees to the positions of Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada should receive parliamentary scrutiny, and that Standing Orders 110 and 111 of the House of Commons should be amended to include such appointees and potential appointees.

Mr. Speaker,this is a subject that is not only near and dear to my heart but I think it is near and dear to the hearts of all Canadian Alliance members in the House. I hope it is also near and dear to the hearts of many others.

We are calling for appointees to the Supreme Court to be reviewed by a committee of the House, presumably the justice committee, and that Standing Orders 110 and 111 be amended. Standing Order 110(1) states:

A Minister of the Crown shall lay upon the Table a certified copy of an Order in Council, stating that a certain individual has been appointed to a certain non-judicial post--

Standing Order 110(2) is basically the same situation.

Judicial appointments are excluded from being tabled in the House and being reviewed by the appropriate committee. When I was drafting the motion, I recognized the independence of the judiciary and therefore made my motion specific to the Supreme Court of Canada, not to the Federal Court and other courts that are appointed by the Prime Minister. The reason is quite obvious.

We all know that judicial activism has taken over in this land. We are now subject to huge influence by the Supreme Court of Canada, by nine judges who sit on the court unelected. They are appointed by the Prime Minister in a process that nobody knows how, and nobody is asked for any specific input. There is no transparency, no openness, nothing. All of a sudden a name is foisted upon Canadians by the Prime Minister and there it is, and we are stuck.

In this day and age where we think and say that we live in a democracy, I find it appalling that we would even tolerate the situation where our Supreme Court judges have been given the responsibility under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pronounce on the laws that are passed in the House. We used to be the highest court in the land and I guess if we read the Constitution of Canada, it still says we are the highest court in the land.

We pass legislation in the House and when it gets reviewed in that house down the street called the Supreme Court of Canada, it puts its stamp of yea or nay on it and says it will not have that particular piece of legislation, out it goes. We then get the feeling that it thinks it is the highest court in the land.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the voting rights for prisoners. In a split decision of five to four, the court said that all prisoners, and it does not matter why they are in jail or how heinous their crime was, will have the right to vote. They will determine who shall make the laws of the land even though we in the House said prisoners cannot vote.

It gets down there and is reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Voting rights is in a section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We cannot exercise the notwithstanding clause, even if we wanted to, because that particular section is exempt from the notwithstanding clause. The court is the last word on that particular issue.

The court is deciding public policy. It is striking down legislation that is proposed by this place, the highest court in the land. It is only evident that we be allowed to review these appointments.

I will read some editorials that appeared in the paper. I am looking at the National Post of August 8, 2002 which stated:

Rather than the Prime Minister having sole responsibility, the cross-partisan Justice Committee would be able to review each appointee. [The motion] seems a responsible proposal: What better use could there be for a Justice Committee than protecting the integrity of the country's highest court. The motion is up for debate next month, and all MPs should give it serious consideration. With Parliament deferring its toughest decisions to the bench, the least MPs can do is take responsibility for who's sitting on it.

The Calgary Herald of February 9, 2002 stated:

Appointments should be reviewed by the Commons--hearings would illuminate a procedure that today is, frankly, opaque.

The Edmonton Journal of February 6, 2002 stated:

A hearing before Parliament or a committee... might demystify the judiciary by revealing the human side of judging. This could help the public to see how judges are chosen, and how they think.

The Hamilton Spectator of February 6, 2002 stated:

There is a compelling case for a parliamentary search and screening committee, mandated to provide a full public report to the House of Commons... A new, improved selection process should be on Ottawa's agenda.

Finally, the National Post of February 6, 2002 stated:

The most attractive system for staffing the court would be to have a powerful, politically balanced, cross-party parliamentary committee to vet the Prime Minister's nominees.

The media is in favour of it. The public is in favour of it. A poll conducted by Environics in January indicated that two-thirds of Canadians want to elect justices to the Supreme Court. I am not proposing we go that far, but let us just put a little bit of clarity and transparency into who is getting those jobs so that we can question whether they reflect Canadian society and the views and opinions of Canadian society today.

I recall watching the television news in 1982, 20 years ago, on the day the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into being. I remember the newscaster saying, “Today folks, we have this new document, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is going to impact on Canadian society. We do not know how it will impact on Canadian society; we will have to wait and see”.

We have waited and we have seen and some of us do not like what we have seen. The Supreme Court has pronounced on many issues from sexual morality to spousal definition to who can vote. Prisoners can vote. The court has gone through a wide variety of cases and stated, “This shall be the public policy of Canada”.

Who elected the judges? Who chose them and from what position do they make those pronouncements? I find it very discouraging. Canada is one of the great places in the world, one that says we promote democracy.

Just yesterday we had to fight tooth and nail to have a secret ballot to elect committee chairs in the House so we can wrest that appointment power away from the Prime Minister. Here again today, the very next day, I am arguing that we take some more power away from the Prime Minister and bring it back into the House, like the election of committee chairs, because we are the highest court in the land.

It is not the Prime Minister and the Privy Council that is the highest court of the land. It is this House. Let us bring that back to us in this place where we can ensure that these things get a proper hearing.

We all know about the vote that went on yesterday, the decision and political drama as we wrested that power away from the Prime Minister and brought it back into the House.

We understand that today the procedure and House affairs committee tabled a report that said all private members' bills will be votable. What a wonderful thing. We can celebrate that we in this House will actually be given the right to vote on our own bills. This is a power that theoretically we have always had but it was being grabbed by the government, by the Prime Minister and by the cabinet. They hung on to it dearly as if their lives depended on it, but slowly we are getting that back. I think we should also look at Supreme Court justices.

Mr. Speaker, I know this motion is not votable. Therefore, in the interest of the reform that we have seen in the last couple of days, I ask that you seek unanimous consent that Motion No. 79 be made a votable motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House has heard the terms of the proposal. Is there unanimous consent to make this item a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There is no consent. The hon. member still has five minutes remaining.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is disappointing.

Let us note for the record that Liberal members said there should be no unanimous consent. Let us also note for the record that circumstances were such in the last few days that a number of Liberal members, who have been shaking in their shoes because the Prime Minister has been all powerful in the House for far too many years, broke ranks and said “Yes, we can do it, we can make these decisions for ourselves”. However it was a fleeting moment because we can see it has gone again, evaporated into the air.

The power of the Prime Minister goes right through the government benches even when he is not sitting here. Liberal members feel, in some way, shape or form that they cannot exercise the powers that are given to them as members of Parliament. They have the power; we have the power. We all have the power to make these rules.

All I asked was that the motion be votable. If they do not agree with the motion they could vote against it. That was what the government House leader was trying to make light of in the defeat yesterday, saying that it was a free vote so it did not matter.

If they do not like this, let them stand in their place, say they do not like it and vote against it. Let them go back home and tell their constituents how they either represented them in the House by standing and speaking about some process that provided some clarity and transparency to the choice of our Supreme Court justices, or let them go back home and tell their constituents that the power of the Prime Minister exuded right over the government's side and they shook in their shoes, they did not have the fortitude to make a motion votable. Shame on them. It does speak for the low level of democracy in this country.

I spend a lot time, as many people know, speaking out against corruption. I have a great deal of faith in the integrity of the people in our courts and our Supreme Court. These are people who give what they feel is best for the country. I do not always agree with their decisions. That is not the point. The point is that I have no problem with them having the authority to make these pronouncements. We have a notwithstanding clause over most of what they speak of. We can stand in our places and represent the society we were elected to represent.

I have a constituency back in Alberta called St. Albert. The culture and the society in Alberta is a little different than in Toronto, the Maritimes or British Columbia. This is a vast, varied and wonderful country in which we live. I represent the people of St. Albert and everybody else represents a different part of the country here. Collectively we make decisions.

However to run away from decisions is a different thing. If we run away from making these decisions and allow a government, not just this government, to think that it holds this place in its hand, then this is no longer an institution of accountability. We are a lapdog instead of a watchdog and more corrupt things could be done.

Transparency International has rated this country one of the better non-corrupt countries in the world. Thank goodness for that. We read in the paper of countries like the Ukraine and Zimbabwe that also have elected parliaments and an executive. In Zimbabwe the executive feels that it can turn people out of their farms and livelihoods and turn them out into the streets, and allow murder and other atrocities to be committed. It can do that with impunity because its elected house refuses to hold the executive accountable. It is that simple. In all other countries where the executive gets away with murder, maybe not that much, but get away with corruption, it starts because the elected house does not do its job. I find it unfortunate that Liberal members would deny making this motion votable.

It shows me that they are going to run away from their responsibilities rather than stand up and tell their executive that it is accountable in this land just like everyone else.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. M-79 introduced by my hon. colleague, the member for St. Albert. It proposes that appointees and potential appointees to the Supreme Court of Canada should receive parliamentary scrutiny.

I take exception to the suggestion from the hon. member that if members on this side do not agree with him, we are therefore succumbing to the influence of the Prime Minister or that we are not acting independently or whatever. I wonder if it occurs to him that that kind of suggestion is itself undemocratic. Suggesting that we must agree with him or else we are making decisions for the wrong reason is entirely undemocratic. It is a remarkable comment coming from someone who puts himself forward as someone who believes strongly in democracy. It is not very democratic in itself.

The motion further proposes that Standing Orders 110 and 111 of the House of Commons should be amended to include such appointees and potential appointees.

I would like to start with a quote from the Prime Minister:

The Supreme Court of Canada plays a fundamental role in our democratic society, in particular as the ultimate guardian of the values entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—

It is therefore essential for its members to be selected from among the most distinguished and most competent of jurists.

The current appointment process for Supreme Court judges, including that of the chief justice, is based on over 130 years of tradition and precedence and has been successful in achieving those very results that I spoke of a moment ago, and reiterated by the Prime Minister. It is true that the executive has discretion in the selection and appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Supreme Court appointments are made after extensive consultations between the Minister of Justice and senior judges, solicitors general, representatives and senior members of bar associations, provincial governments and other well informed individuals in the region where the candidate selection must take place.

Merit is the sole element taken into consideration when a Supreme Court justice is selected. Again in the words of the Prime Minister:

The proposed candidate must be held in the highest esteem by the legal community.

In making appointment decisions, qualities such as outstanding intellectual capacity, superior ability in judgment writing, the capacity for innovative thinking on emerging legal issues, and a demonstrated sensitivity to the diverse values contained in the charter are sought. These criteria, coupled with the traditional consultation process with respect to appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, have proved highly successful in producing judges of the greatest distinction and ability for the court.

The quality of appointments to this court over the past three decades has received almost universal praise. From what I have seen of the U.S. experience it would seem to indicate that confirmation hearings achieve little in improving the quality of appointments to that nation's supreme court.

If we adopt an approval process that is similar to that of the Americans, we risk politicizing the appointment of judges, and this would not be in Canadians' best interest. We must approach these proposals with caution, therefore.

Providing for parliamentary scrutiny of appointments to the Supreme Court could deter some excellent candidates because of the ordeal of public and potentially partisan hearings. This for me is a serious and sincere concern. As the learned scholar Ed Ratushny observed:

...a prominent feature of many U.S. confirmation hearings has been personal attacks on nominees without respect for their dignity as human beings, let alone as Supreme Court judges.

Clarence Thomas said after his confirmation hearing:

If someone wanted to block me because they don't like the composition of the Court, that's fine. But to destroy me--I would have preferred an assassin's bullet to this kind of living hell that they have put me and my family through.

Scrutiny of these appointments would also impose constraints upon a government seeking to appoint a Supreme Court judge whose excellence as a jurist and as a person is universally acclaimed.

As well, care should be taken to ensure that any proposal for parliamentary scrutiny of court appointments does not undermine the independence of the judiciary.

Our judicial appointments system ensures the independence of the judiciary. Judges hold office doing good behaviour; judges enjoy certain legal immunities for anything they say or do in court; and only in rare cases would an inquiry be launched that would lead to the removal of a judge.

We must therefore, for all these reasons, be cautious when considering any changes to the appointment of judges.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, allow me to thank the member for St. Albert for raising this important debate in the House. I think that this is a fundamental issue that deserves to be studied and examined, and we need to come up with solutions to this system that is not as functional as it could be.

To begin with, I agree with the observation made by the member for St. Albert. The current system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court is not transparent, is highly secretive and runs counter to our society's democratic values. At a time when judges wield tremendous powers, particularly with the increasing political role of the courts following the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, judges exert more and more influence over society.

Unlike superior court judges, who must go through an exhaustive appointment process—information on the process can be found on the Canadian Judicial Council website—there is nothing for appeal court and Supreme Court judges. Judicial appointments to appeal courts for all of the provinces are decided exclusively by the Prime Minister.

There is a very old saying in law: not only must justice be done, it must appear to be done. The current system raises doubts with respect to the appointments that are made. Let me give two example.

Last summer, Marie Deschamps was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada by the Prime Minister, and Michel Robert was appointed a judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal. It so happens that Marie Deschamps is the spouse of Paul Corbeil, a former Liberal minister in Quebec City, and Michel Robert was the president of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1986 to 1990.

Let me be clear, I am not saying that Justices Deschamps and Robert are not qualified to perform their duties as judges. I am not saying they do not deserve their appointment. I am just saying that doubt was raised in the minds of many as to why they were appointed. Was it only on the basis of their competence, or was it also—degrees may vary from person to person—because they belonged to the great Liberal family?

I am not alone in thinking this way. The issue was raised by Yves Boisvert, in La Presse on June 28, 2002, as well as by editorial writers in The Gazette on June 29, 2002, in the National Post on July 2, 2002, again in The Gazette on August 10, 2002 and in the Globe and Mail and the London Free Press on the same day. They raised the issue of the Liberal connections of the nominees, because decisions are made behind closed doors and left totally to the discretion of the Prime Minister. And this can only damage the good reputation of our legal system. I therefore agree with what the hon. member for St. Albert said.

I am not sure, though, that his solution is necessarily the right one. I am not sure that having judges appear before the Standing Committee on Justice is the right thing to do. When I asked people around me, who are in the legal profession as I am, many raised the issue of the independence of the judiciary from the legislative branch. I stress that these are doubts shared by many members of the public.

I would suggest the following compromise to my colleague—and I hope he is listening. About a week and a half ago, I introduced motion M-288 in the House. It reads:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights examine the process of appointing justices to the appeal courts and to the Supreme Court of Canada.

This then is a broader motion than that of my colleague, and one that would not be prejudicial—if I may use that term, in order to make a play on words—to solving the problem of the present lack of transparency in appointments to the judiciary.

I would also point out to him—and I hope he is still listening—that this very day I have asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in the context of a meeting on future business, to examine a motion similar to the one I have read, M-288, so as to have the committee address this matter. The decision will be made Monday in connection with future business.

I suggest that the hon. member for St. Albert tell his colleagues in the Alliance who are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to support my proposal to have that committee examine the procedure for appointing judges to the Appeal Court and to the Supreme Court, and not to prejudge the outcome but rather to allow this question to be looked at with as open a mind as possible . The approach needs to be one of offering constructive solutions so that all members of this House, that is all those who support the present system, as my Liberal colleague has said, as well as those who would like to see changes, might have an open discussion to examine in depth the problem we have before us, a problem that deserves a solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate in the House. I am also pleased to hear the comments and the speech made by my friend, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, who always presents an important, intelligent and sometimes somewhat provocative perspective.

This is a very important motion. The member for St. Albert has presented us with a very important issue for debate. The motion touches on a subject matter that we in the Progressive Conservative Party have discussed, most recently at a convention in Edmonton where we very much touched on the subject matter presented by Motion No. 79.

The motion clearly recommends that we change the way in which members of the Supreme Court of Canada receive positions on the bench. This is certainly a subject matter that deserves greater scrutiny and greater contemplation of change. In recent years Canadians have become increasingly concerned about the appearance that courts have encroached upon the supremacy of Canadian Parliament by reading into our laws interpretations that appear in many cases to be inconsistent or outside the intent of the laws as passed by Parliament.

This is of course a direct result of the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without a doubt, the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the most empowering document for the Supreme Court, or its ability at least, to strike down laws passed by the Parliament of Canada.

In the past year we have borne witness to a number of cases at the Supreme Court level which have very much taken away or at the very least eroded the concept of the supremacy of Parliament and which in many cases seem to contradict societal views and values that Canadians hold dear. I need only cite the case of John Robin Sharpe. In that recent decision, individuals were permitted or in effect allowed to embark upon or invoke a defence of artistic merit when discussing the possession of child pornography. Without getting into the esoteric argument of what is in many instances a landmark case, we have to time and time again go back to the values, the principles and the wishes of ordinary Canadians when we are discussing matters of societal values.

A friend of mine who is currently practising law expressed the opinion that there can be no doubt that those who sit on the highest court in the land have outstanding academic laurels, but to the everyday, ordinary Canadian they too often seem to be lacking in pragmatic and, sometimes, practical experience to ensure that the will of the people and the will of individuals is properly represented in these decisions. That is not said with any disrespect. It is simply stating what is perhaps the obvious: that their course in life and their ascent to the Supreme Court of Canada has in essence sanitized them or distanced them from the everyday experience that Canadians are living, for example, Canadians who do not understand how the court could allow the potential endangerment of children by accepting this definition of artistic merit as a defence, which highlights that disconnect.

All of this is to say that scrutiny by members of Parliament of appointees to the highest court in the land would go a long way in determining the suitability and the appropriateness of those individuals who aspire and wish to serve, and it could possibly allow for, I believe, a greater recognition or reflection of present day values.

To many it seems that the “reading in” of the intent of laws by courts and by judges seems to be in some ways a violation of very basic constitutional principles, that is to say, Parliament makes laws, the executive implements them, and the courts in many cases naturally interpret them, but reading in to laws very often steps over that sometimes very blurry line. The root of this perception of judicial activism is that the 1982 Constitution Act included for the first time in Canada a constitutionally entrenched guarantee of civil rights through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which required courts to determine the constitutionality of laws in light of the charter.

Again, without getting into an academic debate about the merits of the charter, we had a system that evolved much differently. It is more in line with that of the United Kingdom where it was not so much Cartesian thinking, where everything was written down, but was more in keeping with the tradition of what was not written down, where what was not documented was acceptable.

I would say that Canada in essence has taken part of what is more like an American model, one of rights that are clearly enunciated and written down, and has tried to superimpose that onto our current system, which evolved in a different way through the British traditions of constitutional law. That is not to say that there is not a clear recognition that Canada evolved as two founding nations coming together as one. There is very much the civil code, which is also reflected in our constitutional law. Some have argued that this evolution has allowed for an erosion of the supremacy of Parliament, in which place democratic accountability has been replaced by the supremacy of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The motion before us would allow for greater public scrutiny and therefore I reinforce the sentiment of believing that public confidence in the process without jeopardizing judicial independence is extremely important. My colleague from Charlevoix also talked about how the perception that justice is being done is as equally important as justice actually being done, and about the confidence that therefore flows from that.

In our party's democratic reform package that was accepted and passed in Edmonton in August, we made a number of suggestions, which included a recommendation similar to that which is brought forward by my friend from St. Albert today. One was the recommendation that the name and qualifications of any person proposed for appointment by the Prime Minister to the Supreme Court of Canada shall be presented to Parliament, which shall, after debate, make a recommendation on the suitability of that nominee's candidacy. It is the way in which it is presented, I suppose, and the practical application of this that very much makes up where we go from here in adapting this motion. Further, a vote in the House of Commons should be conducted and the outcome communicated to the governor in council prior to any such appointment being made.

I do not believe for a moment that the intent of my hon. friend's motion is to follow in essence the American example, which allows for, in some cases, the spectacle of delving into every dark corner of an individual candidate's life. That, I truly believe, would diminish further the respect for and legitimacy of an appointee.

In essence what I am saying is that we have to be clear in putting certain parameters around the process that is envisioned. We do not want to, for example, draw attention to the finances or the personal life choices of an individual. There is a cost to doing so, just as there is a cost to the denigration that sometimes occurs of all professions, including our own. There is a cost to deterring individuals from taking that step, from offering to become a judge. Many in the practice of law make more money in that practice than they would if they were to accept an appointment to the bench. That is simply a reality one has to be cognizant of. Clearly we want to have the best people, the best minds, the best individuals, assume these positions. That is truly the spirit and the intent behind my friend's motion.

There is no need for a committee to examine financial records of a candidate or the financial records of a spouse. I do not believe that this type of information would be relevant. Similarly, I am sure the motion is aimed at empowering the role of judges in the country. I see a committee process as an opportunity to allow parliamentarians, acting as representatives in the stead of their constituents and Canadians, to have the chance to delve into some of the beliefs of appointees, for example, through previous decisions that they may have rendered. As I said, no one wants to see an American style of confirmation hearing.

I very much support the principle behind the motion. It is an interesting, timely and important one. I hope that we allow Canadians to further discuss and engage in this process. I am hopeful that with the new and enlightened attitude in this place we in fact will see a day when Supreme Court judges are appointed with greater input by Parliament.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this private member's motion put forward by my colleague from St. Albert, an experienced and fine parliamentarian himself. I also appreciate the comments made by my two colleagues who spoke after the member for St. Albert.

I particularly agreed with the comments of my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and specifically with his concerns about us not going to a U.S. style system. He is quite right about that. If we look at the American system and its most recent experiences with the senate confirmation process of supreme court nominees, I think he is quite right. We can look at the example of Robert Bork, when he was nominated by President Reagan and what he went through and how the court became so politicized in that process, and the example of the confirmation process of Clarence Thomas and how that became so politicized.

I think of the American example that my colleague raised. As we all know, yesterday was election day in the United States. In the state of New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen, the Democratic incumbent governor, was running for the senate against John Sununu. John Sununu's father was chief of staff to the first President Bush. She had a campaign rally on Monday night to try to get out the vote for the Tuesday election. It was quite something. She was asked by reporters if she were elected to the U.S. senate what she would do when President George W. Bush puts forward nominees for the Supreme Court. She said she would stand firm on a woman's right to choose and would not vote for the confirmation of any justice who does not agree with her view as a legislator on Roe v. Wade, which is the enabling legislation to allow women have the right to choose to have an abortion in the United States.

I found it very fascinating. Because of the confirmation process it has become politicized. It goes to the United States senate and the United States senators themselves at the judiciary committee vote up or down on whether or not people become justices of the U.S. supreme court. It was fascinating that somebody running for office, in order to get out the vote, politicized the process itself by saying that regardless of the person's qualifications, regardless of who the president puts forward, regardless of what that person's background is and so on, she as an individual senator would not vote to confirm that person because of that person's view on this one previous court decision. From what I understand Governor Shaheen is not a lawyer and has never been a justice herself, but it shows that the politicization of the courts in the process can be very dangerous, which is why the language of the motion put forward by my colleague from St. Albert is very helpful.

Specifically, the motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, appointees and potential appointees to the positions of Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada should receive parliamentary scrutiny, and that Standing Orders 110 and 111 of the House of Commons should be amended to include such appointees and potential appointees.

It is important to note that Standing Orders 110 and 111 referred to in the motion are those which currently allow the vetting by a House of Commons standing committee of certain individuals who have been appointed to non-judicial posts. In many ways, the motion is merely extending a principle already been accepted by the House to encompass one of the most influential positions in the land. The power, the role, of the Supreme Court over public policy and in the lives of Canadians is immense.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and programs like the Court Challenges Program give Canadian citizens an extraordinary power, one not found in many other democracies. Citizens can ask the courts to declare illegal a law that has been passed by the Canadian Parliament. In a system of checks and balances, this is one check that truly puts power into the hands of everyday Canadians.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not just some legal codification of some legal rights that we think might be a good idea. There is a principle behind any bill of rights, be it the American bill of rights, the bill of rights that Voltaire was talking about, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The principle behind a bill of rights is that we try to codify natural law: that human beings have some rights. No matter who is elected, no matter what their campaign platform is, no matter how many people vote for them, human beings have core human rights that cannot be infringed upon no matter the democratic choice and the will of the majority. The fact that a citizen can take a political decision made by the state and politicians straight to the courts and say “I think this violates my charter rights” is a power that is unheard of in the vast majority of countries on this planet.

But here is what is interesting, and I have to make this point, which partly fuels the concerns of many people in our country. I have to make a point here of mentioning Professor Ted Morton and Professor Rainer Knopff, two professors at the University of Calgary who have done extraordinary academic work in studying Canada's judicial system and how it can be cleaned up to be more reflective of not necessarily a democratic society but a society that lives and understands the rule of law and the balancing of that supremacy of Parliament.

With that in mind, on the Supreme Court of Canada website one will find an address by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, where she says the following:

Twenty years ago, Canada came of full constitutional age with the patriation of the Constitution and enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is a uniquely Canadian document and a product of our distinctive history. It is also the product, not just of politicians, but of ordinary Canadians who worked tirelessly to ensure that it would reflect their vision of Canada...

Here is the punch line:

Accordingly, Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, must constantly strive to reflect these values in their decisions.

What Chief Justice McLachlin is implying is that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it is not a set in stone, firm constitutional model that tries to codify human rights, and not just legal rights, and that her position as a supreme court justice, and indeed as the head of the supreme court, is not to take legislation from the Parliament and hold it up against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ensure that people's core rights are balanced with the political rights established in legislation. She says that the Supreme Court of Canada, “must constantly strive to reflect these values in their decisions”. What she is suggesting is not an objective legal role for the courts but in fact a subjective role, where the court gets to decide and ensure that the law is passed by the Parliament of Canada and ratified by the Senate, and that these laws reflect the values that were inherent in the individual charter.

That kind of attitude is frightening. It is a legitimate position for somebody to have, particularly somebody who is aspiring to become a federal judge or a Supreme Court justice, but it has to be challenged. There are legitimate reasons why it is a frightening position.

This motion and the idea behind this motion would be to have these Supreme Court nominees come before a committee to challenge them on that view. Is the Constitution in fact a living, interpretive document or is legislation interpretive that should be held up against a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that codifies the rights of people and legislation gets interpreted and not the Constitution itself? It is a very delicate balance.

The concerns that a number of Canadians have about the active nature of a supreme court, a supreme court looking at the subjective nature of legislation, is that it sees its role as an evolving role in protecting the values that were inherent when the Constitution was drafted in 1982 and imposed on Canada almost unilaterally. On se souvient aussi. These are legitimate concerns, not abstract academic concerns. These are concerns that have a real impact on public policy.

In recent years, Canada's Supreme Court has had to deal with a variety of tough issues, ranging from the clarity act, to same sex couples having more rights, to cigarette warnings, to the status of school boards and to the religiosity of school boards. These are real concerns. The courts having unilateral power over these kind of decisions is a frightening thing.

We hear conversations and see rumours in the newspapers that the Minister of Justice is considering bringing before the House legislation to change the definition of marriage. Basically there are four ways that the federal Parliament can go. First, we can continue the status quo, which is that marriage is the union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. Second, we can amend the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Third, the governments can get out of marriage altogether and say that if two people love each other regardless of who they are it is none of the business of politicians or government to get involved in their lives. Fourth, the government could go down the road of establishing some sort of civil union, which is in essence an expanded concept of the legality of marriage. Four very different public policy perspectives, four very different tracks that we can go down, but that is a debate that should happen in the House of Commons.

The institution of marriage is historic. The institution of marriage and its impact on our social culture, on our economy and on how we organize ourselves as human beings in communities, is a fundamentally difficult question to address. However that question should be reflected here in the House of Commons. It should be addressed through free votes in the House of Commons. I would say quite honestly to the House, I believe, as only I can speak as a Canadian Alliance member of Parliament, that there would be a broad diversity of views on that issue within the official opposition.

Those are the sorts of issues that need to be addressed in the House. We need to vet Supreme Court justices to ensure that they understand the proper legal role of the courts, the proper legal role of the House of Commons and the proper legal role of the bureaucracy, if they have different perspectives on those things. Those things need to be understood, need to be vetted and people need to be accountable.

I applaud my colleague for St. Albert for trying to establish a greater transparency in trying to bring some clarity to this issue. It is an important motion. It puts it in the right direction. I appreciate his motion and I fully support it.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the debate. We have had members on the government side saying not to touch the process because it is working so well. However it is not working so well. We heard four members from the opposition say that it was time for change.

I cannot overemphasize the fact that the polls are saying people want change. My friend from Nova Scotia has pointed out that people have the capacity to read into the law things that we never thought were there.

Society has changed in the 20 years since we have had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, in 1960 we had as a public policy residential schools in the country. Today the notion of residential schools is the worst thing that we could ever imagine. Back in the sixties we had a different opinion on sexual morality than we have today. They could not have envisioned what we have today for sexual morality.

Society has changed. We wrote the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as society was in 1982. We are asking our courts to interpret it today in the year 2002. However we have a different perspective on society. What was debated back in 1982 in this Chamber about the powers to be given to the courts and the powers that would be contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has moved far beyond anything that we could have envisioned. We have rulings coming out of the Supreme Court that would have made people's hair stand on end in 1982. Yet today it is business as usual coming out of the Supreme Court.

Imagine people standing in the House in 1982 and saying that people like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo could not only vote in a general election, but it was their right to vote in a general election was guaranteed. My goodness, we would have gone berserk in 1982. Now we just take it in our stride because the Supreme Court has made that pronouncement.

There are different ways that the Supreme Court has ruled in the last 20 years that would never have been thought of in 1982. Yet this murky process of osmosis, of let the best brains bubble to the top, as proposed by our Liberal friends, is the best way for the country to have a Supreme Court justice foisted upon it. Is this the right way and the best way?

I am not looking for a witch hunt. I am not looking for us to bring them in, throw them to the wolves and see if they can stand the pressure. I am just saying that if we are to give nine unelected people the right to determine what this society can or cannot do, we as a society have a right to ask them a question about where they are coming from.

It is not asking much. This is the highest court in the land but many times we would not know it. That side of the House prostrates themselves to the Prime Minister on most occasions, but I was so glad yesterday when finally members on that side realized that they had some power. All they have to do is exercise it.

All of us have constituents who are demanding that our system be democratic, that our institutions be democratic and that our institutions be responsive to the people. That is the meaning of democracy. I hear the Liberals telling us about the great and wonderful democracy in the country but they will not even think about debating or even allowing a vote on this. There is not much democracy in Canada. It is unfortunate.

We are a peaceful nation and we are a civilized nation. We have, in most cases, a Supreme Court that we respect and appreciate. However, at the same time there is no reason whatsoever to continue this process of one man, a Prime Minister, even though he talks to people behind the scenes, having the power to foist on this nation nine unelected people who think they are the last word on our society.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 53(1), the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering Motion No. 6, under government business.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 6, Mr. Kilger in the chair)

Canadian Coast Guard

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That this Committee take note of the Canadian Coast Guard.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all parties for having agreed to have this debate on this significant item. It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House this evening and speak about a key Canadian institution and an important and highly respected cornerstone of my department, the Canadian Coast Guard. If it is permissible, I would like to point out the presence in the gallery of representatives from B.C.'s shipping and recreational boating industry who take particular interest in this debate.

As we know, this year the Canadian Coast Guard is celebrating its 40th anniversary as a national institution. The members of the Coast Guard, past and present, can be extremely proud of all they have accomplished over the years. They can also be extremely proud of the world class reputation they have earned through their hard work and dedication. In the years ahead the role of the Canadian Coast Guard will only become more important.

Canada has a long-standing relationship with our oceans and waterways. But over the decades, this historical reliance has translated into an economic necessity.

Today, in 2002, our oceans and waterways are busier than they have ever been—and getting busier every year.

Currently, over 70% of Canada's exports travel by ship—and nearly half our imports do. Some forecasts predict that international trade will triple by 2020, with over 90% of this trade moving by ship.

When we consider that marine transportation is one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transportation—particularly as we look for ways to meet our commitments under the Kyoto protocol—there is no way we can ignore the need to maintain a safe and efficient marine transportation highway.

Over the years the Canadian Coast Guard has proven it is up to the challenge of maintaining this highway. The Canadian Coast Guard provides services in a number of key areas: ensuring marine safety, including prevention and response; protecting the marine and freshwater environment; facilitating maritime commerce and sustainable development; supporting marine scientific excellence; working with fisheries officers to perform fisheries patrols; and supporting Canada's maritime priorities.

This broad mandate supported by a fleet of 104 vessels and 27 helicopters, a comprehensive technical support program and, most important, an extremely dedicated staff of thousands of women and men across the country.

Perhaps the most highly recognized Coast Guard function is in the area of maritime safety. The fleet currently operates 32 lifeboat stations equipped with specially designed and constructed search and rescue vessels, manned with specially trained crews at strategic locations across Canada.

In addition to the dedicated research and rescue vessels, other multi-tasked Canadian Coast Guard vessels are equipped and trained to perform search and rescue duties.

The volunteer based Canadian Coast Guard auxiliary is another key part of the Canadian Coast Guard safety services to Canadians. Its 5,000-plus members are dedicated to search and rescue and safe boating activities, and responded to over 2,000 search and rescue taskings last year, or 27% of all maritime search and rescue incidents across the country. These are impressive numbers.

The Canadian Coast Guard also has a role to play in safe navigation by marking dangerous passages and providing a range of aids to navigation to help vessels ply our waters.

Ice breaking is another key function. The Canadian Coast Guard provides a range of services to help vessels through ice and ensure that commodities and other supplies get where they need to go safely and efficiently.

That brings me to the important economic dimensions of the Coast Guard's work. Every year billions of dollars worth of commodities travel in over 100,000 ship movements through Canadian waters. The Coast Guard's services help keep these commodities, and, by extension, our national economy, on the move.

However keeping vessels moving through Canada's waters requires a comprehensive communications system.

The Coast Guard's marine communications and traffic services program provides initial response to ships in distress, reduces the chances of ships being involved in collisions and groundings, and is a means by which important marine information, such as weather and navigation warnings, is disseminated.

It is a busy system. On an average day the system processes over 1,100 radio contacts and manages 2,200 ship movements. Every year, in fact, the Canadian Coast Guard assists thousands of vessels in distress, everything from commercial shipping and fishing to recreational boating.

In terms of responding to distress calls, the Coast Guard's rescue rate is 97%, one of the best in the world, and eight lives are saved on an average each day. The Canadian Coast Guard's importance does not get any clearer than that.

Incidentally, it was because of this valuable role that the Government of Canada announced in July 2000 that $115 million over three years would be invested in Canada's search and rescue program, an investment that is providing new lifeboat stations and lifeboats. This complements the previously announced purchase of 15 Canadian Cormorant helicopters, an investment of $780 million dedicated to search and rescue.

In addition to the Canadian Coast Guard's emergency-response capability, the organization also performs a lot of work on the prevention side of boating safety—including regulating the construction, inspection, equipment and operation of pleasure craft.

The Canadian Coast Guard also helps protect the marine environment. Through the Coast Guard's Environmental Response Program, the CCG prepares for, monitors, and ultimately prevents oil spills from happening.

The CCG also plays a role in responding to these incidents, working with certified response organizations to clean up spills.

As a key part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard plays an important role in fulfilling other areas of the department's mandate, too. For instance, 18 of the CGG's vessels are dedicated, specially designed science vessels. And Canadian Coast Guard vessels and aircraft provide a wide range of on-the-water support for the protection of fish and fish habitat. This includes monitoring activities, supporting our fishery officers, and other special operations.

The Canadian Coast Guard is uniquely positioned to help other federal departments, levels of governments and international organizations. For instance, the Canadian Coast Guard provides on the water support to a wide range of partners, including the RCMP, the Department of National Defence and many others.

Since the tragic incidents of 9/11, the Canadian Coast Guard has been working closely with Transport Canada and other agencies to deliver enhanced Canadian marine security. Indeed, through its presence, the Canadian Coast Guard helps fulfill Canada's expectations that the Government of Canada is maintaining a state of operational readiness.

One need only refer to incidents in recent years to see the important role that the Coast Guard played in responding to them: the Swissair 111 crash; the Ontario and Quebec ice storm; the floods in Manitoba and Quebec; the Air India crash; and, of course, Canada's response to 9/11. In all of these incidents, the Canadian Coast Guard was not only ready to answer the call, but it answered it in a fashion that all Canadians can be tremendously proud of.

In the words of Coast Guard Commissioner John Adams, “Our people are answering the bell”.

However, as in any large, multifaceted organization, there are challenges to be faced. Funding, as always, is one such challenge. Our fleet capital requirements currently exceed the money available to us.

However we cannot let the challenges completely overshadow the fact that in recent years we have made some progress. The three year, $115 million investment in search and rescue, which I mentioned earlier, is a good example.

While this is a step in the right direction, there clearly is still more to do. That is why fleet recapitalization will remain a high priority for me as minister and for my department to ensure this vital Canadian institution has what it need for the 21st century.

In the meantime, let me take this opportunity to assure all members of the House that the Canadian Coast Guard remains focused on the wide range of marine safety needs of Canadians.

Earlier I referred to the Coast Guard as a national institution. It is, but it is something more. It is not only a national institution, it is a national asset and, like any asset, it must be managed carefully, wisely and with an eye to the future.

As minister, I am here tonight to tell hon. members that I am committed to finding ways to strengthen this key Canadian asset in the future.

[The Chairman of Committees of the Whole]

Taking note of the number of members who want to ask questions, I will suggest, and I will have to enforce it for it to be successful, that each question be limited to one minute, and if the minister could respond in an equal amount of time of one minute, then we could go to a second round if applicable.

If that is agreeable to all parties, I will begin with the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I find the minister's comments about the ability of the department to respond to incidents rather curious. He mentioned incidents like 9/11 and Swissair but failed to mention the most recent incident which occurred off the mouth of the Fraser River this past summer.

After that incident, the minister suggested that the Coast Guard divers were mistaken when they did not request permission to enter the overturned vessel. The fact of the matter is that they were directed not to. George Horel, the director of operational services, notes that if members had entered the overturned vessel it would have amounted to a violation of fleet safety procedures that would not be tolerated either now or later.

The minister suggested that the fleet safety regulations were somehow superceded by the Canada Labour Code. The Canada Labour Code does not empower divers to enter overturned vessels. In fact, it puts the onus on the rescue coordinator.

There is a huge discrepancy between the minister's comments and reality and I would like him to set the record straight this evening.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated in the House before, I have had discussions with the responsible officer at search and rescue, Admiral MacLean, who indicated to me that he was quite aware of the procedures.

Our dive team operates under the Canada Labour Code. It is an open water dive team that does not do confined space diving.

Under the Canada Shipping Act, the commander has the authority to permit the divers to do anything reasonable to save human life, and I am paraphrasing here because I do not have the code in front of me. Under that act, if he had wished, if it had been requested and if the conditions had been right, he could have permitted the dive. He indicated to me that those conditions, in his humble opinion, did not exist.

We recognize weaknesses within the department, that those other procedures under the Canada Shipping Act were not part of our manual, and that there was a managerial communications problems that we are rectifying.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the minister that, when we went west last year, we visited the Coast Guard and met the person in charge, who told us that “Everything is just fine, folks”. But when we went to talk to the front-line people, they told us of huge problems and how, for instance, Chinese boats had been able to get up to the coast because there was no radar.

I also wonder to what extent the Coast Guard is really capable of doing the job. A ship, the Ocean Venture navigated the St. Lawrence up to the wharf at Rimouski. It was only when it got to Matane that people became aware of its existence and asked where it was headed. So it was in the gulf, and then in the estuary, and as far up as Matane before the authorities were aware of it. It was carrying salt, apparently, and stayed at that mooring for two years. We have just learned that it has been sold.

So how certain can we be that the Coast Guard can really do its job? I myself have serious doubts.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard works, of course, in conjunction with all other federal government agencies, within its areas of responsibility, and with international agencies. It has some very modern equipment, particularly on the St. Lawrence.

If there was an incident—I am not aware of the one the hon. member has referred to and thank her for telling me—I will find out about it. There may be shortcomings, problematic incidents. I thank the member for telling me of them and I will check into it. We use such incidents to help us improve the system.

We do, however, wish to use the most up to date technology, the best adapted technologies, in order to have the best control humanly possible over our waters in order to protect Canadians. We work in conjunction with other agencies such as National Defence, the RCMP, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and others.