Madam Speaker, the Canadian Alliance supports the aims of the bill which are efficiency, presumably cost savings, which the Canadian Alliance would certainly agree with, and improved quality. However, we are not so sure about judicial independence.
I want to comment on some of these points because the government has a habit of putting some good aims into its legislation and then forgetting about them after the legislation comes into effect. The government does not review or monitor its legislation. We then become frustrated to learn that the aims were never achieved.
I will begin with efficiency and cost savings. How will there be efficiency and cost savings through these consolidation procedures? I presume duplication will be eliminated and positions will be eliminated. Obviously if all the personnel are being brought under one roof, with one chief clerk of the court, positions will be eliminated.
I have not seen anything from the government as to how many people will lose their jobs through redundancy. I am not exactly sure what kind of standardized procedures will be brought in to bring about greater efficiency.
I suspect that in five years we might see a report from the auditor general saying that in the administration of the court system there are more employees than there are today and the costs are higher than they are today. I expect to hear that but the aim is good. The government has problems executing the legislation to get the results that are talked about.
The government is also talking about the need for improved quality. For most Canadians access to our court system is next to impossible. Unless people are very wealthy, unless it is a government or unless it is a group that is funded by the government, they do not have access to the court system. It is beyond their reach. From a cost standpoint, most people would have to mortgage their house in order to use the system.
The court system is extremely complex and the procedures are very lengthy. The federal court system is even Greek to most lawyers. It is still a great mystery how this thing, which was created in the early 1970s, fits in with the rest of the court system.
I do not see any specific plan or quality objectives enunciated by the government. The government says that there will be improved quality but I do not see a plan or a process to improve quality. I am rather dubious about it.
The Liberals seem to assume that if a process is centralized and consolidated, and if more power is concentrated in the centre of Ottawa then that automatically translates into quality improvements, despite the fact that almost every public administration academic person or public management person would say that is a false assumption.
In the private sector good organizations use ISO standards to measure quality. This is a very objective way of determining quality and standard and making sure that services and products meet standard quality services.
I surmise that if the government started using ISO standards, the court system would fail miserably and not meet the standards. If ISO standards were applied to the department of Indian affairs it would certainly fail miserably. We only have to look at the results of programs in that area. It is a disaster and there is no quality in that department.
If ISO standards were applied to immigration, I wonder what would be said about the 27,000 refugee claimants who were subject to deportation orders by a government that does not even know where they are any more or what has become of them.
What about the military? How in the world could any person apply objective standards of quality, in terms of materials, resources and equipment, and say that the military meets ISO standards for quality?
What about Correctional Service Canada and the parole system? It is a dismal disaster in terms of providing quality there.
What about the fisheries department? There are probably more people working in the fisheries department than there are actual fishermen and fisher ladies.