Debates of Feb. 16th, 2007

Bloc Québécois

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the significant impact the Bloc Québécois has had on the decisions made by the government of the Prime Minister. We can say that, without the Bloc's input on issues affecting Quebec, those issues would not have been handled in the same way.

We have won recognition for Quebec as a nation because we believe that Quebec is not just a province, but a nation of the world.

In the same way, remaining true to what we are, the Bloc Québécois has criticized the fiscal imbalance and demanded a solution that we are still waiting for. It was the Bloc Québécois that repeatedly called on the federal government to pay Quebec so that Quebec could implement its green plan.

On the issue of supply management, it was the Bloc Québécois that pressured the government to live up to its responsibilities to an industry whose very existence was threatened. The Bloc Québécois can be proud of its record.

Citizenship Act

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, Prime Minister Mackenzie King declared for the first time, “I speak as a citizen of Canada”, to the participants in Canada's first citizenship ceremony.

The spark that led to the creation of the Canadian Citizenship Act was created in 1945 when a young member of Parliament visited the Canadian War Cemetery in Dieppe and noted that the names on the crosses were French, they were English and they were also from the farthest approaches of the world. He noted that these young men and women could no longer be called only British subjects, that the Canadian Citizenship Act had to be brought into being.

That MP, the minister who later created the act, was my father.

Canada is known to the world as a beacon of hope, respect and decency. As generations of Canadians have built our country, Canadian citizenship has become the mortar of our nation and the emblem of our achievement.

Senate Tenure Legislation

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had reason to hope, albeit a very modest hope, that the Leader of the Opposition had finally come to his democratic senses. Canadian Press reported that after meeting with Liberal senators, the Liberal leader has now agreed to support Bill S-4 for Senate term limits in principle.

Two hundred and sixty-two days and counting and no movement in the unaccountable, unelected Liberal dominated Senate and the only thing we get from the Liberal leader is that he now agrees in principle with the same position he already asserted, except instead of six to ten years he now wants term limits of 12 to 15 years.

Despite the fact he told his senators directly to support the bill in principle, apparently his words held little priority in their minds because we saw no change in tactic yesterday.

What is it going to take for the Leader of the Opposition to be respected in the Senate? What will it take to end the Liberal filibuster of a 66 word bill?

Canadians want leadership. They want term limits on senators and they want a Senate that is accountable.

Judicial Appointments

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Prime Minister admitted that his government was changing the judicial appointment process to find judges willing to advance his party's criminal justice agenda.

The issue here is not who is tough on crime, but who is prepared to take appropriate measures on crime while respecting the independence of the judiciary.

If the Prime Minister is so certain that his government needs to meddle with the judicial system, can he tell the House what court decisions he would reverse?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, our position on this matter is very clear. We want an independent judiciary based on merit and quality.

In terms of the process of appointing those judges, we do think that lawyers are not the only people who have a say in the system. We believe that police officers often participate in the judicial system and police officers understand how the judicial system works and perhaps some of its failings. We think they have something constructive to offer and it is consistent with our view that we want to make our streets and communities safer for all Canadians. We think police officers on the judicial advisory committees will make a big difference in ensuring that result.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has doubted the wisdom of charter jurisprudence for a long time. His suspicions about Canadian judges are also longstanding.

If this Prime Minister is intent on imposing an ultimate test for potential judges, can he tell this House which rights granted to Canadians by our courts should be revoked?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, for example, we have Bill C-10 which is proposing minimum sentences for crimes committed with firearms. The Liberal Party is opposed to this bill. This is one way that our party,our government, wishes to fight crime.

I invite the deputy leader of the opposition to tell his colleagues that if they do want to show that they care about getting tough on crime and they do want to make our streets and communities safer, they can support that bill for mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has refused to answer the question. He knows full well that this side of the House has given the government cooperation on a number of important criminal justice bills.

Let me address another issue. There is a backlog of judicial vacancies and we know that the government has dragged its feet until it can change the way judges are appointed. If the government were serious about crime, it would fill the vacancies on the bench right now.

Will the government return the appointment process to the way it was and move swiftly to appoint judges meeting the appropriate standard of merit and not ideology?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that we want to go back to the old way of appointing judges under the Liberal Party. That meant judicial advisory councils stacked to the hilt with Liberal appointees, like the president of the Liberal Party of Manitoba and former candidates from all across this country.

No, we do not want to see former Liberal Party hacks making the appointments. We want to see police officers involved in looking over those decisions together with other respected members of the community, including those from the legal community.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has shown his disdain for judges long before now.

In 2004 to CBC television the Prime Minister said, “I have been somewhat of a critic of the courts from time to time. If I am Prime Minister, people will be relieved to know a little bit more about appointments that I would make”.

Why is the Prime Minister using the courts to push his social Conservative agenda against the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, if I could continue my further response to the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, we have actually made 51 judicial appointments so far this year. That is a fair number to clear up the backlog.

If he thinks it is an extreme ideological agenda, perhaps he could explain. One of those appointments is Julie Thorburn, former fundraiser for the campaign of the deputy leader when he was seeking to become leader of the Liberal Party. I suppose he thinks she is not qualified, or perhaps that is the sole exception, someone who fits the Liberal test for appointment to the bench: membership in the Liberal Party.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this non-answer shows that this government is trying to divide Canadians.

Canada has never needed to question judges' ideology because our citizens know that the independence of our judicial system has never been called into question, except by this new government.

Perhaps the minister will have an answer. Will the minister present a specific list in this House of the judges with whom he does not agree and the decisions he does not like?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I think that, on the issue of crime, Canadians are united. They want safer communities. Clearly, our program is trying to achieve that objective.

In terms of making our streets and communities safer, we make no apologies for putting police officers on the judicial advisory committees. Members of the Liberal Party of Canada may think that is bad. They may think police officers know nothing about the legal system. They may think they know nothing about crime. We think that police officers are perhaps the best judges of what needs to be done to make our streets and communities safer.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's strategy has been clear since 2003, when the President of the Treasury Board moved a motion in the House, calling upon the government to bring in measures to protect and reassert the will of Parliament against certain court decisions.

Will the government admit that its strategy is nothing new, since its objective was already clear in 2003? Once in power, it wanted to appoint judges who share the same ideology.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, our party's agenda, and that of this government, is to make communities safer.

We want to make our streets and communities safer. We want to get tough on gun crime. We want to get tough on dangerous offenders. We want to get tough on sexual offenders. This is not any kind of secret. This is what Canadians want. This is what Quebeckers want. This is what this government wants.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is like listening to a broken record. We are sick of hearing the same responses.

In his speech on this motion, the former justice minister already denounced judicial activism regarding the redefinition of marriage.

Are we to understand that the recent changes to the composition of the selection committees are intended not only to reward their cronies, but also to ensure that future decisions will correspond to his ideology?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this government has its agenda. I invite the Bloc Québécois to join our government by supporting Bill C-10, for example. This bill proposes minimum sentences for criminals who commit an offence with a firearm.

I would invite the member of the Bloc Québécois to join with us and with Quebeckers and other Canadians in ensuring that that bill, which the Bloc Québécois together with the Liberals have effectively gutted at committee, gets the meaningful penalties restored in it when it comes back to the House.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech he made in 2003, the President of the Treasury Board denounced the secret process of appointing Supreme Court and appeal court judges. He called for a review of the process and said he wanted more Canadians with different backgrounds to get involved.

Will the President of the Treasury Board acknowledge that when he said he wanted more Canadians with different backgrounds to choose judges, he really wanted people who think just like him to have complete control over the judicial appointment process?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are united in wanting safer streets and safer communities. This government has made a very clear commitment, as did other opposition parties make a very clear commitment in the last election campaign, to get tough on crime.

Why is it when it comes time to actually put these measures in place, only one party is acting? We are acting. We urge opposition members to join with us in making our streets safer for all Canadians.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Justice did not beat around the bush when he said in the same speech that the courts were doing what they pleased and that that had to stop. He added that Parliament had the duty to bring legislation in line with Canadians' opinions and values.

Yet is it not true that this government's real agenda is not to impose Canadians' values on the judiciary, as it claims, but rather to impose old, right-wing Alliance and Reform values?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we announced last year that we would be adding police officers to the judicial advisory committees, which provide advice to the Minister of Justice on judicial appointments.

I can understand why the Liberals are upset that they are no longer making judicial appointments, but I would ask all opposition members to explain to their constituents why police officers are less worthy than lawyers to help make these decisions.

The Environment

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is the two year anniversary of the coming into force of the Kyoto protocol and the government should be living up to its obligations. However, the NDP has learned that not only is the government an environmental delinquent, it does not live up to its financial obligations.

When we look at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, it turns out that Canada owes $525,000 under that convention. It is not acceptable that these bills are not being paid.

Why is the government not paying its dues on the environment and why does it not stop being a deadbeat when it comes to the UN and the fees we owe them?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action on the environment after 13 years in which very little happened. We know there are others who would like to see Canada spend money, for example, on greenhouse gas hot air credits by giving billions to Russia.

We believe in acting in Canada. We have done that through the ecoenergy program and the ecotrust proposal. These are putting billions of dollars into the hands of Canadians who are seeking to make their environment cleaner. We are putting billions in the hands of Canadian provinces to have a program to make our environment cleaner. The government is taking action.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That certainly sounds like a deadbeat response, Mr. Speaker.

That is not all. In addition to these arrears, the government owes nearly $400,000 for the Kyoto protocol. That makes a total of nearly $1 million in dues that this government owes for the environment. These figures come from the UN.

Why is this government not paying its dues on the environment to the UN? Why?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the previous government, the Liberal government, promised to spend a lot of money on the environment, but in actual fact, it did almost nothing.

The Liberals did virtually no spending. They did virtually no actual action to improve the environment. We are finally getting around to making those changes that were never made. We were committed to commitments internationally, which the last government never took any steps to do. In fact, under the previous Liberal government, Canada went to 35% above its Kyoto commitments. Obviously, we have a big hole dig out of.