Eleni Bakopanos

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is urging the government to conclude an agreement on social union with the provinces and territories before December 31.

I am glad that the Reform Party is taking such an active interest in our social union, but I cannot support the motion. Such an important issue takes time to address. Imposing arbitrary time lines serves no one's best interest.

The government is committed to a few simple principles. We want to continue to build a stronger, more compassionate and prosperous Canada. We want to improve the quality of life for all Canadians. Also we as parliamentarians want to leave a legacy for our children and our youth.

There is no magic formula to accomplish this. There are no simple solutions. Anyone who says that there are is either naive in my opinion or trying to pull a fast one.

Positive change requires concerted effort on a wide variety of fronts. It demands the good will and co-operation of all levels of government as well as the citizens of the country. Perhaps most of all it requires the right attitude. We need to focus on what we can accomplish together. We need to be willing to share our strengths and help each other to overcome our weaknesses.

That is the kind of attitude the government brings to policy making. That is the kind of attitude that will help launch Canada confidently into the 21st century.

The Government of Canada has worked very hard over the last five years to renew federalism. It will continue to do so in the months and years to come, because no healthy system is ever static. We have a vibrant democracy and robust institutions. It is only natural that they would grow and develop over time.

The Reform Party's motion raises some issues that are dear to Canadians. In many respects our social programs reflect the heart of the country. They speak to what we stand for as Canadians. As Canada changes, they need to evolve, but this evolution must follow a reasoned and positive direction. We are talking about programs and institutions that are crucial to the citizens of the country and crucial to our children and grandchildren.

I do not know why the Reform Party seems to be so anxious to rush forward. Negotiations are still under way. While the government is confident that a good framework will be developed, we recognize that these things take time. If we were to support the motion, I believe the House would not be acting responsibly and in the best interest of Canadians.

These negotiations give a good indication of the type of activity we are seeing throughout the government these days. There is a great deal of positive work being done to reform the federation and build a better Canada. I relish the opportunity to discuss this issue.

There is a multitude of reasons why the Canadian federation works. I could list the federal programs and initiatives that have served Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia as well other parts of the country. Every federal government department would be on the list, and the lives of all Canadians and Quebeckers like me would be affected by the activities listed.

Substantial progress has been made on a number of issues. We are withdrawing from mining, logging and tourism. We have launched measures to stimulate job creation through the Canada infrastructure works program. And work will continue as part of the national children's agenda.

There are members of this House who will no doubt continue to maintain that Canada does not work. They claim that the Canadian federation lacks flexibility and that the true aspirations of the provinces can never be achieved in such a restrictive system. If a framework agreement on social union is not signed within a month, they will say it is further proof of the fact that Canada does not work.

I do not share that opinion. I think that the majority of Canadians do not share it either. Therefore, I cannot support this motion. I find it rather ironic that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois stand on the same side of this issue with respect to this motion.

Certainly the rest of the world is trying to figure out the secret of our prosperity. Other countries are looking at Canada and asking themselves how they can achieve that level of success.

I will spend some time talking about that reaction. There is a great deal we take for granted in the country. We sometimes forget just what we have accomplished together. That is not despite our differences but rather because of our differences. They have forced us to become creative and conciliatory. Our willingness to embrace both French and English, to celebrate our aboriginal heritage and to welcome cultures from around the world have made Canada the success story it is today.

I should like to talk a little about the government's agenda. We hear about the need for change. There has been change, something that the opposition neglects, and a lot of it. Perhaps it is time Canadians knew about it.

My colleagues have already addressed the economic successes we have seen recently. I will not delve too deeply into that area. Suffice to say we have a budget surplus of $3.5 billion, the first surplus in more than a generation. That is a remarkable $45.5 billion swing in just four years from the $42 billion deficit we inherited from our predecessors in 1993.

The finance minister's balanced fiscal and economic plan has created a Canadian economic foundation that is among the most fundamentally strong and dynamic in the world.

I will now turn to the social policy side of the government's accomplishments. What has the government done in the last five years, Canadians may ask themselves.

Our social safety net is a source of great pride in Canada. It is the essence of the values we share. Guaranteeing the continuance of our health and social programs is the priority of Canadians and of their governments. Our health care system and other elements of our social safety net are the envy of the world. They point very simply to the principles of mutual help and common interest underlying our federation and our social union. They testify to Canadians' commitment to a shared sense of responsibility for each other and toward the common good.

There are voices saying it is perhaps time to begin dismantling the system or, better yet, to privatize everything. I think that the federal government and its provincial partners must continue to work together on this and find new ways to meet the needs of Canadians.

There have been several initiatives recently which illustrate what I am talking about. The national child benefit was introduced to reduce and prevent child poverty and to assist parents of low income families in either moving from welfare to work or staying employed.

There is also the community action program for children which recognizes that communities are best positioned to address the needs of young Canadians. It builds on community strength by funding neighbourhood groups that deliver services to children at risk.

There are nearly 400 CAPC projects in over 300 urban, rural and remote communities across Canada. Every week almost 29,000 children and 27,000 parents and caregivers visit these projects. I would like to think those are 29,000 children whose lives are just a little better.

A variety of health related activities have been developed over the past few years. Health Canada, for example, provides funding for five centres of excellence for women's health in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. These centres are dedicated to improving the health of Canadian women by enhancing the health system's understanding of and responsiveness to women's health issues. In a similar vein the government is funding a variety of research initiatives. In June the federal government announced its renewed support for breast cancer research.

The government is confident that we will negotiate a framework agreement that is good for all Canadians. Such an agreement would promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians wherever they live or move in the country. It would also strengthen the partnership among governments in order to serve Canadians better. Is this not the legacy we want to leave our children and our youth?

[Justice, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate all the members of the justice committee, and my colleagues who held town hall meetings to give victims an opportunity to have a real voice within the Canadian justice system.

The minister brought forth these recommendations at the last meeting of the provincial and territorial ministers. She will be responding very soon in order to ensure there will be a real voice for victims in our system.

[Election Campaign In Quebec, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, next Monday is a decisive moment for the future of Quebec and of Canada, the day of the Quebec election.

Quebeckers will have an opportunity to choose between economic growth and separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.

I myself will be voting Liberal, because I believe in a better future within a united Canada for myself and my children. I will be voting for a party which has the true interests of Quebec at heart, the Quebec Liberal Party.

This coming November 30, it is Quebeckers' chance to speak up. I am confident that they will choose Canada.

[Firearms Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Obviously the opposition finds this very funny. This is not a funny subject as far as we are concerned.

It will be possible to track down any firearm imported into and sold in Canada. Contraband reduction is an important tool through which the Firearms Act can contribute to crime reduction.

The Firearms Act allows honest and law-abiding sportsmen to continue to practice their sport. It is possible to buy and sell firearms, to hunt with a gun, to target shoot, to collect firearms, to display them in a museum and to practice all sorts of other sound activities favoured by gun owners.

To counter criminal activities in the country, the Department of Justice is attending to a wide range of criminal justice issues such as our crime prevention program, our efforts to improve youth justice, our intentions to address organized crime issues, which we have done, and our approach to firearms control.

In short, Bill C-236 seeks to return the system of gun control to the status it held before Bill C-68. In so doing it ignores the benefits of better licensing screening. It ignores the benefits of registration. It ignores the cherry picking that members opposite are suggesting in terms of the legislation. It is simply regressive legislation. Above all it is not responsive to Canadian people.

I said before, and I will close on this point, that there is strong support across Canada for the direction we are taking. We were re-elected on that point. We are implementing a reasonable system that respects and encourages responsible firearm owners in the safe practice of their sport.

Our legislation, which was ruled upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal, respects the rights of responsible law-abiding gun owners at the same time as building a culture of safety in Canada.

[Firearms Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Of course they find this very funny. Seventy-two per cent of rural Canadians approve of registration. There is strong support for the universal registration of firearms across Canada. Bill C-68 establishes a framework to achieve a number of goals that relate directly to the safety of Canadians in their homes and on the streets.

It creates stiff sentences for those who use firearms in the commission of a crime. It creates systems and sanctions to deal with the smuggling of guns into Canada. It provides that all firearms in Canada must be registered, a cornerstone measure that will help police fight smuggling and do their job more effectively. It does all these things within a framework that respects the rights of responsible law-abiding gun owners.

Let us review for a moment the background of how the legislation came to be. The opposition keeps forgetting how many times we have debated the issue in the House. We were elected on the second mandate because of that piece of legislation. It was introduced into the House of Commons on February 14, 1995 through successive debates including an extensive list of amendments brought to the bill by committee and debated at third reading.

On and on we have debated the issue in the House of Commons. It has gone to committee. Canadians have had a chance to bring forth their opinions. Two major sets of regulations have been processed, the first being tabled in November 1996 and the second set being tabled in October 1997.

The standing committee reviewing the first set of regulations made 39 recommendations, 30 of which were accepted in whole or in part. The government accepted more than 93% of the justice committee's recommendations following extensive hearings on these regulations.

My point in this brief review is to ask the opposition why, in view of the extensive parliamentary involvement in both the legislation and the regulations and in view of the number of changes in accommodations which were made as the legislation passed through the House, we would even consider repealing Bill C-68, legislation that enjoys the support of 82% of Canadians.

Bill C-236 would have us believe that parliament's legislation does nothing to address the criminal misuse of firearms. Opposition members may wish to consult the Criminal Code in this respect. A significant number of offences in the code were modified to carry a minimum punishment of imprisonment for four years.

A significant number of offences in the code were modified to carry a minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment. These Criminal Code offences are found under the headings of causing death by criminal negligence, manslaughter, attempt to commit murder, causing bodily harm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

Other offences are found for a variety of criminal offences including activities such as weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, manufacture of automatic firearms, automatic firearms importing and exporting when knowing it is unauthorized, and tampering with the serial number of a firearm.

We were very attentive to criminal activities in formulating the offence provisions of Bill C-68. Increasing the minimum terms, as the bill proposes, would add nothing useful to the general approach approved by parliament when it passed Bill C-68.

If the supporters of Bill C-236 really took the time to study the issue, they would also find that there have been a number of appeals of the four year minimum sentences over the past two years. All of them have been upheld on appeal as appropriate sentencing, expressing the will of parliament. They also express the will of the Canadian people, 82% of whom support this legislation, as I mentioned.

The licensing of firearms users is one of the central features of this legislation. Under Bill C-68, only people who are responsible and have not within the past five years been convicted of Criminal Code offences, of an offence involving violence against a person or the threat of such violence, of an offence involving criminal activity or of the contravention of the Food and Drugs Act or the Narcotic Control Act are eligible for licensing.

Registration is an important component of the act. Let me remind proponents of Bill C-236 that this aspect of the legislation was recently validated by the Alberta court of appeal. People who sell guns should know to whom they are selling. If the person buying the gun has a licence, there is some reasonable assurance that the person is a law-abiding, responsible person.

Safety is an essential component, and this is why persons with licences will have completed and passed the Canadian firearm safety course and will have at least the basics in respect of the safe handling and use of firearms.

Many of the lost or stolen firearms eventually come to the attention of the police. A system of registration will assist the police in returning these firearms to their rightful owners.

Since licensed users will have shown they were not involved in criminal activity and are otherwise responsible, and since guns will be registered, the police will have an invaluable tool to assist them in their fight against crime.

Opponents of the legislation contend that criminals will not register guns. However, the licensing and registration provisions will assist the police by providing them with additional tools to charge criminals and to fight organized crime.

Many guns come to Canada from the United States. The attitude in the United States with respect to guns is significantly different from that in Canada. The illegal movement of firearms into Canada is a problem of considerable magnitude and we recognize that. The registration system will register guns coming into and leaving Canada and the movement of those guns within the country.

Illegal shipments will be easier to stop. Customs officers will be able to identify shipments against the registration database.

[Firearms Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada we acknowledge and respect that there are legitimate uses of firearms by responsible and law-abiding Canadians. That is not at question at all.

Responsible law-abiding firearms owners have nothing to fear besides the fearmongering on the other side from the new Firearms Act. Canadians do not want to live in a country in which people feel they want or need to possess a firearm for protection. Further, if we in Canada want to retain our safe and peaceful character as a country—and it is the best country in the world to live in for the fifth time in a row—we should signal in every possible way that we will not tolerate and we will severely punish the use of firearms in the commission of crimes.

It is unfortunate the hon. member of Okanagan—Shuswap did not recognized that Canadians understand the Firearms Act and that the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada which comprise Bill C-68 are an investment in crime prevention which will help build upon the culture of safety practised by responsible law-abiding firearms owners in Canada.

It might be a surprise for the opposition that 82% of all Canadians support the registration of all firearms, a majority in every province.

[National Child Day, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to point out that November 20 will be the sixth edition of national child day, which was proclaimed by an act of parliament as a result of the efforts of the member for Ottawa Centre.

As members of parliament, as parents and as concerned citizens, we must never forget that our children are our responsibility.

We must make a commitment to their welfare, safety and education and remember that as citizens it is our obligation to make a difference in the lives of future generations.

I quote the elders of the Cree Nations. There is a common belief among the Cree Nations that a child is a gift or a loan from the Great Spirit and that one is given the responsibility to raise and care for that child. Since that child is a gift from the Great Spirit the child is sacred and must be treated with respect and dignity.

[Criminal Code, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-207 would provide for an amendment to the code to create a new offence in relation to trespassing. It would also create a summary conviction offence of subsequent trespass. This offence would occur where a person trespasses on a dwelling house or other real property within 24 hours of having been lawfully removed from or prevented from entering the same property.

It essentially criminalizes the second trespass that occurs within a 24 hour period with respect to the same property.

The bill would provide for an amendment of the Criminal Code to create a new offence in relation to trespassing. The hon. member's bill would create a summary conviction offence of subsequent trespass.

This offence would occur where a person trespasses on a dwelling-house or other real property within 24 hours of having been lawfully removed from or prevented from entering the same property. Essentially, it would criminalize a second trespass.

It is important to begin with a clear understanding of what trespass means. Trespass is a specific legal term referring to a civil fault or tort. A trespasser is a person who enters a premises without the permission of the occupier or owner. A person invited on to the property can become a trespasser if the individual is revoked by the owner asking the person to leave. Nothing more is required for trespass to occur than for a person to enter without permission or to remain on the property after being asked to leave.

Even the most minimal intrusions on to property constitute a trespass in law. There is no need for any damage to be caused to the property. Trespass is a private matter between the trespasser and the occupier of the property. The proper remedy for trespass is a civil action for damages and injunctions are available in extreme cases to prevent future or ongoing trespass.

The existing law allows the owner of the property to lawfully eject the trespasser at any point. As a matter of property and civil rights, the law of trespass falls within the legislative jurisdiction of each of the provinces. In addition to the civil law relating to trespass, many provinces have enacted legislation creating provincial offences for trespass.

As a matter of property and civil rights, the law of trespass falls within the legislative jurisdiction of each of the provinces.

Trespass to property is not currently a criminal offence. Trespass is not a criminal offence because in and of itself it may be a relatively minor intrusion into the rights of another and may not be sufficiently harmful to require the criminal law as a response. The civil remedies combined with provincial legislation cover most situations.

Trespass to property is not currently a criminal offence. Trespass is not a criminal offence basically because, in and of itself, it may be a relatively minor intrusion into the rights of another, and not sufficiently harmful to require the criminal law as a response.

The Law Reform Commission of Canada studied the issue of whether to criminalize mere trespass without any further criminal intent or criminal conduct. The commission found this inadvisable. In addition to restating the fundamental principle that the criminal law should be used with restraint, the commission found that provincial trespass legislation and civil tort law provided adequate protection. The hon. member's proposed amendment does not seek to make a mere trespass a criminal offence. Instead, it is aimed at the mischief caused when a person who trespasses is asked or made to leave and then returns within a short period of time. It basically seeks to make a second trespass a criminal offence.

Since the first trespass is not a criminal offence, it is difficult in principle justifying making the second trespass a criminal offence. If a first trespass is not sufficiently harmful conduct to be considered criminal then it is not entirely clear what feature of the subsequent trespass makes it serious enough to be criminal.

Certainly it does aggravate the owner and requires the owner to eject the trespasser a second time. But this added aggravation in itself is not sufficiently harmful to render the trespasser subject to the criminal process although at this point they may clearly be violating the civil property rights of the owner of the property and be subject to a civil action and they may also be violating other provincial legislation.

Certainly, it does aggravate the owner and require the owner to eject the trespasser a second time, but this added aggravation in and of itself is not sufficiently harmful to render the trespasser subject to the criminal process, although at this point they may clearly be violating the civil property rights of the owner of the property, and be subject to a civil action, and they may also be violating other provincial legislation.

Also, the hon. member's proposal creates a somewhat arbitrary offence as well in that it criminalizes a return to the property only within 24 hours. It is not exactly clear why two trespasses within 24 hours should be a crime and not two within 25 or 30 hours.

In many situations there might be little or no serious harm caused to society but the mere presence of a trespasser if there is not also some more serious criminal intent or interference with the rights of others. While it may be the case that a property owner is inconvenienced or aggravated by the repeat trespasser, the hon. member's proposal would make a criminal out of every person who returned to a place after having been asked to leave.

For instance a door to door salesman who we all know tries twice to sell his wares would be captured as would be the teenager delivering flyers against the wishes of a homeowner. Such people may very well be a nuisance to the property owner and this kind of behaviour may well be a violation of civil or provincial law, but there should be evidence of at least more serious or potential harm before that behaviour is deemed to be criminal under the Criminal Code.

I recognize the hon. member's concern that it can be difficult to deal with a teenager who returns to a favourite spot to loiter or a person who returns to a party after having been asked to leave. What is really at issue in these instances is the occupier's desire to control what happens on their property, and this is a matter regulated by the civil law of the provinces and in some cases by provincial offences.

This is not at all to say that the existing criminal law does not protect the rights of property owners and occupiers. This government strongly supports and protects private property rights and various legislative provisions in the Criminal Code already address many forms of conduct by a trespasser who poses a real risk to society and to individuals.

For instance, it is an indictable offence to break and enter into any place with intent to commit and indictable offence. A person breaks and enters not only where they forcibly find a way in but if they enter by an existing permanent or temporary opening without lawful justification or excuse. In the case of a dwelling house it is a further offence to be in the dwelling house without lawful excuse with intent to commit an indictable offence.

These offences criminalize the conduct of a trespasser who is trespassing for the purpose of committing a serious criminal offence. In these cases, there is serious harm or potential for harm caused by the trespasser. They also recognize that if the trespasser is present for an innocent purpose, for instance a lost hiker seeking refuge from the elements in a cabin, there would be no criminal offence. There may, however, be a tort and the property owner could sue for any damage to the property.

An additional offence is in section 177 of the Criminal Code which creates the offence of trespassing at night. This offence prohibits loitering or prowling at night on someone else's property near a dwelling house. Here the circumstances of the trespass are clearly in and of themselves serious enough to warrant being criminalized.

The Criminal Code also contains various offences that prohibit behaviour that interferes with the rights of others to enjoy public and private spaces. For instance, section 175 of the Criminal Code makes it a summary conviction offence to cause a disturbance in a public place in various ways such as screaming, shouting or impeding people.

It is also an offence to loiter in a public place while obstructing people. Further, it is an offence to disturb the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling house by disorderly conduct.

These offences target the harmful and disturbing consequences of conduct on others who are lawfully entitled to peace or to unimpeded movement in public places. A trespasser who goes so far as to interfere with the rights of others in these ways by causing a disturbance or by interfering with people's movements commits an offence and can be charged accordingly. For example, the teenager who loiters in a shopping mall would be committing an offence if his behaviour was disturbing others or preventing them from moving freely.

If the teenager is sitting quietly despite being asked to leave repeatedly, he may very well be violating the mall owner's property rights in some way or committing a provincial offence and the mall owner will have options available under provincial law. However, the teenager should not be labelled a criminal if he is not disturbing or interfering with anyone else.

The hon. member's proposal would criminalize the mere trespass without any requirement of proof of a negative impact on the person's free movement or right to undisturbed enjoyment of public places. The criminal law should target the harmful consequences of action instead of criminalizing all action simply because they may have a negative impact under certain circumstances.

[Access To Information Act, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is really an honour and a pleasure today to rise and first of all congratulate my colleague, the member for Brampton West—Mississauga, on Bill C-208.

As members of the House will know, it takes a combination of initiative and perseverance to get a private member's bill to third reading, and I congratulate her for that.

Before providing details on the bill, I want to make it clear that the Minister of Justice supports Bill C-208.

The justice committee recently reviewed the bill and, after making some necessary amendments, it unanimously supported its passage. I take this opportunity to thank all the members of the justice committee.

I hope all members of the House will follow the example set by the justice committee and will vote in favour of Bill C-208, regardless of their political affiliation. I say this because, in my opinion, this bill is crucial for Canada and for Canadians, and should therefore get the unanimous support of this House.

Without doubt, Bill C-208 is short but its importance greatly exceeds its length. The bill would add an offence to the Access to Information Act. The offence proposed in the bill would apply to anyone who, with the intent to deny a right of access under the Access to Information Act, destroys, mutilates, alters, falsifies or conceals a record or makes a false record.

The offence would also apply to someone who directs, counsels or causes anyone to do so. This last aspect is important because it means that a person will not be able to escape the offence by telling someone else, a subordinate, for example, to do the act.

When the bill was first discussed in the House, I on behalf of the Minister of Justice expressed reservations regarding the penalty that the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga had put in the original version of her bill.

This was one of the main issues discussed by the committee. I am pleased to report, as I said earlier in the other official language, that the committee unanimously adopted the amendment of the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga. It was agreed that the offence should be made a hybrid offence rather than a straight indictable offence. This means that the crown has the flexibility to proceed against an accused person, either by way of indictment or by way of a summary proceeding.

The flexibility I am referring to is required because the indictment procedure is more complicated and, therefore, summary conviction is simpler and more direct. This flexibility also applies to the possible maximum penalty.

The committee decided that, if a person is prosecuted by way of indictment, the maximum penalty should be five years imprisonment or a $10,000 fine, or both. If a person is prosecuted by way of summary conviction, then the maximum penalty should be six months imprisonment or a $5,000 fine, or both.

Before getting into the purpose of Bill C-208 and generally what it provides for, I would like to take a moment to share some general information with the hon. members of this House.

Canadians have been the beneficiaries of a federal Access to Information Act since 1983. It is not to say that this act could not be improved upon and brought more up to date. In fact we have an example of it today.

Canadians can be confident that the government will not ignore the issue. For a decade and a half Canadians have enjoyed a high level of access to government information. It is worth pointing out that Canada is only one of a handful of countries that has such legislation. For example, England does not yet have access to information legislation although Mr. Blair's government has issued a position paper in favour of creating it.

Under this legislation, only specific and limited exceptions may be invoked by the government for refusing to allow access to information. In such cases, the legislation gives individuals the right to file a complaint with the information commissioner and to have the government's decision reviewed by the federal court.

The purpose of the Access to Information Act is to help citizens play their rightful role in a free and democratic society. Unfortunately, in some societies, citizens do not have such rights and therefore have no means by which they can call their government to account.

When the justice committee first considered Bill C-208 in May of this year it asked the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga to state the purpose of her bill. She declared that her bill was about accountability. It is important to note that on the relationship between the Access to Information Act and accountability the Supreme Court of Canada is in agreement with the hon. member.

The supreme court has so far decided only one case involving the Access to Information Act and therein the court wrote:

The overarching purpose of access to information legislation is to facilitate democracy by helping to ensure that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry.

I mentioned that Canadians are lucky to have the Access to Information Act but, on closer examination, this legislation is not as flawless as it seems.

An important omission has been identified with respect to the protection it affords: as things now stand, there is no penalty for deliberately altering or destroying a file. The former information commissioner had already pointed this out. In fact, he recommended that an offence relating to the destruction of documents be added to the Access to Information Act.

The law makes obstruction of the information commissioner an offence, and if there is any information relating to the commission of any offence against any law of Canada or a province on the part of any officer or employee of a government institution, the information commissioner may disclose this to the Attorney General of Canada. The bill before us today remedies that shortcoming.

We simply cannot have a situation in Canada in which people can with impunity completely block accountability by destroying documents to thwart access. Bill C-208 would prevent this.

Again I wish to say that the Minister of Justice fully supports Bill C-208.

[Judges Act, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act, has come back to this House with amendments from the other House. The Senate and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs gave serious consideration to all aspects of this important bill and heard from a number of witnesses who contributed a range of perspectives on certain issues of concern to the Senate.

On behalf of the government and the Minister of Justice I want to commend the senators for their diligent review of the issues. Here is an example of the necessity of having a Senate to review House legislation. According to this government the Senate did an excellent job.

The key elements of Bill C-37 were passed by the Senate, including important improvements to the judicial compensation and benefits commission process, necessary increases to current judicial salaries after years of salary freezes and a major expansion of unified family courts in Canada.

However, the Senate proposed and passed two substantive changes to Bill C-37 that relate to the definition of surviving spouse and the mandate of the new judicial compensation and benefits commission. The government is prepared to support these amendments for the following reasons.

With respect to survivor benefits, the Senate did not pass the provision in the bill relating to the change in definition of surviving spouse to include common law spouses. The Scott commission recommended that survivors' annuities be extended to common law spouses “where legally appropriate”.

However, the commission did not systematically review all of the ramifications of extending the entitlement to survivors' annuities. It was these ramifications that gave rise to concern and debate at Senate committee.

I want to point out that no one disagrees with extending the benefit to common law spouses. Rather, the issue that caused some public debate and a lot of debate in the Senate is the method by which this recognition is implemented.

In accepting the recommendation made by the Scott commission, the government had to consider its impact on specific cases, including the formula to be used when there are two surviving spouses.

In the public service sector, the solution chosen is to divide the pension between the two surviving spouses. This is the approach taken in the public service pension plan and in the pension plan for members of Parliament and senators. We felt this was a reasonable solution which ensured consistency with other federal pension plans.

However, before the Senate committee there was much discussion and disagreement on what was the best approach to be used in this case.

After due consideration the Senate committee did not feel that all of the issues had been sufficiently resolved and recommended that the new judicial compensation and benefits commission take a fresh look at the issue of judicial pensions and their treatment after marriage breakdown.

The Senate also heard arguments which suggested that the federal government has no constitutional authority to legislate over survivors' annuities.

It is important to indicate that the government's concurrence in this amendment is not to be taken as agreement with such a suggestion. The federal government does have the clear authority to deal with pension matters, including matters ancillary to the creation and administration of those pensions. We do not accept the argument that the government is acting outside of its jurisdiction on this matter.

However, in light of the concerns expressed, we accept that it would be useful to have the new judicial compensation and benefits commission look at possible solutions for the specific case where there are two surviving spouses.

The purpose of this commission is to remove the political element in determining the benefits and compensation to be paid to judges. The commission will hear the opinions of a number of experts in pension plans and family law, and those of other concerned parties, before making recommendations on a formula for surviving spouses that is fair and consistent with the general practices in the area of pensions.

The Senate also gave very careful consideration to and ultimately approved the new commission process in Bill C-37. However, the Senate was of the view that the process would be further strengthened by the inclusion of certain express statutory criteria that would help define and clarify the scope of the mandate of the new judicial compensation and benefits commission.

The Senate amendment will provide, in the statute, for objective criteria that the commission must consider in reaching its recommendations.

The objective criteria cited were the following: the state of Canada's economy, including the cost of living, as well as the government's overall economic and financial situation; the role played by the financial security of judges in maintaining judicial independence; the need to recruit the best candidates for the bench; and any other objective factor it deems pertinent.

As a matter of practice, the mandate letters of prior triennial commissions have always specified express objective criteria that should be considered.

For the government and the minister there was never any doubt that this practice would continue. However, putting these criteria into the statute will make it clear to everyone that objective criteria will continue to be used in coming to recommendations on judicial compensation.

This amendment will, therefore, reinforce the objective nature of the mandate of the new judicial compensation and benefits commission.

The Senate also proposed a number of technical amendments regarding the wording of provisions in the bill, which do not change its content but which clarify the original intention of the bill. The government also supports these amendments.

In conclusion, the government is in favour of these amendments to Bill C-37. Eliminating the definition of surviving spouse will allow the new commission to examine all the options for recognizing common-law spouses and to make recommendations for a fair and logical approach in cases where there are two surviving spouses.

The inclusion of obligatory criteria will help to clarify the mandate of the new judicial compensation and benefits commission and, as a result, will enhance the credibility and independence of this commission.

Bill C-37 will strengthen what is already one of the best judicial systems in the world. The improvements to the judicial compensation process will ensure continued public confidence in the independence of our judiciary.

The bill provides reasonable and fair compensation for our judges consistent with the important role they play in protecting the key values in our democratic society.

Increased judicial resources for unified family courts combined with provincial commitment of support services will improve the way our courts respond to families and children in crisis. The increase in the number of court of appeal judges will improve access to justice generally.

This bill will both enhance the independence of our courts and improve access to justice. These are goals which I am sure all Canadians support.