Eleni Bakopanos

[President Of South Africa, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I invite all my colleagues to applaud the government's initiative to support President Mandela in his efforts to fight racial discrimination in his country and internationally.

As we know, President Mandela is one of the most credible and most respected world leaders in terms of the advancement of social justice, and our country has recognized this yesterday by making him a Companion of the Order of Canada.

The Canadian government's support of the “Nelson Mandela Children's Fund” campaign naturally fits in with our country's tradition, a country that has been championing the cause of peace and human rights around the world for years.

Our contribution to this initiative also gives an international dimension to the annual national campaign against racism and discrimination that the government and many Canadians have been leading for the past nine years: the March 21 campaign.

As we move into the 21st century, we must work even more diligently with the inspiration and spirit of one of the great heroes of our history, Mr. Mandela, to eradicate all forms of racism and discrimination in Canada and around the world.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-258 proposes to delete section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, which provides for judicial review of the parole ineligibility period in respect of persons convicted of murder or high treason.

The government believes that section 745.6 ought to continue to be applied in exceptional and deserving cases. For this reason, the bill being proposed by the hon. member of the opposition clearly runs counter to federal government policy, and we are not, therefore, in favour of it.

As the hon. members are aware, section 745.6 was passed in 1976, at the time the death penalty was abolished in Canada. At that time, this House believed that section 745.6 was necessary in order to provide hope of rehabilitation to those convicted of murder and to protect prison guards. Adoption of this clause was also a recognition of the fact that, in certain cases, incarceration in excess of 15 years was not in the public interest.

I believe that the reasons justifying addition of this section to the Criminal Code in 1976 remain valid today. Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code allows persons convicted of murder to apply for a judicial review of the number of years to be served before eligibility for parole, after they have served 15 years of their sentence.

In the case of first degree murder or treason, the time to be served before eligibility for parole is set by law at 25 years. In the case of second degree murder, the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole is 10 years, unless the judge at trial extends it to 25. The offender may not apply for judicial review of the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole until he has served 15 years of his sentence.

The offender has to convince a jury of 12 ordinary citizens that the number of years should be reduced. After the jury has examined the evidence presented by the applicant and the crown attorney, including any victim statements, it decides whether it is appropriate to reduce the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.

If the jury does decide to reduce it, the offender has the right to submit an application to the National Parole Board on expiry of the period as reduced by the jury under section 745. The parole board then looks at his file and grants parole when it sees fit to do so. In order to reach its decision, the National Parole Board must determine whether paroling the offender would constitute an undue threat to public safety.

I must stress one point that is essential to an understanding of this matter, but may not be readily understood by the public. The life sentence imposed upon a person convicted of murder or high treason weighs upon this individual for the rest of his life.

Thus, when an offender is released, his sentence still applies, and he may be reincarcerated at any time if he violates the conditions set by the parole board.

This is not an easy way to get out of jail, as the opposition would have Canadians believe. Section 745.6 establishes an extremely rigorous procedure, and those who apply are very rarely successful. The fact is that the vast majority of those eligible to apply for a judicial review never do so. They simply decide to forgo the opportunity of their own accord, perhaps because they know that their efforts would be to no avail.

We all know that there is a great deal of public concern about section 745.6. Many have asked for the repeal of this section out of concern for public safety. Others have cited the revictimization of the victim's family by the review hearing held 15 years down the road at a time when the terrible wounds inflicted by the crime may have just started to heal. Others focus on the appropriate minimum period of incarceration for the worst offence in our Criminal Code.

This government shares the concerns of Canadians. That is why the government amended section 745.6 in the last Parliament.

As many members of the House will know, Bill C-45 brought three key changes to section 745.6. The first eliminated judicial review for all multiple murders committed in the future whether the murders are committed at the same time or not. This would include serial murders. The proposed amendment is consistent with the notion long found in the Criminal Code which states that a repetition of the offence should be treated more harshly by the law than the single offence.

The second created a screening mechanism whereby a judge of the superior court could conduct a paper review of the application to determine if there is a reasonable chance of success before the application is allowed to proceed to a full hearing before a jury.

The third provided that the parole ineligibility period may only be reduced by unanimous vote of the community jury, whereas previously only two-thirds of the jury were required. As a result of this provision an application for a reduction in the parole ineligibility period will be denied whenever the jury cannot reach a unanimous conclusion to reduce the period.

Section 745.6 was intended to be applied only in exceptional and deserving cases where the offender has really been able to turn his or her life around. Our government's amendment to this section has strengthened this and has gone a considerable distance in preventing non-meritorious cases from coming forward.

With the changes we have made, our government has attempted to reach out to the families of victims. In this mandate the government is also looking at what more can be done for victims and their families to acknowledge the pain they feel. Improving the criminal justice system to respond to victims' concerns is one of the top priorities for the Minister of Justice.

Following the receipt and review of the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the fall of 1998, the Minister of Justice intends to move ahead with appropriate legislation and non-legislative initiatives to improve the situation of the crime victim.

In April 1998 the minister tabled in this House a letter which she sent to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights expressing her interest in its review of the victim's role in the criminal justice system. In the letter she noted particular issues which she anticipated would be raised in the committee proceedings, including the adequacy of existing provisions to facilitate the participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, the need to explore reforms to the victim impact statement provisions, enhancements to the Criminal Code's victim fine surcharge provision and the need to accommodate the interests of victims in the youth justice system.

The minister also noted that she was considering various models for the establishment of an offence for victims of crime within the Department of Justice which would, among other things, ensure that the victim's perspective is considered in the development of all criminal law policy and legislation.

There is a lot more we can do for victims and their families than just focus simplistically and single-mindedly on the repeal of section 745.6, as the official opposition has in the past few months in the House.

These amendments came into force on January 9, 1997. At present officials from the Department of Justice are monitoring their impact on this section to see if they are achieving their aim.

Yes, I do have blood in my veins, as the official opposition would like us to believe. Yes, we are bleeding heart Liberals. But if that means that we are compassionate and that we care about every Canadian in the country, yes, that is what it means. Compassion is part of what this government is all about.

I am proud to be a bleeding heart Liberal if that is the definition that the official opposition would like us to believe.

The government believes, as do many Canadians, that even those found guilty of very serious criminal acts should be able to acknowledge their crimes and rehabilitate themselves. We feel that it is important that our justice system have a mechanism allowing people, in exceptional cases, an opportunity to rebuild their lives.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I suppose they are listening.

There is a direct link between access to firearms and firearms death and injury. This comes from statistics collected all over the world. If they are interested in having statistics, they are there, but the members of the official opposition are not interested in the statistics nor in the truth. They are interested in supporting a gun lobby that is using its power to come to the House and to tell us to support the official opposition in misinforming the Canadian public.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

You are not listening. You don't want to hear the answer.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of statistics, the murder rate with guns in the United States is 10 times higher than it is in this country. Let us get the statistics right. Gun death and injury rates are higher in western Canada and rural areas because of the use of firearms. There is also a direct link—

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to quote from the hon. member himself about how he thinks that the American system is the best system in the world and how proud he is that we should have the same type of system in this country. Thank God we do not have the same system in this country.

As far as the error rate, one of the reasons we are delaying the implementation of this is to make sure that there will be no errors in the system.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Yes, it is women after all. Some 1,400 lives are lost each year at a cost—and we talked about the medical cost—of $70 million. That is a burden on our health care system.

When one hears certain members of the opposition, not to mention the loud protesters, one might think the government had not done anything in recent years to address the concerns of the gun lobby. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The legislation passed by this House includes, in section 18, an unprecedented obligation on the part of the government to table draft regulations before each House of Parliament and to ensure that such regulations are reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary committee.

We tabled regulations in this House on two occasions, first in November 1996 and then at the end of October 1997.

In respect of the first set of regulations, the standing committee made a total of 39 recommendations. We were able to accept in whole or in part 38 of these 39 recommendations and to make amendments to the regulations to reflect those recommendations. For the second set tabled at the end of October of last year, the committee again made 39 recommendations of which we were able to accept in whole or in part 35 of them and to make consequent amendments.

When the statute was passing through the House, concerns were expressed about whether the statute provided appropriate opportunity to protect the constitutional and treaty rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Amendments were made to the statute to permit development of regulations respecting the matter in which any provision of the statute or the regulations applies to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and to adapt any such provision for the purpose of its application to aboriginal peoples.

We developed a full set of regulations called the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptation Regulations. Both the development and implementation of these regulations have involved consultations and communication with a wide variety of native communities across the country.

My former colleague, Mr. Anawak from the Northwest Territories, stated that it does not prevent our native people from putting food on the table, nor does it take away their guns; it simply means that they must register them. They still can keep their guns.

More recently we have made more adjustments and accommodations. There was concern about our forms. We engaged focus groups and held consultations with interest groups. We revised the forms extensively and in a way that improves their acceptability to all concerned.

There has been concern raised again from the same circles about certain categories of individuals who were the victims of unintended consequences of the legislation, particularly in respect of some categories of restricted firearms. The minister has indicated that an amnesty will be available to provide additional time for those persons to bring themselves into compliance with the statute.

Yesterday the minister postponed the implementation of this program for 60 days to address the suggestion from law enforcement organizations that more time would ensure more complete data input and thus enhance public security.

This whole legislation has to do with public security. We want to make sure that firearm users have the required permits and that, before they obtain such permits, they can demonstrate that they are responsible, law-abiding citizens, that they were never involved in criminal activities, and that they have received at least some basic training in the safe handling of firearms.

Moreover, in order to better control the illegal movement of firearms and to provide better tools to police officers when they conduct criminal investigations or try to settle family disputes, all firearms will be registered by the year 2003.

These are major public initiatives that relate to public security and that are applied in a customized and responsible manner to all Canadians. As my colleague, Mr. Rock, indicated, Bill C-68 has to do with the kind of country in which we want to live. It has to do with the kind of society we want for ourselves and for our families. Passing that legislation means our lifestyle and values will be determined by all Canadians, and not by the gun lobby.

Firearms cause more than three deaths daily in Canada. The rate of mortality from gunshot wounds varies among provinces and territories, ranging from 5.7 to 21.2 per 100,000 people. Most deaths from gunshot wounds occur in the home, with more occurring in rural areas than in cities, and are inflicted with legally acquired hunting guns. The cost of the consequences for the improper use of firearms in Canada has been estimated at $6.6 billion per year.

The official opposition leader spoke a lot about making changes to the Criminal Code. The Firearms Act is part of an overall strategy of this government for safer communities. It is one piece of the puzzle. This includes changes to the youth justice system, to crime prevention, to victims assistance and the setting up of a DNA data bank. We believe that all those together will lead to safer homes and safer cities.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in the House to participate in yet another debate on gun control initiated by the official opposition that just does not get it. Also I want to speak to Canadians.

We have given ample opportunity in the House and across Canada to everyone concerned to speak to this issue, but Her Majesty's Official Opposition continues to misinform the public and to openly support the highly visible and vocal gun lobby.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about democratic freedoms. That is why we have people outside the House today demonstrating their opinion. In some other countries in the world, to get on the Hill as in this case they would have to get past walls that are six feet high and three feet thick. If there are countries in the world where there is freedom of speech it certainly is this country. We should applaud that, not condemn it as the opposition leader says. The minister is currently at a press conference and will be speaking later in the House.

Let us talk about some of the statistics because there is a lot of support in the country for the legislation. In a recent Angus Reid poll 82% of Canadians approved the universal registration of rifles and shotguns; 72% in rural communities. The opposition is completely out of touch with Canadians.

In Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver handguns are seized as often as rifles and shotguns: 70% of firearms that are seized are legally owned and for handguns it is less than 10%. Approximately 40% of women killed by their husbands are shot. It appears all these statistics have no bearing on the opposition's memory. Some 78% of legally owned guns—

[Judges Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act.

I begin by putting this bill in its proper context. The judiciary is one of the fundamental institutions of our democracy. Since 1982 Canadian judges have been asked to assume increasingly demanding constitutional functions, determining issues of fundamental importance to all Canadians.

This government recognizes that in doing their job judges in their decisions are not always popular. It seems to me that this is inevitable given that we as legislators have given them the sometimes unenviable task of determining some of the most difficult and divisive legal, social and economic issues of our time. It is for this very reason that we do not want popular judges. Indeed it is and has always been of primary importance to all Canadians that judges are independent and free to make those difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions.

It is the principle of judicial independence that provides the foundation for a strong and courageous judiciary as well as being a cornerstone of our democratic society, a principle clearly reflected in and protected by sections 96 through 100 of the Canadian Constitution.

In 1981, in recognition of the importance of judicial independence and the unique constitutional role of the judiciary, Parliament provided for an independent commission to examine the adequacy of judges' salaries and benefits.

In September 1997, the supreme court underscored the importance and necessity of the role played by such independent commissions in ensuring public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Canadian judiciary. The supreme court gave the example of the federal commission.

In its recent decision, the supreme court stressed the importance and necessity of the role played by such independent commissions in ensuring public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Canadian judiciary.

A key part of that decision is to require public justification by government for a decision not to implement, or to only partially implement, the recommendation of such a commission.

The most recent triennial commission headed by David Scott heard from a range of organizations and individuals including all the provincial and territorial ministers of justice and attorneys general before putting forward a thoughtful and comprehensive set of recommendations. This government continues to support the principles that led parliament to institute the judicial salary commission process 17 years ago. In light of those principles and of the enhanced constitutional role of independent salary commissions following the supreme court decision, we have given serious consideration to all the recommendations of the Scott commission.

It was not unexpected that the issue which has evoked the greatest interest since the response was released and Bill C-37 was introduced is the proposed judicial salary increases. The Scott commission recommended an appropriately phased upward adjustment of 8.3% on the expiration of the salary freeze on April 1, 1997. We have accepted this recommendation and Bill C-37 will implement the Scott recommendations by providing a phased-in increase to judicial salaries of 4.1% per year over two years effective April 1, 1997.

The proposal is consistent with the government's view that it would be unreasonable for the judiciary not to share in the necessary economic restraint that was exercised from 1992 until very recently by all Canadians paid by the federal government. I want to express my strong agreement with a statement made by former Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada in a seminal decision on the issue of financial security for judges in R. v Beauregard.

The chief justice observed “Canadian judges are Canadian citizens and must bear their fair share of the financial burden of administering the country”. This view is echoed in the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Chief Justice of Canada observed “Nothing would be more damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and the administration of justice than a perception that judges were not shouldering their share of the burden in difficult economic times”.

Canadian judges are entitled to receive fair compensation that reflects both the importance of their role and the personal demands of their office. In deciding what was reasonable, the Scott commission in my view correctly recognized that a whole range of factors must be considered in establishing an appropriate level of remuneration, including the need to ensure levels of compensation that attract and keep the most qualified candidates for judicial office. That is what we are seeking, the most qualified candidates.

Bill C-37 would also implement the Scott commission recommendation for certain pension related amendments to the Judges Act, including the rule of 80 which will permit retirement when the sum of a judge's age and years of service equals at least 80 and the judge has served on the bench for a minimum of 15 years. In our view the proposed rule of 80 responds in an important way to the changing demographic profile of the judiciary. More and more judges are being appointed at a younger age. I would like to add that many of these younger judges are women. The government has made many attempts to assure that there be equality on the bench for the two sexes.

The current provision, although based on the rule of 80, requires a minimum age of 65. A judge who retires before 65 has no right to a pension at all. Therefore, a judge appointed at the age of 50 can retire with a pension at 65 with 15 years of service. However, a judge who is appointed at 40 must serve 25 years to receive any pension at all. This is a situation that is increasingly considered unfair.

This situation is even more unacceptable when we consider that it has a particular impact on women judges who constitute the majority of those appointed at an early age. The rule of 80 would allow older, longer serving judges to retire when they feel they no longer wish to continue in the role. Permitting this will be good for them and for the court itself as an institution.

The Scott commission has proposed a different retirement option for the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. It recommended eligibility for retirement with a full pension after serving a minimum of 10 years on the bench. The government agrees with the commission that the immense workload and heavy responsibility inherent in membership on the supreme court justifies the proposed retirement provision. However, the government proposes to limit it to those judges who have reached the age of 65 years.

The bill also makes a couple of other changes to judges pensions in the interest of fairness. It will allow common-law spouses to receive surviving spouses' annuities. It will give a judge who marries or commences a common-law relationship after retirement the option of receiving an actuarially reduced pension which continues until the judge and the spouse have both died. These are both common features of other pension plans.

A very important part of Bill C-37 is improvements to the judicial compensation commission process designed to reinforce the independence, objectivity and effectiveness of the process as a means of further enhancing judicial independence. The Supreme Court of Canada in its decision of last September set out guidelines for such process improvements.

In order to be independent, commission members must enjoy security of tenure by being appointed for a fixed term and the judiciary must nominate a member. To be objective, a commission must use objective criteria in coming to its recommendations. And to be effective, governments must deal with the commission's recommendations with due diligence and reasonable dispatch.

The supreme court also expressly stated that it was up to the executive and the legislator to define the institutional models, and that the administrations should be free to choose the procedures and provisions best suited to their own reality.

In our proposed design, the length of time between commissions would be extended from the current three to a four year period. The new commission would conduct an inquiry similar to that conducted by previous commissions, including public hearings and inviting submissions from all those interested in judicial compensation, including all Canadians.

While this will be a permanent commission in the sense of having a mandate for a fixed period of time, the members of the commission would be part time only. As a general rule, members will only be active during the first nine months of each four year period until the report is delivered. Furthermore, the members will only receive per diem fees for the time they are actually performing commission business.

The commission would have nine months to complete its inquiry and submit a report to the Minister of Justice. To provide flexibility, the period to report could be extended on agreement of the minister and the judiciary.

The exception to the general nine month period of activity would be when the minister decides to submit a matter to the commission for its inquiry as permitted under these proposals. This provision would allow for changes to judicial compensation to be made where necessary between the fixed four year timeframe. This is necessary in light of the new constitutional requirement established by the supreme court that future changes to judicial compensation cannot be implemented without prior consideration by a judicial compensation commission. This power to refer matters might also occasionally be used to have more detailed and informed consideration of particularly complex policy issues.

The independence of the commission would be enhanced by our proposal that it would have one member nominated by the judiciary and one nominated by the Minister of Justice. The representatives of each side would in turn nominate a third member who would be the chair. Members would be appointed by the governor in council for a fixed four year term, on good behaviour, removable for cause. Terms would be renewed once on renomination.

The bill also includes a proposal that the Minister of Justice be required to respond to a report of a salary commission. The role of parliament in reviewing the commission recommendations has also been preserved in the continuation of the current requirement that the report of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission be tabled before both houses of parliament.

I am delighted that another key element of Bill C-37 appears to have secured widespread support across party lines. It provides for the largest ever expansion to date of unified family courts in Canada. This broad support is natural and welcomed since unified family courts are widely recognized to be responsive to widespread concerns that the family law system is too slow, confusing and expensive and intensifies and prolongs the degree of family conflict.

Delay, conflict and confusion arise in large part because of jurisdictional overlap and the traditional emphasis on courts and litigation to resolve family issues. Unified family courts reduce these problems by enabling a single judge to hear all family matters under both federal and provincial law. Unified family courts also provide access to an array of services which promote durable, mutually agreeable solutions to family law disputes and improve the long term outcomes for children and their families.

I must say that being a member of the mixed committee of both houses on custody and access, a lot of the witnesses that came before the committee praised this type of move on the part of the government. They encouraged the federal government to work with the provincial governments in ensuring that this type of system is available from coast to coast to coast.

I am therefore very pleased that the level of funding provided in the 1997 budget will permit the appointment of 24 additional judges to unified family courts. The cost will be $4.4 million ongoing to support the salary and benefits of federally appointed judges. Three other positions are currently available under the Judges Act for a total of 27 new unified family court judges.

Unified family courts demonstrate an effective federal-provincial partnership to meet the needs of children and parents when family disputes occur, reflecting the high degree of interdependence in this area of law and social policy. The federal government provides and pays for specialized family law judges with complete jurisdiction. This allows for one-stop shopping, less delay in costs and better understanding and outcomes. The provinces use the resulting savings to provide and pay for an array of social services for families experiencing disputes which will result in reduced levels of conflict, mutually agreeable outcomes and better futures for families and children.

In the long term, this bill will benefit children, because the risks of conflict will be lower and these conflicts will be settled more quickly. Children's needs will be better cared for, the results will last longer and, in terms of protection, child support, custody and access, the approach will be based on intensive and integrated services.

Once again, this reflects exactly the views expressed by those who appeared before the joint committee of the House and the Senate to the members representing all political parties, and to the senators.

In conclusion, these amendments will serve to strengthen what is already one of the best judicial systems in the world by enhancing the independence of our courts and improving access to justice. The improvements to the judicial compensation process will ensure continued public confidence in the independence of our judiciary.

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. That certainly is one of the priorities of the government and I am sure of all members of the House.

I hope we can look forward to the support of all members in moving these important amendments to the Judges Act quickly through parliament to the benefit of all Canadians.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the hon. member would like to explain to the House who administers and hires and fires policemen. As far as I know it is the municipal authorities and not the federal government.

I fail to see why he is referring to our crime prevention initiative. It is a collaborative effort of the federal, provincial and municipal authorities in order to prevent crimes and ensure that we do not need more policemen in the long run. We can start preventing crime at the age of zero instead of at the age of 17 when it is too late. We want to prevent crime from the very beginning to ensure that eventually there will never be crime again in this country.

The $32 million will be a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and municipal authorities.

How does the member explain the fact that the hiring and firing of policemen is a municipal responsibility, not a federal one?