Lost his last election, in 2006, with 38% of the vote.
Apec Inquiry November 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, everyone wants to know what really happened between the Prime Minister, the PMO and the RCMP in the shameful events of the Vancouver APEC summit.
The sabotaged RCMP commission cannot cast full light on these questions.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answers that, by sacrificing the hon. member for Fredericton, he has done everything he was prepared to do and now thinks he can get away without an independent judicial inquiry?
Apec Inquiry November 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to understand that the entire APEC inquiry process has been sabotaged by the former solicitor general.
Does the minister not consider it essential to go back to square one with the inquiry process so that everyone will know everything that happened in the APEC affair between the PMO and the RCMP?
Solicitor General Of Canada November 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we did indeed hear the Prime Minister defending the solicitor general this morning.
If he insists on continuing to focus parliament's attention and public opinion on the tragicomedy of the solicitor general, is this not because he clings to this as a diversion from his own involvement in the events in Vancouver?
Solicitor General Of Canada November 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general is on the political equivalent of life support. The Prime Minister's desire to keep him alive politically is the non-medical equivalent of aggressive life-support measures.
My question is a very simple one. How much longer is this going to last?
Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act November 19th, 1998
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour for me to speak in the House on such an interesting bill. I will say right off, however, that we oppose it and for various reasons, which we will look at in the next few minutes.
First, I have to say that the title of the bill surprises me a bit. The short title is the Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act. I am a lawyer, and this is the first time I have seen the name of a political party in the title of a bill. It seems rather partisan to me and contrary to our parliamentary traditions.
We cannot discuss this bill without raising one aspect of it that is a bit of a concern, namely the constitutional problems it raises. I refer specifically to clause 6.
This clause concerns the proclamation of a national or local emergency. This bill accords fairly broad and exceptional powers to the federal government to proclaim not only a state of national emergency, as already provided in the preamble to the Constitution, but a state of local emergency. This means skirting what we consider to be provincial jurisdictions.
No one will be surprised by the Bloc's total rejection of the principle of having the federal government intervening in order to declare a state of emergency, in Quebec for example, or in some other province. This prerogative should rest with the province in question and not the federal government.
In its current wording, clause 6 of the bill reads:
6.(2) Where the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a national emergency exists, the Governor in Council—
may, on the request of the lieutenant governor in council of the province—
issue a proclamation declaring that emergency to be an emergency for the purposes of subsection 3(1).
Why should a province then ask the federal government to please declare an emergency in that province?
This is a rather domineering and unacceptable form of federalism, and I am surprised that a political party such as the Reform Party, which calls itself decentralizing, would present a bill such as this. But the Reform Party is not short on contradictions, and I will come back to this later.
I was saying this prerogative of declaring a local emergency should be held by the provinces. In the United States, 43 states out of 50 have given themselves the prerogative of declaring an emergency, because the government of an American state or of a province is much closer and has different services that are close to the people and that should be implemented.
This control over various local governments and various local instruments is the responsibility of a provincial government—or a state government, in the United States—and not of the federal government.
I can hardly imagine the current Prime Minister declaring a state of emergency in Quebec during the ice storm crisis, for example.
The other problem is the very broad definitions contained in this bill. What does the Reform Party mean by “goods and services” or by “unreasonable or inflationary prices”?
The interpretation that can be given to those important terms is nowhere to be found in the bill and does not reflect what should have been the underlying values of this bill. The government is given such latitude that it is ridiculous.
In the Reform philosophy, when it comes to punishment it is amazing to see to what lengths Reform members are willing to go to please their constituents, namely voters from western Canada.
The bill provides that the amount of the fine for a second or subsequent offence may be double the amount of the previous fine. The amount of the various fines that may be given to those who commit this offence can be multiplied. That goes completely against the philosophy that exists in Quebec.
Similarly, according to the Reform logic based on law and order, the person is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day on which the offence is committed. Therefore, if a person commits the offence over a period of ten days, he or she will be charged ten times, which is not only redundant but also ridiculous.
Another contradiction I would like to mention is clause 9. Under clause 9 of this bill, the Senate or the House of Commons may revoke a national emergency proclamation. For a political party that is against the Senate in its present form, it is a little surprising to see that it is willing to give the same power to ten senators as it is giving to twenty members of the House of Commons. It is surprising and even disappointing for us to see senators being given that kind of power. We want to see the Senate abolished.
This was another contradiction of the Reform Party that I wanted to point out.
Finally, under clause 12, the governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the act. We believe that this regulatory power, as defined in this bill, is much too broad and that letting a government rule by order in council in a critical situation like an emergency is definitely not in the public interest.
Therefore, the title of the legislation is inappropriate, in that it is too partisan. The bill lacks clarity and opens the door to misinterpretations. The principle of the act and the order proposed by Reformers would be served only too well by this bill. The Senate would play a key role in implementing this legislation, which is unacceptable, as senators are appointed by friends of the government. As a result, the federal government would have too much latitude to interfere in areas that must remain exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
For these reasons we oppose this bill.
Apec Inquiry November 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General could have resigned immediately after his chat on the plane without losing face or credibility.
Now that he no longer has any credibility, should the Prime Minister not ask him to resign in order to salvage what dignity he has left?
Apec Inquiry November 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we have two affidavits stating that the Solicitor General made presumptions about the conclusions of the RCMP inquiry during his chat on the plane.
We also have the Solicitor General saying “I do not remember what I said, but I did nothing bad”.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally admit that the Solicitor General has a very serious credibility problem and that his only option is to resign?
Apec Inquiry November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General should stop playing this cat and mouse game. He is in a tighter spot than ever.
The hon. member for Palliser accused him under oath of having prejudged the outcome of the APEC inquiry, and he will not respond.
Since obviously the Solicitor General is unable to rebut what the member for Palliser said in his affidavit, was is he waiting for to resign?
Apec Inquiry November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, there has been a new development in the Liberal's APEC fiasco.
After rising in this House and swearing on his honour that he was telling the truth, the member for Palliser stated under oath in an affidavit that he stands by his side of the story.
Since this affidavit shows that he prejudged the outcome of the inquiry conducted by the RCMP public complaints commission, what is the Solicitor General waiting for to resign?
Judges Act November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-37, as amended by the Senate.
It is often said that what is clearly understood can be clearly expressed. With this in mind, let me outline the Bloc Quebecois' position. We oppose Bill C-37. However, while the amendments put forward by our brave colleagues in the Senate are a step in the right direction, we think many more amendments would be required and much more work would have to be done on this bill before the Bloc Quebecois could consider supporting it.
On October 22, the Senate made eight amendments to the bill. We are opposed to the principle of raising federal judges' salaries by approximately 13%, which is unacceptable to us in the Bloc Quebecois, and that is why we oppose the bill.
On the other hand, we are in favour of establishing the Judicial Benefits and Compensation Commission. We are also in favour of the Senate amendments for the following reasons: a number of these amendments would bring the French and English versions of the bill more in line with one another, while one other amendment clarifies the mandate of the commission being established by the federal government.
This amendment explicitly sets out what we believe was the implicit mandate of the Judicial Benefits and Compensation Commission. In our view, these explicit criteria are positive and fair.
For the Bloc Quebecois, the most crucial of these amendments is the one deleting clause 1 of Bill C-37. Clause 1 defines the term “surviving spouse” and, for constitutional reasons, we are opposed to the inclusion of surviving spouses in Bill C-37.
In this respect, we support the explanation given to the committee by Professor Jamie Cameron of Osgoode Hall. According to Professor Cameron, while it is the responsibility of the federal government to set benefits for federally appointed judges, the provinces have a similar responsibility with respect to matrimonial property and the division of assets in an estate.
Pensions are included in matrimonial property under family and estate distribution law. This raises the question of whether the federal government has jurisdiction to legislate the division of estate assets by defining the expression “surviving spouse” and with all the rights accorded subsequently in the bill according to the definition of “surviving spouse”.
According to Ms. Cameron, and the Bloc Quebecois completely supports this position, the federal government is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction over matrimonial and estate property.
Accordingly, we support the amendments eliminating clause 1, which defines “surviving spouse” and the clauses pertaining to the rights of surviving spouses.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Judges Act in order to increase judges' salaries and to change the criteria governing pension plan eligibility. The bill also establishes the Judicial Benefits and Compensation Commission.
Finally, the bill provides for more judges in appeal and unified family courts. The bill is the Liberal government's response to the 1995 triennial commission on judges' salaries and benefits, also known as the Scott commission.
In 1981, Parliament provided for the creation of independent commissions with a mandate to confirm that the pay and benefits of judges were sufficient in view of the importance of judicial independence and the unique role given judges by the Canadian Constitution.
On September 18, 1997, in a reference regarding the remuneration of provincial court justices in Prince Edward Island, which pertained to the independence and impartiality of these justices, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of these independent commissions, which establish a vital link between two government powers: the executive and the judicial. The court also pointed out the constitutional obligation to set magistrates' salaries.
The commission's recommendations are not binding on the government, but the court judgment requires a reasonable and public justification to be provided if the recommendations are rejected, before a court of law if necessary.
The 1995 Scott Commission I have already referred to recommended a progressive 8.3% increase, and the Liberal government accepted that recommendation in its bill by proposing 4.1% yearly for two years.
Moreover, in determining what was reasonable, the Scott Commission acknowledged that a complex and broad range of factors needed to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate pay level, including the need of pay levels capable of attracting and retaining the most qualified candidates for the office of judge.
The report is based on the relationship between judges' salaries and those of lawyers in private practice, since this is the source of most candidates for the office of judge.
Section 25 of the Judges Act calls for annual adjustments to judges' salaries based on the increase in the industrial aggregate, up to a maximum of seven per cent.
Judges' salaries were frozen between December 1992 and March 31, 1997, under the Public Service Compensation Restraint Act.
Our objection to the Scott report is that it is based solely on federal economic activity indicators, and not on the economic sectors most heavily affected since the 1993 cuts. In our opinion, the most fundamental question is whether we should be putting books back into the schools and beds back into the hospitals, or raising the salaries of high court judges already earning $155,800. These are hardly starvation wages, after all.
To sum up the Bloc Quebecois' position on Bill C-37, we think that the Liberal government has already achieved its zero deficit, but we all know it did so on the backs of the provinces, unemployed workers and the most disadvantaged members of our society.
The Minister of Justice may well want to reward judges by increasing their salaries, but she would do better to persuade her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to compensate the provinces for the cuts to health, welfare and post-secondary education transfer payments.
The Bloc Quebecois puts other priorities ahead of raising judges' salaries. None of us is in any doubt that judges work hard, but they are far from the only ones doing so.
It is for these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the principle of increasing judges' salaries. We are in favour of creating an independent commission, but we cannot go along with this lapse in solidarity and vision in an economic context where the provinces have borne the brunt of the federal government's fight to eliminate the deficit.
Naturally, we have heard the government's arguments that the most competent lawyers must be attracted to the bench, and we fully agree. But judges too are members of society, and as such must take part in the collective effort. Even though the federal deficit has been eliminated, the $500 billion debt is still hanging over our heads.
Instead of increasing judges' salaries, the government could have given the money to the provinces to buy hospital beds and to help the most disadvantaged members of our society.
The supplementary estimates tabled last Wednesday also indicate that the Canadian unity group at Justice, one of whose responsibilities is the reference to the Supreme Court, is costing Canadian and Quebec taxpayers $700,000. Again, this money could have paid for many hospital beds and many meals on the tables of the most disadvantaged members of our society.
Today, therefore, I am calling on the Minister of Justice to withdraw her bill and to use the money instead to compensate the provinces for the unjust cuts they have suffered since this Liberal government took office.