Lorne Nystrom

[Appointment of Judges, May 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I too want to rise in support of the motion by the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. The motion to look at how we appoint judges to the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada should be accepted by the House.

The process today in general is non-political. It is a process that has given us pretty good courts and judges. However I find it wanting in making it more accountable and more openly democratic in the process.

Some members of the House might not be aware but I spent a lot of years as a member of Parliament on the various constitution committees. I was here for the patriation of the Constitution back in 1981. I did the Dobbie-Beaudoin and the Dobbie, Beaudoin-Edwards round with the Constitution, the prelude to Meech Lake and after Meech Lake. I was also very much of a partisan supporter of the Meech Lake accord. One part of that accord dealt with the selection of supreme court justices and it tried to make them better reflect our federation.

This is one problem we have today. The Supreme Court judges are appointed by the Prime Minister and the federal government. When it comes to adjudicating a dispute between a province and the federal government, there is a feeling in many provinces that this may not be a fair way of doing it in terms of the referee, because they are adjudicating between a federal and provincial dispute.

Under Meech Lake there was a mechanism where, if I recall correctly, the provinces would select a number of people to recommend to the minister of justice. The minister of justice would choose judges from the group selected by the provinces. In the province of Quebec, for example, the Government of Quebec would suggest a short list of names and the federal government would choose someone from that short list.

In the rest of the country under the common law, because Quebec judges are under civil law, we had the same thing happen for the Ontario, western and Atlantic judges. The provinces would suggest a list to the federal government and it would select from that list. I supported that at the time along with a lot of other people in the House from all political parties.

That is one way of doing it and I would certainly be open to looking at it. However the motion does not talk about a specific way of selecting our judges. It just says that we would have a process where the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would study the process by which judges were appointed. That is a very commendable thing to do.

I would be opposed to the election of judges, as is the case in some jurisdictions like the United States. I would not want to see the politicization of the process where judges run for office. I certainly would not be very supportive of that.

Another way of doing it is to have the federal government choose from a short list that it is provided by a non-partisan body, which we have in some courts today. Instead of making the appointment, the federal government would make the nomination. That nomination would then go to the justice committee for ratification or rejection. That might be something we should look at very seriously as well. It would force the federal government to be more careful about who it would nominate because the nominee would have to go through a ratification process at the justice committee. That is one way of perhaps democratizing the process. The other way is what we did in Meech Lake and we could look at that as well. Another way is by having advisory committees which now basically select judges for some of the lower courts. We could apply that to the Supreme Court as well. That is also another way of doing it.

The main thing here is that it is important that we have a judiciary system in Canada that is divorced from politics, that is fair, that is just and where we get the best possible judges in this country. When we select judges, we have to ensure that we respect the privacy of the candidates, that we maintain the separation of politics from the judiciary and that we take the selection process from behind closed doors into a more open system of clear standards and boundaries, thus maintaining the integrity of the judicial system at the very highest levels. These are some of the things we could consider. The main thing is to get this before a committee.

As a matter of fact, I think one of the roles of Parliament is not being fulfilled as well as it should be. Committees are not being used to the fullest in terms of doing independent studies, making recommendations on how the government of the country should work, making recommendations on how certain people should be appointed.

I have believed for a long time that we need a greater democratization of our country's political system. There is probably no parliamentary system in the world where the prime minister's office or indeed a premier's office, and this is not being partisan as our party has two premiers, have so much power in their own hands to make appointments to important boards and commissions.

In the federal government for example, the prime minister appoints all the senators, Supreme Court justices, the head of the military, the head of the RCMP, the head of the CBC, the head of every important agency and board of the Government of Canada. He appoints all the cabinet ministers and appoints all the parliamentary secretaries. In the case of the government from time to time it even appoints candidates over the heads of local riding associations.

We have gotten away from a more democratic system. We should look at the democratic deficit in Canada. Part of that is how we appoint justices to our courts. Part of it is how we organize this place and make this place more relevant and meaningful.

I have found after my many years in Parliament that the most frustrated parliamentarians are government backbenchers. They are very frustrated with the process. At least in the opposition we can get up very freely and liberally and express our point of view, ask questions in the House, make statements that are critical of the government if we feel it is going the wrong way. However a government backbencher becomes in effect a political eunuch in terms of being silenced by our system.

I have seen this in Saskatchewan with the backbench NDP MLAs where our party has been in government for most of the time since 1944. It does not matter what the party is, we have a political system that I believe is not as democratic as it should be.

Why for example, should we not have a system where committees could set their own timetables? Why should we not have a system where committees could introduce legislation? Why do we have to have so many confidence votes? Almost everything that we vote on is a confidence vote. We should have very few confidence votes except for the basic budgetary program and plan of the Government of Canada.

I remember very well when Margaret Thatcher was at the height of her popularity in Britain. There were many times when Margaret Thatcher had a bill defeated in the House of Commons because the backbenchers in her own party would be in opposition to the government bill.

I remember Tony Blair in the last Parliament when he was extremely popular before his massive re-election lost many votes in the British House of Commons. That did not bring down the government. It provided a healthier debate for the British people.

Why could we not do that in this country? There is case after case after case where government members of Parliament, be they Liberal or Conservative, over the years were in opposition to a certain piece of legislation that the government brought in. However they were not going to bring down the government over a certain piece of legislation and cause an election. It is the system we have.

I have seen it in all parties, at all levels, in every provincial government over the years. It really shortchanges what the Canadian people deserve, which is a free flowing and uninhibited debate of ideas, a clash of ideas, representing one's own constituents and representing them well.

I want to make one reference back to the Trudeau government. I do not want to mention the name because he was a very well liked former minister in the House. He got a patronage appointment to head a crown corporation back in the 1970s. I did not meet a single Liberal MP who agreed that that particular gentleman should head that particular crown corporation, but there was nothing they could do about it because the government made the appointment.

I just do not think it is right in a fair and democratic society that the government should have the power to make nominations. We should refer a lot of them to the relevant committees of the House of Commons.

The Supreme Court is a little different. The Supreme Court, as I said before, adjudicates federal-provincial disputes. It interprets legislation not only at the federal level but at the provincial level. Somewhere in the process there should be input for the provinces.

It is not just in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec is different, unique, a province that is not in the least like the others, in part because of its civil law, among other things. The other provinces, however, must also be involved in selecting judges, and this is very important.

Over the past 20 years, there have been several disputes between the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal government. In my opinion, that is a reason to have provincial input into the selection of judges.

With that, I hope the House will support the motion and the justice committee can do a study as to how we can improve the selection of judges in our country.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party will vote against this motion.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would have to ask what he means by the increase in severity. I have always believed one has to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That is what we have to do in our society.

We also have to do restorative justice where we can as well and try to rehabilitate people. I have seen many cases of younger people who have gone into a prison or into a youth centre and if there has been no restorative justice, they have come out more hardened criminals. That is an extremely important case to make in this debate as well.

We cannot just have a tough penalty and throw away the key for absolutely everybody. We can restore some people and make them a useful citizen of our country. We can give them training, skills and education, then they start paying taxes and so on. That is a very useful thing to do.

It is not just a simple yes or no answer. As I said, we have to be tough on crime and the cause of crime. Also, we have to do whatever we can to rehabilitate people, to retrain them and ensure that they have skills and training in jobs to make a useful contribution to our society.

I have spent a fair amount of time looking at the criminal justice system and it is not a black and white issue in many cases. In many cases the judge has to have a certain amount of flexibility in terms of the punishment that is handed out.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where she was when I was speaking but I did talk about the fact this was challenged by the Alberta government and that legal action was taken. She can look at the record on this. By the way, Regina happens to be in Saskatchewan and not Manitoba. She said that I was from Manitoba.

However I was very proud of the fact that the Saskatchewan government had intervener status in terms of opposing the federal law of the Supreme Court of Canada. I think eight provinces were involved in that, including the province of Manitoba. I think all three territories were involved, or certainly two were. I did make those points and I am very pleased that they were. I am very supportive of the first nations people and their legal fight against Bill C-68.

In terms of public opinion on gun control, put me down as supporting gun control many times in the House of Commons. I have been here for all the debates in the House, except in 1995 when I was not an MP and when Bill C-68 came in. I was here for the firearms acquisition certificate debate and for the debates in the old Trudeau government and Mulroney government. I supported all the gun control bills right on through until we came to registration. Registration is not gun control and that is where I draw the line.

If a poll was done on whether people supported the registration and a a billion boondoggle, there would be massive opposition to this. If the member does not believe me, come out to my riding and go house to house. She would be amazed at the people who oppose this, from 85 year old grandmothers to young teenagers. People are universally opposed to the registration. As I read Saskatchewan, my riding and the country, the overall majority of people are opposed to this.

It is unnecessary. Let us put the money into fighting crime, let us put the money into more police officers to put them on the streets and let us not waste all this money on the registry which will not help public safety whatsoever.

I think those were the two questions. Regina is in Saskatchewan, I come from Saskatchewan and I did mention the court cases.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what an act to follow. Methinks the member doth protest too much. It is absolutely amazing. The member from the Conservative Party has said what he said in the House outside the House to the police associations. What a tempest in a teapot.

I want to tell the member across the way that it is not just the Alliance and Conservative members who oppose the gun registry. I also oppose it. I am also proud of our Saskatchewan NDP government which has opposed the gun registry. I am very proud of the Manitoba NDP government which has also opposed the gun registry. I am pleased that the NDP Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are not co-operating in the implementation of this law. I think they reflect public opinion as well.

This sanctimonious attitude of the Liberal Party that it has the divine right to do what is good and right in this country and that it stands for public opinion and for the people is a bunch of baloney. Those are the kinds of comments in debate that are not helpful at all.

The member across the way should know that this is not an ideological issue across the country. I do not agree with most of the stances taken by the Canadian Alliance but on this particular issue we happen to be on the same score card, on the same side.

We have a long record. The Saskatchewan government was part of the court action challenging the federal law. The NDP government has been the most progressive government historically in North America. The Social Democratic government was elected back in 1944. A lot of progressive people are saying that the gun registry is not the right thing to do; gun control, yes, but gun registry, no. The member across the way should know that if she has been following this debate at all over the last number of years.

I am also happy to say that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians is challenging this law in the courts. I stand with the first nations people, as I have been doing in committee hearings that are being held now in the Centre Block of the House of Commons.

The widespread point of view is that the gun registry will not be helpful in fighting crime, and that point of view is held by a number of people, including the police.

I have been a member of Parliament for over 30 years and I have never seen such a financial boondoggle in my life as the gun registry. It was supposed to cost $2 million to implement the program but it has now cost about $1 billion. No wonder the member leaves the House hanging her head in shame. There has never been a program with cost overruns like I have seen here. The Auditor General has said that and yet we have this kind of motion come before the House today. I want to make it very clear that what is happening today in the House is the wrong way to go.

The bill itself has been split by the Senate, which is also the wrong thing to do. The Senate is not elected. It is not democratic and it is not accountable. I have nothing against any particular individual in the Senate in terms of them as people. Many of them are very hardworking individuals. However in a modern day democracy an unelected appointed body should not have legislative power. What is happening now is a dangerous precedent being set by the Senate and being accepted by the government.

A government bill that was introduced back in October was sent to the Senate. The Senate separated the bill into two parts, one dealing with firearms and the other dealing with cruelty to animals. As I said earlier this morning, the part dealing with the firearms registry is actually a money bill. To accept the fact that the Senate can have this kind of power with a bill originating in the House of Commons dealing with the expenditure of the public's money is a very dangerous precedent to set.

This will come back to haunt the government across the way. The precedent is set now and the same thing will be done in the future. I ask the government at this time, when it is having a leadership race for the renewal of the Liberal Party, should we not be looking at how we can democratize our Canadian institutions? Is there any reason that we should have an unelected chamber with legislative power?

Many years ago when our parliamentary system was formed we accepted from the British the idea of having a bicameral system. It is debatable whether we should have a bicameral system but it was accepted in those days to have a House of Commons, electing the commoners.

We also accepted the British idea that the aristocracy needed to have someone overlooking the commoners. The British have the House of Lords and we have the Senate. We decided the Senate should be appointed by the prime minister and the prime minister could appoint whomever he or she wanted to the Senate. Usually they are friends of the prime minister or members of the prime minister's party; a lot of hacks, flacks and bagmen for that particular party.

On top of that, the Senate has the power to change legislation. It has the power to split a government bill. I believe that is fundamentally wrong.

I wish we had a parliamentary system where members of the government side could get up and speak freely, as the member from Sarnia has done, on how they feel about the Senate having this type of power and authority.

Canada has the most handcuffed parliamentary system in the world. Even in Britain there are many free votes. The Blair government, when Tony Blair was at the height of his popularity, or Margaret Thatcher at the height of her popularity, on many occasions had government bills that were defeated in the House of Commons but the government did not fall. The bill may have been introduced in a different form later on. However we do not have that kind of freedom and democracy in our political system.

I want to say to the government that it sets a very dangerous precedent to allow the Senate to split a bill. I will put this properly. The Senate has the power to split a bill but the House of Commons has the authority to reject the idea from the Senate and to send it back to the other place. When the government decided not to do that and accepted the fact that the bill was now in two parts, one dealing with firearms and one dealing with cruelty to animals, I think set a very dangerous precedent.

It is not just the firearms part. The Senate has now made amendments to the cruelty to animals part of the bill as well. The Senate has weakened what the House of Commons sent to the Senate. I think that is the wrong thing to do.

Once again I appeal to members across the way to reject what the Senate has sent to us. I ask members to think seriously about reforming our democratic institutions. If we do not do that this place will become more and more irrelevant to more and more Canadians.

Before I sit down I want to say that on the gun registry itself there is widespread opposition to what the federal government is doing. It comes from every political corner of the ideological framework across the country.

As I have said before, when Bill C-68 was introduced and supported in the House of Commons it was opposed by the NDP Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Yukon. The NDP Governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not co-operating now with the administration of the bill, and I applaud them for doing that.

About two weeks ago I met with Saskatchewan's justice minister, Eric Cline, in Regina, and Saskatchewan's position remains firm. There is no data whatsoever that the registration of firearms will bring down crime or the causes of crime in the country.

We need more money to fight crime. We need to be tougher on criminals and tougher on the causes of crime. I represent the riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle. We have the inner city in my riding with a very high crime rate. The way to bring down the crime rate is to put more money into fighting crime and into putting more police out on the roads. The minister of justice told us that if an extra $20 million or $30 million a year could be put in a place such as Saskatchewan in having more police officers out in the communities that crime would go down.

I see in the House today the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who is from Saskatchewan. Even though he is not from Regina I think he is aware that Regina had the highest rate of auto theft of any jurisdiction in North America about two years ago. It was a very unfortunate occurrence. Much of that is in my own riding.

The Province of Saskatchewan, the City of Regina and the police now have a new program to deal with car theft. Car thefts have dropped by a huge percentage. I cannot recall the percentage but over the last year it has been 30%, 40%, 50% or more.

What we can do is tackle crime and tackle the causes of crime. Sometimes the causes of crime have to deal with the fact that people do not have opportunities. They are living in poverty and despair. If we were to drive around part of the inner city in Regina we would see the condition of the housing. We would see the unemployed people. We would hear the stories about the drug trade and the prostitution trade. We would see the looks of despair and helplessness on the faces of many of the people. It is no wonder the crime rate is very high. If we were to put more money into fighting the root cause of crime, Canada would be a better place indeed.

The billion dollars which has been put into the gun registry means that money has been taken away from other things, like more police on the streets. Also in Saskatchewan a program was cancelled in terms of gun safety courses that would have cost only a few tens of thousands of dollars. Those are very worthwhile programs and are very helpful.

The government is fundamentally wrong by accepting the fact that the Senate can split a bill, particularly a money bill, like it has done with the one before us today. It is just wrong for an unelected body to have that kind of legislative power. It makes a mockery out of the parliamentary system.

The government should come to its senses in terms of Bill C-68. The registration is not working. It is opposed by an overwhelming majority of the people in the country and it does not have the cooperation of most of the provinces.

I am proud to say that as a member of the New Democratic Party and social democrat that our two provincial governments are very much opposed to the bill, have always been opposed to it and are not cooperating with the implementation of the bill.

I stand also four-square with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and other first nation people in Canada who are challenging this thing in the courts and are hoping to get Bill C-68 pulled out of the legislation in the country. It is in conflict with their treaty and hunting rights, rights that are enshrined in the constitution on behalf of the first nations people.

I invite the member across the way to come to her senses, reflect on what she has said and hopefully oppose the bill before the House.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister. What I was asking for is his opinion on whether or not the Senate should have the right to split a bill. It is not elected and not democratic. The gun registry, by the way, is a money bill, which makes it even more serious.

I have known the minister for a number of years and I know that he was outspoken. Just because he is now a minister of the crown does not mean that he has become a political eunuch. He still has his own mind, his own brain, his own opinion.

In his opinion, is it the proper thing to do to have the Senate split a bill like this when the senators are not elected, particularly when it is a money bill?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today is a bill that was divided by the Senate. I have known the minister for a long while and I thought he had some progressive views about parliamentary reform. By accepting this bill that was divided by the Senate, the House is accepting the fact that the Senate, even though it is not elected, not democratic, and not accountable, has the power to divide a legislative bill. I do not think that is proper.

Would the minister reconsider his position because by accepting this bill in the House he is accepting a decision that the Senate made to divide the bill.

This bill was introduced last October. It went to the Senate in November and the Senate divided the bill into the firearms part and the cruelty to animals part. Today we have the firearms part back in the House. By accepting that, we are accepting the fact that the Senate has the right in a democratic society to divide legislation. I think that is dead wrong. It is not elected, not accountable, and not democratic, and it is thwarting the will of the people of Canada. I want the minister to respond to that because I used to think he was a pretty democratic guy.

[Canadian Wheat Board, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. As the minister knows, the American government has once again attacked the Canadian Wheat Board by slapping a duty of some 12% and 10% on Canadian durum and spring wheat. The Americans have also been dumping wheat on the world market at an average of 29% less than the cost of production, hurting Canadian farmers and hurting third world producers.

In light of that, I want to know what specific action the minister is taking to stand up for our farmers, to stand up for orderly marketing and to stand up for the Canadian Wheat Board, which is so important to Canadian farmers.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 29th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would have to check the blues but I think I said that it is my understanding that a member of the reform party at one time advocated caning. Then the member objected from his seat and I said I was not a member of the House at the time and I was just going from a recollection of newspaper stories at the time. If that is not the case, then that is not the case, but I was not in the House. Certainly caning is not an appropriate kind of punishment in our country. I do not think we would find many Canadians who would advocate caning.

However one thing that is coming up in this debate is what is considered to be an appropriate punishment. That punishment is not appropriate by Canadian standards. We want to rehabilitate Canadian people by Canadian standards, Canadian values, Canadian punishment and the precedents we have in this country. That is one reason a prisoner may want to be transferred back to Canadian jurisdiction to serve out the remainder of his or her sentence.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 29th, 2003]

I was not in the House at the time, it was just what I read in the press. I do not always believe everything I read in the press, but certainly there were reports to that effect.

The bill should include the potential threat to an offender's well-being as a result of serving his or her sentence in a foreign state as a proper consideration for the minister to make.

Looking at the bill, which I only received a little while ago, clause 10(2)(a) allows the minister to refuse transfer of a foreign offender where in the minister's opinion the offender will commit a terrorist act or join organized crime. In other words, the minister is required to predict the future criminal activity of a foreign offender. This is a very difficult and maybe impossible standard to be held against or to act upon.

As is, the provision is quite broad in scope. It has the potential to be abused, especially where the foreign offender is the subject of political controversy or dissidence unless clearer criteria are established for the minister. According to the wording of Bill C-33, it would not be difficult to conceive of a situation where a foreign offender may be denied transfer because of some undefined notion of terrorism or organized crime where it would serve the interests of others than the public's.

These are areas that are very difficult to codify and put into law but the bill should be clear on this issue if possible. Either establish what criteria is to be met before the minister may deem the offender likely to commit terrorism or participate in organized crime, or insert a clause requiring the offender to be previously convicted or charged of terrorism offences or organized crime offences before the minister may proceed on such an assumption. I think those are two possible ways of doing this.

Bill C-33 should be supported for its humanitarian purpose, but we should not assume that the transfer of prisoners back to Canada necessarily results in more humane treatment. We should not allow the government to pat itself on the back too long because we still have problems in our own prison system. One only needs to think of the lack of correctional services facilities for women or for aboriginal people in our country to realize there is a great need for development of our own corrections system. Let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees; there is still more progress to be made. Bill C-33 is just a step in the right direction.

Those are a few of my thoughts on the bill. We support the bill in principle. We think it is going in the right direction. We think it is fair and balanced. It is not a wholesale transfer of prisoners from one jurisdiction to the other. It is not the prisoner making the decision by herself or himself whether or not there should be a transfer. The transfer only happens if Canada agrees to it through the office of the Solicitor General, if the foreign country agrees to it through its appropriate government spokespeople and if the prisoner himself or herself agrees.

I believe this is a step in the right direction. I look forward to seeing the bill in committee and talking about it in more detail.