Werner Schmidt

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

That is because you were not listening.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

It is wonderful, Madam Speaker, that he took the time to listen. I am so glad he did that. That is excellent.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had listened just a little longer, he would have gotten the connection right away.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from North Vancouver understood my speech very well. He understood exactly what I was trying to say.

It is interesting that the claim is made that the savings from bringing them under one umbrella would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $600,000 to $1 million. That may or may not be true. There is absolutely nothing to show that would happen.

Although Alex Macdonald uses the prodigal law in the context of the legal system, that prodigal law also applies in administrative matters where the activity in a particular office expands to cover the time available to the individuals sitting there. Sometimes when asked how much time people spend in the office, they will say six hours. The question is about what they achieved. The important aspect is not how long they were there but rather what they achieved. It is one of the issues that is very critical.

The other point I want to emphasize is that we need to recognize that the intent of legislation is every bit as important, maybe more important, than what the legislation actually says word for word. Too often legal expertise is very good at pulling out the tiny little issue, and one word will slit a particular meaning of a section in an act. Sometimes people will be declared innocent or acquitted on one tiny technicality. Sometimes a technicality is critical because it does reveal the intent but sometimes it does not. It is critical that we recognize that sort of thing and deal directly with the level and degree of punishment involved.

These are questions of intent. They are also questions of values that operate in our society. It is very important.

I have to use this opportunity to refer to something else. In terms of terrorism, a committee of 10 senior cabinet ministers has been created. They are to look after the domestic security of Canadians. That sounds very good. The head of the committee is the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

This is really interesting because in the government cabinet there is a solicitor general. He has CSIS and the RCMP under his jurisdiction. CSIS is supposed to provide intelligence about what is happening, particularly in regard to terrorism and other threats. The RCMP does that as well.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, we have an interesting bill before us. It is probably one of the simplest and most incontrovertible bills we have seen for a long time. It rationalizes what would appear to be a logical thing to do: to organize these courts under one umbrella and one chief administrator. It makes eminent good sense.

As a business person and an administrator in a previous life I think it makes jolly good sense. It is about time someone did something like this. The auditor general said it would be a good thing to do and it is. On the face of it that part makes excellent sense.

For the benefit of our listeners and viewers this afternoon I will indicate exactly which four courts would be rationalized under one administrative body. They are the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada.

As we all know there is entrepreneurial bureaucracy in the world. There are entrepreneurial bureaucrats whose function seems to be to increase the number of people under their administration. The salary structure is put together in such a way that the more people one administers the greater one's pay, and of course the greater the responsibility and the more the work expands.

We have created a super administrative body whose chief administrator has one of the most auspicious jobs in the world. The administrator's job is to tell judges they cannot use a particular room on a certain day. That is a tremendous power. The chief administrator can tell judges, who for all intents and purposes are superior, where they can go to practise their art.

I am overstating the case. I am not really serious but I am sure that kind of thing will happen. The independence that my colleague mentioned is a real issue. The way the government states the case in terms of the purposes of the bill is significant. I will read from the bill. It states:

The purposes of this Act are to

(a) facilitate coordination and cooperation among the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada for the purpose of ensuring the effective and efficient provision of administrative services to those courts;

Here is the significant part. Its purpose is also to:

(b) enhance judicial independence by placing administrative services at arm's length from the Government of Canada and by affirming the roles of chief justices and judges in the management of the courts; and

(c) enhance accountability for the use of public money in support of court administration while safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.

Three issues are at stake here: independence, accountability, and not only independence for the justices but independence from the Government of Canada. Is it not interesting that the judiciary should be placed in a position where there is independence from the Government of Canada? I am not entirely sure how a judge would interpret this. In the final analysis the courts are set up by legislation which is a function of the Government of Canada. We do it here.

In one sense we want judges to be independent when they interpret laws. In their interpretations judges should take into account the intent of the Parliament of Canada when it passed the laws. That is what they should do. I want judges to be independent and not influenced by the political vagaries of the day a law was passed. However I want them to know what the intent of the law was.

When the Canadian constitution and the bill of rights were passed certain clear indications were made by the Parliament of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada later read into those provisions certain clauses, interpretations and definitions that were never intended by the House of Commons.

That means there is independence not only in terms of interpreting the law but in the sense of judges telling parliament what they think it should have done. A power exists in Canada today that ought not to be there as far as judges are concerned.

One might ask whether I am taking this too far. I do not think so. There is evidence that this has happened. We need to be careful in considering this type of legislation which seems so innocuous on the surface. When it is working its way through the system we should examine what its end result could be.

It is interesting that the auditor general not only recommended a body that would tie together the administrative services of the courts under one umbrella, he also suggested some courts ought to be amalgamated. My hon. colleague said there was opposition to amalgamation.

I talked earlier about bureaucratic entrepreneurship. One of the laws of bureaucratic entrepreneurship is that no one shall ever take away one's authority or reduce the number of people over whom one has supervisory responsibility. That is anathema to being a bureaucrat.

Am I suggesting bureaucrats are bad people? Heavens no, I am not. They are wonderful people. They help us a lot. It would be terrible if bureaucrats were not extremely jealous about their positions. They had better be, or what are they doing there?

I want bureaucrats to be truthful and honest. In discussing his experience in the provincial legislature the hon. member indicated that it was difficult to find out from the people he was responsible for what was happening with the utilization of space they were paying for.

I do not blame these people for making it difficult, but there is something wrong with the system when it is that difficult to get at the truth. We need to recognize that as a society. We need to recognize it in the House of Commons.

I will move away from Bill C-30 for a couple of minutes to talk about its timing. Canadians are neighbours of the United States of America. Twenty-two days ago we witnessed a horrible event. Terrorists killed innocent people. Yet here we are today being asked by the government and the House to consider legislation to rationalize the administrative services of our courts rather than legislation to deal with terrorism. I question the timing. How could this be more important than the September 11 tragedy?

What we need in our society today is a commitment to honesty, truth and the recognition that terrorism does not arise out of poverty. Terrorism does not arise out of the fact that someone did not get his way. Terrorism arises from a heart that wants to kill or destroy, for whatever reason. There is evil in the world. That is what gives rise to terrorism. The best laws in the world will not prevent evil. All they can hope to do is push it back a bit so it does not become the force it could become.

The hon. member from the coalition indicated the establishment in Halifax of the Hell's Angels. The group had a storefront advertising the fact that they were there. We would not call them terrorists at this point; however, what goes on in the hearts of people who are organized for the specific purpose of defying the law?

What goes on in the mind of a judge who issues a perfunctory punishment to people who deliberately and in an organized manner grow marijuana? The judge slaps them on the wrist with a $5,000 fine. They laugh at the judge and say it is an expensive business licence, and they carry on doing business.

It used to be that law enforcement officers and the judges who found these people guilty could confiscate the material they used to grow the marijuana, or whatever the criminal offence was. They cannot do so any more.

What has happened to us? What has happened to our school systems? The system does not seem to care any more whether students cheat on an examination. Yes, we make noise and tell students they shall not cheat, but the kids go home and say that everyone is doing it. What is wrong when students feel they cannot perform too well because they will be frowned upon up on? They do not make their best effort.

We need to move ahead with truth, honesty and integrity so we can do the things that will build our society and make us strong. That is the strongest instrument against terrorism we could possibly devise.

Does that mean we should not have good legislation against terrorism? Of course we should. However we should also challenge parents, school teachers, MPs and every leader of the community to instill into the hearts and minds of people that it is important to pass good laws, obey those laws and make sure our kids do the same.

We need to be sure Bill C-30 achieves its purpose of giving independence to the administrative body. That is what we need to go for. However it will depend on judges who have the right heart. It will depend on administrators who have the right heart. The intent of Bill C-30 will need to be observed by the judges who are asked to interpret and apply it.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the erudite analysis of Bill C-30 that my hon. colleague from Provencher just gave us.

Given his experience as attorney general and, in his previous life, as a practitioner and a member of the bar, would he agree with the comments of Alex Macdonald, the former attorney general of British Columbia, regarding the prodigal law in the justice system in Canada? He said that the law states that the amount of time it takes to bring a case to its culmination depends directly on the amount of money and the amount of time available to service the case.

The auditor general showed us that roughly less than 50% of the courts actually were occupied by judges and lawyers hearing cases. There is a tremendous inefficiency here. It must have taken a lot of ingenuity on the part of the judges and lawyers to bring it up to 50% because clearly their interest would be to make sure they have access to the space and that it would be free and independent as it possibly could be.

The auditor general has provided us with a tremendous insight here. He was able to unearth something that apparently was clear to everyone, yet at the same time these people had a vested interest to make sure they did not find that.

Could the member comment on the prodigal law and on the vested interest that individuals have in making sure that the space is available in the public sector that they want but may not need?

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. As a member of the bar he understands very well how the judicial system operates and how various justice and court arrangements are made.

Would he agree with Alex Macdonald, either the solicitor general or the attorney general for the province of B.C. who is now retired? He wrote an exposé of what happened in the Canadian justice system. At the beginning of his book he makes a very strong indictment against the justice system. He goes so far as to say that Canada does not have a justice system; it has a legal system.

He describes how one court is loaded with all kinds of cases. There is such a backlog that they cannot get the physical time in court even if the judge and court space were available. Yet there is an empty court right next door where nothing is happening. Cases cannot be expedited simply because of a lack of space.

Does the hon. member feel that this legislation might actually help to speed up the justice system so that cases can be heard before juveniles become adults?

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising what is a very rational and tightly reasoned presentation on the motion.

I know he is an international traveller and a person who has performed many professional services in other countries of the world. He has also seen some of the terror and the suffering that goes on in these other countries.

Can a man who has seen the suffering honestly say that in Canada we have a rising wave of racism and discrimination against people because of what they believe? Would these people who he has served and observed in other countries feel they would be better off in Canada than elsewhere?

[Export Development Act, October 1st, 2001]

I want to refer to the statement the hon. member made which insisted the corporation was able to do things that could not be done by private corporations. She did not say that exactly but the inference was there.

I do not believe that. Institutions such as the Royal Bank of Canada, the TD Bank, Scotiabank and other financial institutions in Canada including insurance companies are only too willing to expand business if we let them go. All of us are interested in export development. That is where the big development should take place.

Let us not forget that the Export Development Corporation does its business in two accounts: the corporate account and the Canada account. The corporate account has in it right now accumulated retained earnings for the year of well over a billion dollars.

What is this money for? How does this crown corporation, which is really owned by the government, account for its earnings? Should that not come back to the general treasury of the country? It is just lying there and there is nothing in the legislation that covers it.

I could go on for at least another 10 or 20 minutes looking at some of the provisions of the Export Development Corporation but I do want to give my hon. colleague the opportunity to speak as well.

[Export Development Act, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Elk Island. One would think that after the member for Parkdale--High Park finished with her catalogue of good things the EDC had done over the past years that there was absolutely nothing in the world the EDC could not do to promote business. I wonder what happened to all of our financial institutions and our private enterprises that operate without EDC support.

I want to put on the record a balanced position which clearly indicates there is something else besides EDC that might work. One would think that according to the government the only corporations which really know what to do are crown corporations. That is far from the truth. There are a lot of other corporations that are doing very well. I suspect that is one of the reasons CN, which was a crown corporation, is now a private corporation.

I will speak to a number of amendments contained in Bill C-31: the environmental provision, the increase of the contingent liability ceiling from $15 billion to $32.5 billion, the empowering of the board to make contributions to pension plans, making it an offence for businesses to refer in their advertisement to EDC involvement in their enterprises, the appointment of committees and the power of the board to delegate its powers to them.

I will read into the record the clause pertaining to the environmental provisions. I am sure many people who are watching do not know exactly what is being talked about. Clause 10.1 states:

Before entering, in the exercise of its powers under subsection 10(1.1), into a transaction that is related to a project, the Corporation must determine, in accordance with the directive referred to in subsection (2),

(a) whether the project is likely to have adverse environmental effects despite the implementation of mitigation measures;

Subclause 10.1 (2) states:

The Board shall issue a directive respecting the determination referred to in subsection (1), which directive may

(a) define the words and expressions that the Board considers necessary for the application of that subsection, including the words and expressions “transaction”, “project”, “adverse environmental effects” and “mitigation measures”;

Is that not interesting? The board has the right to decide whether there will be adverse environmental effects. The next section defines an adverse environmental effect.

The bill does not in any way refer to Canada's environmental act. It is excluded specifically. Those projects are approved under the Canada account which the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade need to approve. They are specifically exempted and do not apply or come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Clause 12 which amends section 24.1 states:

(1) Subsection 5(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not apply where the Minister or the Minister of Finance exercises a power or performs a duty or function under this Act or any regulation made under it, or exercises a power of authorization or approval with respect to the Corporation under any other Act of Parliament or any other regulation made under it.

We now need to look at the very wide reaching powers of the EDC. The corporation may acquire and dispose of any interest in any entity by any means; enter into any arrangement that has the effect of providing to any person any insurance, reinsurance, indemnity or guarantee; enter into any arrangement that has the effect of extending credit to any person or providing an undertaking to pay money to any person; take any security interest in any property; prepare, compile, publish and distribute information; provide consulting services; procure the incorporation, dissolution or amalgamation of subsidiaries; make any investment and enter into any transaction necessary or desirable for the financial management of the corporation; and there are others.

The powers are overwhelming. The auditor could be the president of the EDC and do anything he would want to do. It is like telling my friends to form a corporation, make sure to do some exporting and make sure that they get paid by the person who is buying the product they are exporting. That is what is possible here.

We have to recognize that these people will be responsible, but the law is an open book and allows them pretty well to go anywhere they want to go. That is the sort of thing that makes it possible for a patronage appointment, for example, to reflect specifically what it is the Prime Minister wants done in another country, another corporation, or whatever the case may be.

In addition, the board that runs the corporation may now appoint committees which can have any of these powers delegated to them. This is really interesting. That is the kind of bill we have before us. If it were not for the trust, faith and common sense of some of people, we would have the possibility and potential of making something corrupt.

I am happy that we as Canadians do not live like that. We trust one another. We have a sense of morality and a sense of ethics. That is what makes this kind of thing work. It is not because the legislation is so good. It is because the people are so decent.

This is why I am such a strong proponent of private enterprise in the first instance. These people are now directly responsible for their own money in their own way. They can do the things that have to be done to benefit them and get the finest results they can get.

The answer lies not in forming crown corporations and extending their powers and privileges but rather in creating an environment so that private enterprise can win and can apply these kinds of things.

I am sorry the hon. member for Parkdale--High Park is not in the House right now because I would like to ask her if it is really possible--