Gurmant Grewal

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is almost 2 a.m. and we do not need the pages in the House. They have to go to study. I ask for unanimous consent to allow the pages to go home.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent question. We all hear some horrendous stories in our communities. Unfortunately, youth are involved in many of them. Not all youth are bad. Many youth are very good and very well behaved and they understand what is good, what is bad, what is wrong and what is right. However, some youth who are involved in those activities may be well known to the police or at least the community understands those instances.

In Surrey Central some time ago an old man who was a war veteran was beaten to death. He had 104 stitches on his face and body and died of his injuries. The police force did its job. They got hold of the people responsible for the incident. To my dismay, and to the dismay of many other members in the community, some youths were involved in the incident, youths who had already had dealings with the police.

If the Young Offenders Act had been improved as suggested by my colleague and by us on this side of the House—we are trying our best to make improvements and to suggest amendments—then probably those offenders would have been known. Those offenders would have had some sort of repercussions from or consequences of what they had done in the past.

This is a very important issue. We would like to see the government look through the lens of issues, as I said, and make those amendments and improvements to the bill and really make it an effective bill to protect society and our communities.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-7, the Liberal government's latest attempt to replace the Young Offenders Act with new youth criminal justice legislation.

All my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have tried hard to improve the youth criminal justice legislation. In particular, I would commend my neighbour, the hon. member for Surrey North, for his contribution in this area.

The bill provides principles, procedures and protections for the prosecution of young persons under criminal and other federal laws. It is the third attempt by the government to bring forth young offenders legislation. The bill, with very few changes, is the same as what has been introduced previously. This version of the bill has been updated just to include over 160 technical amendments from the last government.

Here are some specifics. The list of offences for which adult sentences may be imposed is severely limited. The goal of sentencing is solely to contribute to the protection of society by having meaningful consequences for young persons which promote rehabilitation and reintegration, so the goal of protection of society is hardly a concern.

Even for offences that could be treated in adult court, the judge must first consider the least restrictive sentence and only impose adult sentencing as a last resort. Maximum sentencing has not changed for youth sentencing purposes. It is still ten years for murder, with six years in custody and four years under supervision in the community; seven years for second degree murder, with four years in custody and three years under supervision; three years for any offence having an adult sentence of life imprisonment, with two years in custody and one year under supervision for all others.

The deterrent that society demands and needs to cause resistance to commit a crime is effectively not there. Rather, the lack of serious consequences, commonly called the slap on the wrist, acts as a motivation for the youth to commit a crime or for the youth to be used to commit a crime.

I will read from the Canadian Alliance policy book, which of course is dictated by our grassroots membership, unlike the policies of any other political party in the House. Sections 28 and 30 state:

We will make providing safety and security for Canadians, their families and their property the overriding objective of the criminal justice system. We will support rehabilitation programs designed to safely restore offenders to society.

We will introduce measures to hold young lawbreakers accountable to their victims and the larger community. We recognize that custody is not always the most effective way of dealing with young offenders. Detention facilities for youth will be separate and emphasize skills training, responsibility, and community service. Violent or serious repeat offenders 14 and over will be tried as adults, as will all offenders 16 and over.

In various ways this legislation seems to place the safety and security of Canadians behind the interest in rehabilitating and reintegrating the offenders back into society.

We have attempted to encourage the government to amend the bill to make it clear that protection of the public is to be the paramount principle behind this legislation, but the minister refuses.

The legislation does not ensure that violent or serious repeat offenders will be tried as adults. We have proposed amendments to previous portions of the bill to limit extrajudicial measures to first time non-violent offenders. This means no court, no criminal record and community designed informal types of sanctions or punishment. Again the minister refuses to accede to this request. Repeat and violent offenders may never have to see court, be convicted and receive a criminal record.

It was the justice committee and the Canadian Alliance through its former version, the Reform Party, that first endorsed alternative measures for first time non-violent offenders. The minister claims credit, but she once again fails to restrict this form of conditional sentencing. It is open to repeat offenders and it is open to violent offenders.

The list of presumptive offences for which an adult sentence may be imposed is severely restricted. The list includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. It does not include sexual assault with a weapon, hostage taking, aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host of other serious violent offences.

In Bill C-7 the minister has further weakened the legislation by limiting presumptive offence procedure even more. Through clause 61, any province may decide that only 15 year old or even 16 year old offenders who commit offences such as murder could be transferred to adult court, while 10 year olds and 11 year olds would still not be held criminally responsible for their crimes.

The legislation will create a patchwork or checkerboard system of youth justice, as many of its provisions permit the provinces undue discretion in whether to seek adult sentencing, in publication of names and in access to records, to name just a few.

The legislation provides some movement toward victims' rights, but even they are not ensured and are still woefully inadequate.

The government has not been open to change for any aspect of the legislation except for some technical amendments. All of the opposition parties except the Bloc presented substantive amendments to the former bill, Bill C-3. Those amendments did not receive debate in parliament and do not appear to have been considered by the government. In fact, the government is not serious about discussion, so the Liberals are ignoring those amendments.

The provinces would be tasked to administer this legal nightmare, but the federal government does not seem to care. The Liberals have promised $206 million over the first three years for the implementation of the bill, but this would not even come close to meeting the responsibility of providing 50% of the funding for the youth justice system. The Liberals have allowed federal funding to slip to about 20%. The provinces have to carry the can financially for these proposals, costs of which are going to dramatically rise through legal argument and procedure.

An initial review of Bill C-7 indicates that the government has made it even weaker, likely to appease the Quebec government and the Bloc Quebecois. For instance, the presumptive offence provision that moves youths 14 years of age and older automatically to adult court for murder, et cetera, now permits the provinces, Quebec in this case, to raise the age to restrict the transfer to only 15 year old or 16 year old offenders.

Restrictions on naming of violent offenders are still not taken into consideration. The bill still has an emphasis on attempting to understand the circumstances underlying the criminal behaviour and rehabilitation and reintegration. Protection of the public takes second fiddle. Denunciation and deterrence seem to be foreign words for the government.

If the legislation passes, its complexity and its loopholes will cause horrendous delays. The costs to our youth criminal justice process in legal bills will be phenomenal.

In conclusion I would like to say that the official opposition carries on with its job of holding the flashlight and showing the Liberals their darkness. We gave the Liberal members a chance to improve on the legislation. They should look at our amendments through the lens of issues, not political stripes.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt but when the hon. member is asking questions with respect to the official opposition of Canada he always refers to it as the reform alliance. He should address it by its proper name, the Canadian Alliance, so that at least he is referring to the right party in the spirit of asking the question.

[Multiculturalism, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question if the Prime Minister will listen to it carefully.

The minister has a history of using that kind of paranoid statement against the people of Prince George and Kamloops. She is prejudiced against anyone outside her constituency. Canadians cannot trust the minister any more.

Would the Prime Minister fire her before her slurs hurt any more innocent Canadians?

[Multiculturalism, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has a history of using that kind of paranoid statement against the people of Prince George and Kamloops. She is prejudiced against anyone outside her constituency. Canadians cannot trust her any more.

Would the Prime Minister fire her before her slurs hurt any more innocent Canadians?

[Multiculturalism, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister for multiculturalism misled the House when she said she had a letter from the mayor of Prince George asking for help with cross burnings on lawns.

By Friday of last week, one day after her apology to the people of Prince George, the minister was still trying to build a case to defend herself. In fact, she ordered her officials to contact the RCMP and get information on cross burnings. Is that not enough for the Prime Minister to fire her?

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to debate, at report stage, Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

Just to remind members, as well as the people who are watching the debate today, in the 2000 federal budget the Liberals announced that they would be creating a sustainable development technology fund and that they had earmarked $100 million in initial funding to the sustainable development technology fund. It was a very good initiative that should have been taken a long time ago, but they took eight or nine years to implement their own red book one promise.

For the benefit of those who are watching, 10 amendments have been put forward at report stage. They are grouped into three different groups. In the first group we are debating Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10.

Members of the Canadian Alliance support the intent of Bill C-4 but we have a few reservations and some amendments to suggest dealing with the non-involvement of the auditor general in the whole process. We are also concerned with the patronage appointments to the board of directors. We feel that the government is using this bill for patronage appointments of failed candidates.

With respect to Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 10, Motions Nos. 1 and 6 are very similar in nature. They would bring provincial ministers of environment into all discussions regarding the criteria of eligibility for receiving funds. Being so, it would introduce different criteria of acceptance into every province, The 10 different provinces may have 10 different criteria, that is the potential.

The bill desperately needs uniformity. It is so poorly worded and poorly drafted that even the minister has had to put forward amendments at this late stage in the debate. We believe that the uniformity, which is desperately needed in the bill, may be lost when different criteria for funding are applied to different provinces and territories. By allowing these amendments to pass, it would make already cumbersome legislation much more clumsy and difficult to deliver. Therefore, the Canadian Alliance will be voting against Motions Nos. 1 and 6.

We will be supporting Motion No. 10, which was moved by the Progressive Conservative Party member, because it attempts to curtail some of the vagueness in the bill by including the eligibility criteria for receiving funds.

On behalf of the people of Surrey Central, I will be pleased to support Motion No. 10 and oppose Motions No. 1 and 6. I will keep the rest of my comments in reserve until the bill comes back to the House for third reading.

[Judges Act, March 22nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act.

I would like to talk about the purpose of the bill, which is to implement the federal government's response to the 1999 report of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges.

The bill amends the Judges Act to: increase judicial salaries and allowances; modify the current judicial annuities scheme; and put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges.

Let me speak about the details of the bill. The government accepted the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2% for over 1,000 federally appointed judges, retroactive to April 1, 2000. The salary increase will cost Canadian taxpayers approximately $19 million.

The judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%. It had maintained that the federal government must compete with high paying law firms in order to attract superior candidates to the bench. However, federal representatives told a hearing into judges' pay earlier this year that there was no shortage of candidates for the bench, with about eight applicants for each federal job over the last decade.

The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998, when they received 4.1%. In 1997 they also received an increase of 4.1%. In other words, judges received an 8.2% increase in two years. Additionally, judges' salaries are indexed so they receive an annual cost of living increase as well.

In the 35th parliament, the government introduced two bills amending the Judges Act. In the 36th parliament, one bill was introduced. All of these bills, including Bill C-12, have been administrative in nature.

Or have they been merely administrative in nature? We do not know.

Canadians can be assured that the official opposition will closely scrutinize Bill C-12. In particular, we will review the provisions of the bill that change the annuities scheme.

The Liberal government has made amendments four times to the Judges Act. The big question is why. We have seen time and time again where the government has tailor made legislation to fit certain individuals and certain situations.

We will also assure the House and Canadians in general that Bill C-12 will not be tailor made to any individual. That is the job of the official opposition: to hold the government accountable. If it were tailor made, it would definitely compromise the impartiality of our judiciary, so we will be investigating that.

For example, the changes being made to the Judges Act allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge to collect, after the death of his or her spouse who also happened to be a judge, two survivor benefits upon the death of the spouse. One can only guess why the government is contemplating such a rare and highly unlikely situation.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, which provided the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments.

The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council. It should be noted who nominates these three individuals. One is nominated by the judiciary. One is nominated by the Minister of Justice. The third one, who acts as the chair, is nominated by the first two people nominated.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the patronage system. The Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable.

One option would be to strike a committee that would review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister. The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in these matters.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal government is prepared to grant to the lower paid civil service employees. Lately it has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, to senior bureaucrats and now to judges, while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

The question here is about fairness. All the hard working employees of the public service and the armed forces need raises in comparison to the cost of living. Why is the government only focusing on top executives or top officials and not on the other employees? While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed judges and others should generally be in line with the private sector, it is apparent that the staff on the lower echelons of our justice system are being ignored.

What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However, it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

The bill does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system, therefore my colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill. We will see what adjustments or amendments the government is willing to accept at the committee stage.

While we have no position on the exact level of judges' salaries and pensions, we generally favour salaries that are comparable to those in the private sector. However, we would like to see an overhaul of the process of patronage appointments in the judiciary to make it more transparent and publicly accountable.

The Canadian Alliance declaration of policy, section 69, states:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on qualification and merit.

Public servants should only be given salaries in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner. The government has awarded judges and senior bureaucrats with large pay raises and bonuses, while frontline police officers and lower level public servants receive little or nothing.

It should be noted that on March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They received a second increment of just 1% on April 1, 1998, and an additional .75% on October 1, 1998. RCMP officers have had their wages frozen for five years.

Since my time is almost up I have just a few more comments.

Both of the Liberal justice ministers since 1993 have failed to introduce a victims bill of rights or to address important issues pertaining to drinking and driving or even to pass a new Young Offenders Act. Instead they occupy the justice committee with administrative matters at the expense of more important issues. For example, the country is experiencing a high degree of backlog in the courts and many criminal trials must be put on hold in the meantime, yet the government tinkers with salaries of judges.

In conclusion, I hope the government will entertain amendments during the committee hearings. I regret that the judges themselves are somehow caught up in the legislation. I would like to acknowledge that there are judges who are very hard working and very much want to contribute to making our judicial system fairer and faster and to making Canada a better country.

We are talking about mismanagement by this weak Liberal government. The unfair treatment handed out by the Liberal government to Canadians working or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system knows no boundaries. The inequitable treatment of Canadian workers extends all the way to our federal court benches.

We know the government does not treat the victims of crime fairly and today we are debating a bill that does not even treat judges fairly.

[Multiculturalism, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has lost the confidence of millions of Canadians who want to fight racism. She has no credibility to fight racism. She has shown herself to be intolerant.

Will the Prime Minister ask the multiculturalism minister to resign immediately?