Chuck Cadman

[Judges Act, March 22nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in debate to speak to Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

I first must state how disappointed I am that once again the government is going to great lengths to look after what some refer to as the elite of our society. At the same time, what it is doing for the ordinary citizens, other than taxing them into the ground, is unclear.

Those who occupy the upper echelons of our public service are well looked after. Meanwhile those in the trenches, the clerks and receptionists who comprise the first line of contact between the government and citizens, are again expected to do without.

Everything I have just said is almost word for word what I said in March 1998 when I rose to debate Bill C-37. It appears the more things change around here, the more they stay the same.

Judges, for some reason, attract an inordinate level of attention from the Liberal government. It seems that with every new parliament we debate and pass legislation to look after the interests of judges. It is unfortunate that the government is not as keen to address the problems of our young offender legislation or the creation of a national sex offender registry.

I note that farmers were once again demonstrating here on Parliament Hill this week. Thousands of family farms are lost each year as debts rise, but the government does little to address the problem.

I also note, once again, the vast number of RCMP officers who will be seconded to provide security at the Quebec City summit of the Americas in late April. Entire crime fighting units will be stripped of their top investigators. Since most of the personnel will come from Quebec and Ontario, I foresee organized crime having a field day with its drug operations, commercial frauds, stock market manipulations and smuggling operations. I mention only federal areas of police jurisdiction because, as we all know, when the cat is away the mice will play.

When the RCMP is required to take on additional responsibility of the nature of this summit for VIPs, the force gets further and further behind in its battle against crime. However the government will look good because it is hosting such an important event. It will be our citizens and victims of crime who pay for enabling the Prime Minister to play on the world stage. The government looks after the elite but often conveniently forgets the ordinary citizen.

With respect to Bill C-12, I note that the Constitution Act of 1867, formerly the BNA Act, is part of our formal constitution. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as we know, includes the Constitution Act of 1867. It was, after all, the document that set the stage for the country. Section 100 of that document states:

The Salaries, Allowances, and Pensions of the Judges of the Superior, District, and County courts (except the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the Admiralty Courts in Cases where the Judges thereof for the Time being paid by Salary, shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.

Some of the names of our courts have changed over the years. Some have even been replaced. This section of our constitution requires salaries of superior court judges to be decided by parliament. That is partly why we have had the Judges Act for the past many years. By constitutional law, parliamentarians have the power to fix the salaries and pensions of superior court level judges.

On the inside cover of Bill C-12, in the summary of the legislation, it states:

This enactment implements the federal government's response to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges. It amends the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and allowances, improve the current judicial annuities scheme and put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges.

What I am seeing is the derogation of power, at least to some extent, in that the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission is making a report to which the government must respond. I fully appreciate that the commission has been set up because of Supreme Court of Canada decisions concerning the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

However what has not often been stated is that Supreme Court of Canada judges are in a conflict of interest when they try to change the law regarding the pay and benefits of the judiciary, which of course includes them.

Having slammed the supreme court judges for causing changes to our laws while they are in direct conflict with those changes, I fully understand that this is the fix the government has put us in. We have acceded to the use of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, but it merely makes recommendations, with all due respect. We parliamentarians must retain full control over what is to be provided to the valuable portion of the administration of justice within the country.

I note that Chief Justice Dickson, as he then was, stated in the Supreme Court of Canada case of Regina v Beauregard:

Nothing would be more damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and the administration of justice than a perception that judges were not shouldering their fair share of the burden in difficult economic times.

Following his works, I point out that for a number of years the country faced severe economic times. I recall the Prime Minister stating time and time again that Canadians must be patient and essentially bite the bullet a little longer until the economy has recovered and Canada has returned to a better financial state.

I urge members of the Chamber to carefully consider the 11.2% increase in salary for these judges, especially in light of the far less significant salary increases the government has been providing to our civil service, our federal police force and all other employees of the federal government.

I fully understand the government being hesitant to open the vaults to reimburse all of its employees to the fair and equitable level in comparison to the public sector, especially when this country has had such a debt hanging over us from years of Liberal mismanagement.

In any case, 11.2% as a raise in salary, plus a very generous pension plan, is obviously creating just the situation anticipated by Chief Justice Dickson. It damages the reputation of the judiciary because it creates at least a perception that judges are not doing their fair share in getting this country back into financial balance. I am paraphrasing the words of the chief justice here.

I may not be the first person to recognize the value of our judiciary, but I will certainly not be the last. I have spent much time in our courts witnessing day to day administration of justice.

A government argument for such excessive salary increases for judges has been that we must pay well in order to attract capable and experienced people. Surely this is just another argument for having the judicial appointment process more open and accountable. As far as I can determine, it has not been that difficult to attract capable individuals to apply and sit on the benches of our superior courts. I often wonder whether this is just not a case of some individuals wanting everything: the prestige, the opportunity to channel legal cases down particular paths, or more regular working hours. Then, after getting the position, they are now politicking for extraordinary salaries.

If members of parliament had the opportunity to become involved in reviewing these appointments, perhaps they would have a better chance to see just what is required to ensure that capable and experienced individuals are encouraged to continue to apply for judicial appointment.

It is difficult to accept pay raises beyond the norm when we are dealing with salaries in the $200,000 range, when we are dealing with, in some cases, sheer patronage, and when the whole process is deliberately kept from parliamentary scrutiny.

As I have stated, it is the responsibility of parliament to decide on the salaries and benefits of our federally appointed judges. Without sufficient information to determine whether such a significant jump in pay is necessary to maintain and/or enhance the judicial personnel, it is difficult for me to accept the proposals of this legislation.

In light of the meagre percentage raises given by the government to so many other needy and deserving employees of the federal government, 11.2% is particularly hard to swallow. I keep hearing about our military personnel using food banks to survive between paycheques. I become concerned about our RCMP members working two or three jobs when their families have trouble paying the bills, especially when we see how rich and powerful organized crime is becoming in this country. When I see these things and others I cannot have quite the same concern for federal judges who are not nearly so badly off financially.

I will be opposing this legislation. I urge other members to have a serious look at what the government is proposing here.

Something is seriously wrong when the government continues to look after the top officers within the Department of National Defence and gives peanuts to the lower ranks. Something is seriously wrong when we have thousands of farmers losing their farms because we are reluctant to provide sufficient help in their time of need. Something is seriously wrong when we have hospital shortages right across this country because the government cut back to balance the budget. Something is wrong when the government continuously brings forth legislation in a timely fashion to look after the financial interests of judges.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Speaking of referees, I imagine we could give you a whistle, Mr. Speaker, and we would have this place under control in a minute. I would have to agree with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that the Speaker should be given more control.

I speak to lots of kids in high schools about their attitude toward each other. I will use the same words that I use with them. It boils down to having a bit of respect for each other in this place. More than anything else, the bottom line is that we need more respect for each other in this place. We can disagree because that is what this is all about, but we need more respect for each other. It would make the Speaker's job a lot easier if we could bring that about.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue of parliamentary reform. It is the backbenchers who are most affected by the way this place has been operating in the past while.

The fact that we are debating this issue at all is, I believe, a strong indication of the frustration that we are facing in attempting to represent our constituents in this place.

In an effort to place my individual concerns on the record, I would like to take a few moments to outline how I have been personally affected by what has been going on over the past few years while I have had the fortune and the honour to represent the constituency of Surrey North.

A couple of years ago, in carrying out my parliamentary duties and my responsibilities, I was developing a number of amendments to a government bill. It was my understanding that I was working with the staff of the House of Commons in a confidential manner in an effort to bring forth proposed amendments and changes to a government initiative concerning its youth criminal justice law. I found it more than a little disconcerting to discover that the clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was in possession of my amendments prior to my submitting them to the committee for consideration.

I immediately embarked on a question of privilege in this place. To make a long story short, it appears that there had been a restructuring within the organization of the people whose considerable expertise and valuable assistance we rely on to do our jobs. I also note that after much debate and deliberation the Speaker at the time ruled that my privileges were not harmed by what had occurred.

The government side explained that the restructuring was necessary to enhance and promote the team concept of providing assistance to members of parliament. Let me be clear that I certainly do not question the Speaker's ruling, as he could only decide on the basis of the information that was provided to him at that time. I would be remiss if I did not add that there was subsequently quite an extensive debate and investigation by the procedural and House affairs committee into this operational change that had occurred without the consent or knowledge of the members.

I also note that while everyone involved in the decision making finally decided that nothing was wrong and the members of this place were not disadvantaged by the change, we have since reverted to our former status quo. In short, although it was decided that nothing was broken, we decided to fix it anyway. It is my understanding that now when I as a member employ legislative counsel to draft proposed amendments, those amendments will no longer be placed on a database for numerous employees to use and potentially abuse.

The listener may well question these comments. One could wonder, I suppose, just why I am raising the issue when everything is back to normal and the battle appears to have been won. My concern is that what should have been a fairly straightforward example of breach of confidentiality of lawyer-client privilege was never formally recognized as such. Politics had come into play. The government, the ultimate controller of the staff in this place, refused to accept that harm had occurred and refused to hold anyone accountable for that harm.

We had a manager within this institution who unilaterally changed the operation of the solicitor-client relationship between a member of parliament and House legal counsel. That person was able to avoid censure, and through the failure to properly address what happened, I wonder when something similar will again occur and which member of parliament will be on the receiving end of it. I have had my turn, but I do not wish anyone else to be similarly affected.

As an aside, I should point out that my relations with the clerk of the justice committee at the time were somewhat negatively affected by that situation. It was my sense that he took the position that I was attacking him and trying to cause him some grief for having access to my confidential amendments. I assure members that nothing could have been further from the case. It was the system as it was set up within the legal department of the House of Commons that permitted, and for that matter required, the clerk to become involved as he did. The clerk was not responsible for that.

I would suggest that the standing orders include the concept of solicitor-client privilege to protect the information that passes between individual members of parliament and their assigned legal counsel. Members of parliament are entitled to an expectation of confidentiality with counsel in order to do their job, especially in the political environment that exists in this place.

Another concern I have and would like to discuss has to do with committee work. We hear time and time again about the importance of our committees in threshing out the problems and nuances of all forms of legislation before it comes up for a vote in the Chamber.

I take my committee duties seriously, as I am sure all members do. I am present at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights quite regularly. I also understand the importance of presenting amendments through the committee so that its members are provided with the opportunity to review and debate those proposals. It is, after all, the committee members who are tasked by parliament to conduct indepth review and analysis of legislation through witness testimony, debate, proposing amendments, et cetera. The committee members gain a more thorough knowledge of the issues raised by the legislation and use that gained experience to assist the House with improving the legislation.

It is my opinion in the time that I have been here that some of the best work of the justice committee was accomplished during the time that the late Shaughnessy Cohen, rest her soul, occupied the chair. While we did not always agree, as I am sure members know, she was a most determined individual. I do believe that she always tried to do what was right and what was fair. The fact that the two parliamentary secretaries sat as members of the committee did not appear to intimidate Ms. Cohen. She took control of the committee's work.

Too often I can see that a committee chair can become intimidated by the presence of a parliamentary secretary. Too often I can see that the committee's work becomes a mere formality. It is the parliamentary secretary who gives the government members their marching orders on how to proceed and ensures that no one strays from the government's agenda.

However, I understand that this particular issue will be discussed further by others and perhaps even in another venue; of course I am referring to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

My real concern over committee work relates to what happened during the last parliament with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Bill C-3. The committee conducted an indepth, extensive review and heard from many witnesses. The committee members then presented a number of amendments, approximately 250 in all, of which about 150 came from the government itself. Instead of dealing with those amendments, the committee sent the bill back to the House unchanged.

To my mind, the committee failed the House, as it did not fulfil its function. It spent a large number of tax dollars to hear from witnesses. It occupied parliamentary staff and tied up government officials for months on an important piece of legislation, but in the end it essentially accomplished absolutely nothing. The House was deprived of the position on the bill from the very people it had tasked to review and return with their advice and experience.

Surely there is something wrong here. Surely it is more than an inconvenience. It is an abject failure. I fully appreciate that there was a filibuster of sorts going on in the committee but filibusters are nothing new in this place or in the committees. They are addressed one way or another. We do not run away from them. The government had the same type of majority on committee as it does in this Chamber. It had a number of ways in which it could have addressed that problem.

By abdicating its duties, the committee forced the reintroduction of all those amendments in this Chamber and we are all aware that the number of amendments then swelled, up into the neighbourhood of 3,000, which had to be addressed by all members of parliament. The actions of the committee made a bad situation worse.

When members of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, the NDP and yes, even the government itself, lose their amendments in the shuffle, so to speak, it is an injustice. For the members of those parties to be denied the opportunity to debate those amendments with their peers in committee is also just not right.

At times I left with the distinct impression that work done in committees was merely a game or a sham. The government was going through the motions to make it appear as though legislation was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed. I regret feeling compelled to adopt this attitude, and that is why I wanted to speak to this important matter of parliamentary reform.

I implore all members to take a serious interest in improving the way we do things around here. We have been elected to represent Canadian citizens. At times the burden can become heavy, but we knew that or we certainly should have known it before coming here. There is much work to be done but we need the right tools to do the job properly. We need significant changes to our procedures to do just that.

[Privilege, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay my respects to the Speaker for his ruling on this. I would like to put on the record how this affected me personally. It was indeed my legislative assistant who along with one of his colleagues went over to the room and was denied access. When I got back to my office after my own meetings, I ran into a hornets nest when my LA brought this up to me.

Could the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough tell us how he sees these kinds of shenanigans, shall we put it, affecting the staff? I know the impact it had on my staff when he was sent packing, particularly when he was trying to do the job I pay him to do.

[Justice, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the 30,000 member Canadian Police Association says that the existing database of CPIC is not up to the job.

With regard to sex offenders, not just parolees but sex offenders who are no longer under sentence, does CPIC notify police when such a person moves into a jurisdiction? Is there any consequence to an offender who fails to notify CPIC when he does relocate? Yes or no.

[Justice, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I formerly served on a victims advisory committee to the attorney general of British Columbia. Years ago that committee proposed a national registry for sex offenders.

Like Ontario, B.C. is tired of the government's inaction and will announce its own registry shortly, in fact this afternoon. At least some children will now be a little safer. The Liberals shamelessly imply that such a registry exists when clearly it does not.

Could the solicitor general please explain why the provinces must create their own registries if one already exists?

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, my constituency is an urban core riding. This whole issue can become an urban-rural split on the way people approach the legislation. There are people in urban ridings who do own two or three acres of land. They may own cottages or properties near the lake.

Could the member comment on how the legislation could impact those of us who live in urban ridings? It is not necessarily just something to be looked at in terms of agriculture and farms.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the member. Today we have heard a number of government members talk about prevention and early intervention. I do not think any of us on this side of the House would disagree with that. That is obviously the way we stop these things from happening in the first place.

I just wondered if the member would agree with this. How can it not be preventative to know when convicted offenders are in a community? How can that not be considered prevention? Prevention is what this is all about. We know these people are in our communities and they are convicted pedophiles and convicted sex offenders. I am not quite sure where the government side is coming from when it does not see this as preventative.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, yes. I will use one example that I use every time I speak to the issue of young offenders and sexual predators.

In October 1992 in Courtenay, British Columbia, there was the case of a 15 year old offender who had been convicted of molesting three children. Indeed there were up to 22 but he plea bargained to 3. He was put on probation for a year and was supposedly receiving treatment.

He moved from Nanaimo to a Courtenay, unknown to the residents, the townhouse complex and the elementary school that he lived right next door to. One year later he murdered a little six year old girl named Dawn Shaw after sexually assaulting her in the bush. He was the next door neighbour. Her parents, Ron and Carol Shaw, obviously did not know about him and indeed the RCMP in Courtenay did not even know about him.

In my opinion young offenders who are convicted of violent sexual offences, and we are talking about convicted, not suspected, should be included in the registry.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will splitting my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

The Liberal Party justice system is not working. It is long past time that the government went back to the drawing board to revise its philosophy. Even that most liberal organization known as the John Howard Society seems to finally be accepting that all we have been doing is warehousing criminals for a period of time in our institutions, only to have them released back into society to continue their offending ways.

Maureen Collins, executive director of the Edmonton John Howard Society, stated:

For some people, jail won't teach them a lesson. It just gets them off the street long enough so they don't victimize any more people. They go away for a long period of time and never really show any signs of rehabilitation and when they get back on the streets, they re-offend. It's their choice. And it's those few who never change their ways who may be forcing the violent crime rate up.

When rehabilitation does not work, and there is more than ample evidence that it does not, then what we are doing is releasing dangerous and violent offenders back into a society where they will commit further violent offences. Is this any way to protect our citizens? With sexual offenders, the victims are almost entirely women and children. As parliamentarians we have a duty and responsibility to attempt to provide whatever protections are necessary while being fair and still recognizing the rights of the offenders.

First, I would like to mention some of the recidivism rates of sex offenders. In 1991 the British Columbia ministry of health tracked the history of 30 child sexual offenders. That study found that each sex offender had molested an average of 70 children, for a total of 2,099, by moving around 62 communities and across five provinces. A similar study in the United States found that 453 offenders admitted to molesting more than 67,000 children in their lifetime. Those who abused girls had an average of 52 victims each, but men who molested boys had an average of 150 victims.

Psychologist Vern Quinsey found that 38% of the sex offenders treated or assessed at the regional treatment centre inside the Kingston penitentiary were rearrested for violent or sex offences after they were released. I am astounded that 38% reoffend.

We allow these individuals to return to our communities without a whole lot of supervision or control and almost 40% of them are caught reoffending. I wonder how many are not caught? We are deliberately permitting violent offenders to return to society and we do not even provide a system whereby our police become aware that these people are in their jurisdiction.

What are we doing? Is this some kind of game where we ensure that the police and the criminal have equal opportunity to do their thing? Are we afraid to put too much information into the hands of law enforcement personnel so that these criminals are given a better than even chance to commit their hideous crimes?

Perhaps the government refuses to create a sex offender registry because the police would have more information on potential suspects within their area. The government seems to want to prevent the police from becoming too successful. We recently saw how the government, through the office of the corrections commissioner, had a quota system to get 50% of sentenced individuals out into the community in order to cut down on imprisonment costs.

Sex offenders are the fastest growing segment of federal offenders. From 1990 to 1995 the number of imprisoned sex offenders grew by 50%. More than 700 federal sex offenders were being released back into our communities each year during the mid-nineties. I do not have more recent statistics, but would suppose those numbers rose under Commissioner Ole Ingstrup's regime of getting more and more criminals released in order to reduce the workload within our institutions.

Even the government seems to acknowledge the risk to our children of sex offenders being returned to the community. The government program known as the national screening system permits organizations to inquire within the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, to determine whether potential employees or volunteers working with children have a criminal history. Child sex abusers can be screened out from involvement with children. The system is only good for those sex offenders who apply to work or volunteer with these organizations.

The screening process is limited only to those offenders who decide to participate in the scheme. The system does nothing to stop those who live in the community and prey on children for their sexual gratification. That type of offender remains protected and hidden from disclosure and police supervision. A sexual offender registry would assist to keep control over those individuals.

While the government closes its ears to the complaints and concerns raised about sex offenders continuing to terrorize citizens, it is interesting to see the provinces being forced to act.

The Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, or SACP, has unanimously supported a provincial sex offender registry. Terry Coleman, chief of police of Moose Jaw and vice-president of SACP states that it does potentially provide a measure of deterrence for offenders because it removes a degree of anonymity.

Ontario has Christopher's Law. It received royal assent back in April 2000. I understand other provinces have been looking at setting up their own sexual offender registry, including my own province of British Columbia.

However this is not the proper way to proceed. Crime statistics support the fact that sexual offenders will move from one province to another. We need a national system. Only in that way can we have a uniform process to assess all our criminals to determine whether they should be included within the sex offender registry.

We have seen time and time again that with justice issues a national setup is often necessary as it cuts the costs to the taxpayer by having one system rather than 13 different operations. With a national system we can also utilize RCMP facilities to maintain the information for everyone. For example, the only way a police officer in British Columbia can learn about a sex offender who used to live in the maritimes is by checking with a central agency or by checking with each of the maritime provinces.

For almost four years now our country has been waiting for the government to act and set up a national sex offender registry. Ontario has grown tired of waiting and has decided to go it alone. It seems to care more for our women and children than do the Liberals, especially the majority of whom come from the province of Ontario. The problem created by this situation is that Ontario may in fact be forcing its sexual offenders to move to other provinces to commit their sexual crimes. The failure of the federal government to act has created a problem in and of itself and has put citizens of other provinces at greater risk.

I recall how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance used to belittle the Ontario government when it decided to reduce taxes to generate the economy. It took the federal government a couple of years to come to its senses and realize the intelligence behind that move. Last fall the finance minister finally decided to follow the Ontario example and promised lower taxes.

Similarly I recall the Prime Minister being encouraged to address the brain drain a couple of years ago. His answer was that there was no brain drain, that it was all fear mongering. Just this past week I note the industry minister was quite proud to announce $750 million in new money toward addressing the brain drain that has been dramatically hurting our country. It would seem that the light does indeed go on occasionally.

The government has indicated that it will support the motion. I suggest that it is attempting to scam the Canadian public. It qualifies its support by saying that we already have a registry in the form of CPIC. Thirty thousand members of the Canadian Police Association do not seem to share that few.

In the last election my colleague and neighbour from Surrey Central soundly defeated his Liberal opponent, Peter Warkentin, who proudly proclaimed to the media and anybody else who would listen that he had permission from the Prime Minister to put the issue of a national sex offender registry before parliament if he got elected. I note that he had to have the Prime Minister's permission to do his job, but that is debate for another day. The Liberal campaign co-chair confirmed the commitment and is quoted as saying that the Prime Minister responded by saying that pedophilia was a big issue and that parents had the right to be concerned about that.

I say to the Prime Minister that the issue is now before parliament. This is where the rubber hits the road. Each and every day citizens are put at risk and we will continue to have needless sex offences committed against more innocent victims.