John Herron

[Business of the House, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order will be simpler. The Minister of National Defence quoted from a specific document when I was asking my question earlier today. I am asking the minister to make that document available and to table it in the Chamber.

[National Defence, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Although the statement of operational requirements stayed the same, the important information on helicopter specifications changed at least seven times. These changes have lowered the bar in terms of safety and operational requirements.

Now, three former deputy ministers, including Raymond Hession, have all slammed the process. Hession has even called the decision to acquire the lowest cost instead of the best value helicopters “plain stupid”. Would the minister confirm that more than seven drafts of helicopter specifications, not requirements, have been produced?

[National Defence, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, again last week the Minister of National Defence responded to allegations about political meddling on behalf of Eurocopter's helicopter bid as “largely untrue”, yet Canada's ambassador to France did write to the Prime Minister's Office, he did outline changes Eurocopter wanted and the process was changed.

Now senior defence officials, including Colonel Akitt, have emerged to support these types of allegations.

Will the minister confirm that the decision to rebundle the two contracts into one permitted Eurocopter to stay in the competition?

[National Defence, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence claimed last week that the helicopter requirements had not been reduced “one iota”, yet Colonel Akitt confirms that the procurement process has been an abject failure, riddled with political interference that has left Canada with watered down safety and operational requirements.

Why is the minister proceeding to acquire helicopters that will not even match the capabilities of our 40 year old Sea Kings? Will he commit to eliminating political interference rather than helicopter requirements so that Canada can receive the best possible helicopter?

[Post-Secondary Education, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during last week's leadership debate the former finance minister called for the elimination or the adjustment of the parental contribution program under the Canada student loan program itself. This restriction would deny student aid to our best and our brightest, and deny access to post-secondary education.

When the parliamentary secretary was a member of the Tory caucus she did not support this position. The chair of the Liberal PSE caucus also supports the call for the elimination of the parental contribution program. Why is she now supporting this departmental position when she knows it is the wrong thing to do?

[Volunteer Firefighters, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, at 3:30 in the morning in Hampton, New Brunswick, Marc Mathurin discovered a fire next door. In rapid fashion the Hampton volunteer fire department responded to a fire at the adjacent hardware store.

Mixtures of hazardous materials, including chemicals and paints, were ablaze. Despite these hazards the firefighters showed courage, dedication, conviction and commitment in containing the fire so it would not spread, jeopardizing other buildings on that site and also other homes.

Fire departments were on site in numbers for over 20 hours. It was a community effort in that fire departments from neighbouring communities came to be of assistance. Crews from eight communities, including Rothesay, Nauwigewauk, Norton, Long Reach, Upham, Belleisle and Kingston joined Hampton firefighters at the scene.

Last February at the Moffatt farm, volunteer firefighters again showed the same amount of dedication when they were on that particular site.

These events are stark illustrations of the courage and commitment that volunteer firefighters offer their communities. I am highlighting these incidents but I would like to applaud volunteer fire departments across the country for their bravery and dedication in every community and in every hamlet across this great nation.

[Appointment of Judges, May 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to make some remarks today on behalf of our party's justice critic, the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, in support of Motion No. 288 which reads:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study the process by which judges are appointed to Courts of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a very measured and very considered motion that affords the opportunity for parliamentarians to discuss this particular issue. The Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of the motion itself.

The motion would have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study the process by which judges are appointed. This could lead to recommendations on ways to change how judges are appointed to the courts.

In recent years Canadians have become concerned about the appearance that courts have encroached upon the supremacy of the Canadian Parliament by reading into our laws interpretations that appear to be inconsistent with or outside the intent of the laws when passed by Parliament. More often than not, we find that is the fault of the legislators and not a misinterpretation by the court itself. It is our duty to ensure the laws are strong and clear.

This has led to a renewed interest in how those who comprise the bench at the appellate level and at the Supreme Court level receive their appointments.

In the last year we have witnessed a number of cases at the Supreme Court level which have in effect seemed to take away from the supremacy of Parliament and seem to contradict the societal values that we hold dear. The most provocative of these is the John Robin Sharpe case. There is also the most recent decision allowing convicted felons the right to vote. The decisions of the court in those two examples stand outside, I would suggest, the interests of Canadians in terms of their societal values and outside the parameters of what the intent of Parliament was in the first place.

For example, Canadians do not understand how the court could allow the potential endangerment of children by allowing the artistic merit defence. That the courts could allow such a travesty goes beyond the rational thought process for Canadians.

All this is to say that scrutiny by members of Parliament of appointees to the highest court could go a long way in determining the suitability of those wishing to serve and could possibly allow for a greater recognition or reflection of present day values.

To many it seems that this reading into the intent of laws by the courts seems to be a violation of the basic constitutional principle that Parliament makes the laws, the executive implements them and the courts interpret them.

The root of this perception of what some individuals deem as judicial activism is the 1982 Constitution Act. It included for the first time in Canada a constitutional entrenchment that guaranteed civil rights through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, requiring courts to determine the constitutionality of our laws in light of the charter.

Although I categorically support the charter, we all know that there are issues that have become problematic from time to time where the intent of Parliament has had to withstand that particular litmus test. Some have argued that this has allowed an erosion of parliamentary supremacy in which democratic accountability has been replaced by the supremacy of the Constitution as interpreted by the courts.

Should this motion lead to a change in the appointment process, it would ultimately allow for greater public scrutiny and therefore reinforce, I believe, public confidence in the process without jeopardizing judicial independence.

In our democratic reform package we have made a number of suggestions, including the recommendation that the name and qualifications of any person proposed for appointment by the prime minister to the Supreme Court of Canada should be presented to Parliament, which shall, after debate, make a recommendation on the suitability of the nominee's candidacy. This type of directive could also be applied to the appointment of those at the appellate level. A vote in the House of Commons should be conducted and the outcome communicated to the governor in council prior to such appointments being made.

In the past there has been the suggestion that a special committee be struck to examine those recommended for appointment. There is a need for parliamentary scrutiny and in fact, appearances before a specialized committee, provided the parameters of questions are clearly laid out beforehand. In my opinion this would be appropriate.

This does not mean the committee would have the right to examine the financial records of an appointee or for that matter the financial records of a spouse or a partner. I do not believe this type of information can be seen as having any relevance in terms of the appointee's ability to interpret the law.

This motion is aimed at ensuring the proper representation of Canadian views and values through those members democratically elected to represent Canadians and could provide a unique balance and perspective in the process of judicial appointments.

I see the committee process as an opportunity to allow members of Parliament acting on behalf of their constituents a chance to delve into some of the beliefs of the appointees through previous decisions rendered.

No one, and I believe I am speaking for the member from the NDP, wants to see the American style confirmation hearings, strictly political partisan affairs, which we have seen as in the example of Justice Thomas. I would not be an advocate on a personal basis of having the individuals who ascend to the bench itself be elected. That would clearly politicize the process in a very extraordinary way. However, there are some things we could do from a parliamentary perspective. Anything we do that mitigates the perception that the individuals on our benches have a political element would be a helpful service.

Both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada have appointed Supreme Court judges in the past. If there is one element where we have actually made sure that we have done it right each and every time, it is at the Supreme Court level. No prime minister, regardless of party stripe, has in my view politicized our most sacred court in the land.

I spoke very briefly about a document that our membership voted on at our national convention in Edmonton in August. At that convention we reviewed a myriad of issues in terms of renewing the country's democratic institutions, issues pertaining to free votes, the roles of Commons committees, codes of ethics for Parliament and a discipline for parliamentarians, the problems with legislative federalism, ensuring that we have the power of the purse so that Parliament actually votes on the estimates as opposed to doing it in one single vote. It is a travesty that we approve the estimates, about $180 billion, with one vote with no scrutiny to speak of on a committee of the whole basis.

There are opportunities for us to review issues such as Senate reform and correct the wrong that we have in the west. It is clear that western Canada is not represented in the capacity it should be in terms of the respect of its population and the influence that they have in this country.

We have to move to an elected Senate as well and give senators the moral right to make interventions to the degree that they want to, the legislative authority to do so by being elected, democratically selected individuals.

We talked about issues such as citizen initiatives and referenda, rights for citizens to petition.

These were all issues that we spoke to. However the debate that we have before is the relationship between Parliament and the courts. I would like to read three points which I think would be valuable proposals for Parliament to consider.

First, we propose that Parliament undertake to ensure the maintenance of a proper balance between itself and the courts. We should have a pre-legislation review to ensure that Parliament clearly specifies within each statute the intent of the statute and obtains independent legal advice and charter compatibility of bills before they leave Parliament in the first place.

Second, we propose to establish a judicial review committee of Parliament to prepare an appropriate response to those court decisions which Parliament believes should be addressed through legislation.

Third, we believe that the name and qualifications of any person proposed for appointment by the prime minister to the Supreme Court of Canada should be presented to Parliament which shall after debate make a recommendation on the suitability of that person's nomination.

We do not want to co-opt an American system. When it comes to the Supreme Court perspective, we have it right for the most part.

[National Drinking Water Standards, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it has been two long years since an overwhelming majority of members of the House supported a Progressive Conservative motion to ensure that Canada has enforceable national drinking water standards. It has been two years since the Liberal government promised to act immediately. Despite the tragedies of Walkerton, North Battleford, and hundreds of boil advisories across the country, the government's response has been lukewarm at best.

Canada is one of the only modern countries in the world without national drinking water standards. Whether it is E. coli, carcinogens or parasites, Canadians have a right to know what is in their drinking water. The attitude of complacency is what led to tragedies like Walkerton.

The Liberal government has had two years to make good on its promise to establish national drinking water standards as expressed by Parliament. Instead the government is sitting on its hands and waiting for another tragedy to strike. Shame on the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last question and the response of the member for Cumberland—Colchester really disseminates the difference between the Canadian Alliance and the Tories on this issue.

The Tories believe we need to have strong firearms legislation to deter the criminal use of firearms. There is nothing wrong with having safe handling provisions itself. We have no trouble saying that we are for gun control, but we are against the long gun registry. We said that from the get go.

The question was when did the epiphany on gun control take place? I will ask the member for Cumberland—Colchester what his perception would be given that the current member for the riding of Calgary Southwest, the leader of the Canadian Alliance, when he represented another Calgary riding voted for Bill C-68 at second reading, which is a point of fact, but reversed his vote at third reading of the bill and ended up voting against the bill. If there has been a flip-flop to speak of, the Canadian Alliance folks might want to look at themselves in the mirror first.

I would like to hear what my hon. friend for Cumberland—Colchester has to say about that.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to preface my comments by saying that I am not aware of the particulars of that project.

A panel review is supposed to be a core of fundamental strength of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process itself. To be a core of strength, it has to be utilized once in a while. In my view that project likely has an immense amount of need to be done given the amount of traffic that occurs along that Windsor corridor. However it still does not mean that we do not have an open process where we could ensure that the public could ask those hard questions if they had some serious concerns about the proposed construction of the project itself.

I would like to add that perhaps a comprehensive study might be strong enough under the existing act. If there are serious questions and the community wants to seek an independent review from a panel perspective, under the current act the minister has the capacity to say that there are still more questions and that he will refer it to a panel review. The minister now has to say that it will be either a comprehensive study or a panel review. He has denied himself the flexibility to go both ways in that regard.

If I had to answer it, my instinct would be that there is nothing wrong with a comprehensive study if we still have the panel review in our tool kit. The minister has extracted that capacity and that is probably one of the most significant flaws of this bill that we have been asked to review.