Ken Boshcoff

[Constitution Amendment, 2005, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how cordial this debate has been and I believe that all Canadians appreciate that. When they see parliamentarians debating without derision and discord, it is something that we can all be congratulated for. We are representing all the parties here and we are having a very practical and productive discussion. Although this will not be my most riveting speech or presentation, I am sure it will contribute to this evening.

When we talk about the historical source of the disallowance and reservation powers, we know historically both these powers have their origin in the British colonial system. The power of reservation had its origin in the instructions given by the Crown to the governor of a colony as to the exercise by him of the power to assent to bills passed by the colonial legislative body and both these powers are referred to in the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, something we are all quite familiar with.

The legal source of the actual powers as they exist today in relation to provincial bills and legislation is as follows. With respect to the reservation power, the Constitution Act of 1867 confers upon the lieutenant governors of the provinces the power to reserve a bill for the Governor General, who may then decide whether or not to grant assent to the bill.

With respect to the disallowance power, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, the Constitution Act of 1867 also confers a separate power upon the Governor General to disallow provincial statutes. There are some particular points to note about these powers.

First, the powers of reservation and disallowance continue to exist in law and apply to all provincial statutes without exception. As a matter of political reality, however, their use would now be considered by many to be unacceptable and some constitutional authors go so far as to suggest their use would be unconstitutional in the conventional sense.

Second, these powers can be exercised only in relation to an entire bill or statute. It is not possible to reserve or disallow only a part of a bill or a statute.

Third, the Minister of Justice is responsible for advising on the reservation and disallowance of provincial bills and acts in accordance with the Department of Justice Act, which provides that Minister of Justice “shall advise on the legislative Acts and proceedings of each of the legislatures of the provinces...”

There was a recent comment by the Supreme Court of Canada. In it the nature and scope of these powers were accurately reflected in the following comments by Mr. Justice La Forest, when he had the occasion to note that the federal declaratory power “is not the only draconian power vested in the federal authorities”. He went on to state:

The powers of disallowance and reservation accorded the federal government by ss. 55-57 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867 give it unrestricted authority to veto any provincial legislation. The exercise of this authority is wholly a matter of discretion for the federal government, and in the Reference case just noted, it was stated that the courts are not constitutionally empowered to express an opinion about its exercise--

He further commented on page 372:

It is the very breadth of these powers that protects against their frequent or inappropriate use. It was not the courts but political forces that dictated their near demise. They are, as was said of the power of disallowance, “delicate” and “difficult” powers to exercise and “will always be considered a harsh exercise of power, unless in cases of great and manifest necessity”...Their inappropriate use will always raise grave political issues--

Those issues time will not permit me to continue to discuss.

[International Trade, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is by far our largest trading partner. Nearly $1.8 billion in two-way trade across Canada crosses the Canada-U.S. border everyday. About 86% of our exports to the U.S. and 96% of our trade is dispute free, but trade irritants from softwood lumber to the Byrd amendment continue to dominate the headlines.

What will the minister do to ease these irritants and improve our trade relations with the United States?

[Gasoline Prices, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

The price of gasoline in my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River is unacceptably high and unjustified. This week regular gas is selling for 93.1¢ a litre, while the wholesale gas price, including taxes, is 78¢ per litre. This windfall for the oil companies is coming at the expense of my constituents. It is shared also by many other ridings in this country.

When will the minister take up the recommendations of the 2003 industry committee to establish a gas price monitoring agency in order--

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, both of the hon. member's questions are very valid.

In early January there was a territorial and provincial meeting of the ministers of justice who struck a working committee to address the nature of the financing. In terms of legal aid, the government has renewed and reviewed its commitment for the next three years with a view to expanding that program nationally.

I also would like to speak as the chair of the subcommittee on disabilities because this affects everyone, not just those with a physical disability but those with mental disorders. Bill C-10 would go a long way to addressing that component of the legislation that is being proposed. That is why it is very reassuring for all of us on that committee to see this kind of work coming through.

I am also very cognizant of the member's concern about the lack of psychiatric professional care nationally. I can only concur that it is something that through the ministers of health, and again with their collaboration with the ministers of justice through the recent working group, that I am sure that if any nation is going to address this question and do it right, Canada will be the one to do that.

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to thank the previous speakers for their recognition of the way the bill demonstrates how committees can cooperate for the general good. This spirit is most reassuring to all Canadians, to see all parties rise in support of the bill.

Bill C-10 will reform the provisions of the criminal law that govern persons found unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

These provisions are found in part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

I would also point out that the National Defence Act includes similar provisions that are also amended by Bill C-10 to ensure consistency.

By way of background, in 1991 Parliament made significant reforms to modernize the law that governed persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. The 1991 reforms reflected the need to balance the rights of the mentally ill and the protection of public safety.

The reforms in Bill C-10 reflect and build upon the same goals as the 1991 reforms. Bill C-10 will further modernize the law and will effectively balance the rights of the mentally ill who come into conflict with the law with the public's right to safety.

The reforms complement and enhance the existing provisions of part XX.1 and more generally of the whole Criminal Code as it applies to persons ultimately found unfit to stand trial, or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

It is important to remind ourselves that when we are dealing with a bill to amend an existing act such as the Criminal Code, we must consider how the proposed amendments fit into the act. Bill C-10 is not a stand-alone regime to govern mentally disordered accused. The code already includes a comprehensive regime which will continue to apply, but will be improved in several important respects by the amendments in Bill C-10.

The criticism of this bill, like others before, is that it is too complicated and impossible to understand for a non-lawyer. We cannot deny that it is difficult to get a comprehensive view of the impact of this legislation if we merely read the amendments included in it. The fact is that this complexity is largely unavoidable. Indeed, the bill must use the same terminology as the Criminal Code and the appropriate legal language.

Some witnesses who appeared before the standing committee commented that a layman's guide would be helpful. I agree that some information material geared to the general public and also to victims of mentally disordered offenders should be developed. The committee would certainly encourage the Department of Justice to work with other stakeholders to develop this.

Members may recall that amendments enacted in 1991 called for a parliamentary review of the legislation five years following proclamation. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted the required review of the legislation in the spring of 2002. The committee's review was thorough and comprehensive. Oral or written submissions were made by 30 stakeholders, including members of the bar, crown attorneys, psychiatric hospital administrators, review board chairpersons, service providers and mental health advocates.

In June 2002 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report and made recommendations calling for legislative reform and other initiatives. The committee found that in general the law was working very well. However, the report noted that particular reforms were needed and proposed some specific amendments.

The main recommendations of the committee were intended to increase the powers of the boards responsible for reviewing the situation of an accused.

The repeal of the parts of the 1991 regime that were never proclaimed into force, including the capping provisions that would have set a maximum time limit on the supervision or detention of the accused and streamlining the transfer of accused persons between territories and provinces, new provisions to deal with persons who are permanently unfit to stand trial, enhanced protections for victims of crime who attend review board hearings, for example, publication bans on their identity in appropriate circumstances, and the opportunity to prepare and read a victim impact statement.

The committee also made recommendations calling for more in-depth research and consultation on emerging issues. The need to review the resources available to meet the needs of mentally disordered accused, including youth, and the need for better data collection and research. Bill C-10 reflects the advice and guidance provided by the committee and all those who appeared before the committee. It also includes additional necessary forums to address issues raised in the case law and in consultations conducted by the Department of Justice with key stakeholders over the past 10 years.

Bill C-10 was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness following first reading. As noted in the debate on the motion to refer the bill to committee, hon. members were eager to carefully examine Bill C-10 to ensure that these reforms reflected their 2002 recommendations.

The standing committee has once again conducted a thorough examination of the bill and, based on its review and the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before it, has agreed to amend the bill as drafted to clarify specific provisions both in the code and in the National Defence Act, which has a parallel scheme to cover members found not criminally responsible for an offence under the National Defence Act.

Bill C-10, as introduced by the Minister of Justice and as amended by the standing committee, is an excellent example of collaboration by all members. Bill C-10 reflects our shared goal of providing a fair and balanced criminal law to cover the mentally disordered accused and to protect public safety.

After the committee's review and amendments, the main features of Bill C-10 are now as follows.

New powers for the review boards that exist in each province and territory to make important decisions governing mentally disordered and unfit accused. Review boards would be able to order an assessment of the mental condition of the accused to assist them in making the appropriate disposition for the accused, whether the accused should be discharged, held in custody in a hospital or discharged with conditions.

A new provision would permit the courts to determine whether a judicial stay of proceedings should be ordered for an unfit accused who is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial and who does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, where a stay is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

An amendment to be made by the committee will make it clear that the first precondition is that the accused remains unfit and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial. The court must base its determination of unfitness on clear information. An assessment must be ordered in all cases.

Recently the Supreme Court of Canada held, in Demers, that our law must provide for an accused who may never be fit to stand trial and who does not pose a significant threat to public safety to have criminal proceedings terminated. Bill C-10 includes a carefully crafted approach to ensure that a court may grant a judicial stay of proceedings for an unfit accused who is not likely ever to become fit and who is not dangerous, but public safety and other relevant factors must always be considered.

The need for these amendments was canvassed by the committee in 2002 and has been confirmed and made necessary by the Supreme Court's decision in Demers. The committee has reviewed the specific amendments and has proposed refinements to ensure the objectives are clearly reflected.

Victims impact statements may be read aloud or presented in another agreed upon manner by victims at review board hearings. In addition, notice will be provided to the victims of the hearing and relevant code provisions in accordance with rules to be developed by the court or review board. Review boards will also be required to provide specific notice to victims on request of upcoming hearings that may result in the conditional release of an accused from hospital or an absolute discharge.

Streamlined transfer provisions will be enacted to permit the safe and efficient transfer of a person not found criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or unfit from one province or territory to another.

More options will be available for the police to enforce disposition orders and assessment orders that take into account the need for the accused's treatment to continue. In appropriate cases the police will be able to release the accused after arrest and issue a promise to appear before a justice who will determine how the accused should be dealt with pending the next review board hearing.

The repeal of the provisions of the 1991 law that were never proclaimed, capping and related dangerous mentality disordered accused provisions and the hospital orders provision, have been widely supported.

A series of clarifications and technical amendments seeks to ensure that the bill's objectives are indeed achieved.

The standing committee drafted a number of amendments to clarify Bill C-10.

For example, the committee supported motions to enhance the role of victims, to clarify the test for a judicial stay and to improve and clarify the enforcement provisions.

As noted previously, Bill C-10 is the next step in ensuring that our laws are effective, efficient and fair in governing mentally disordered accused. These reforms are necessary but they do not significantly overhaul the regime that governs the mentally disordered. The law works well and will continue to work well, and now better as a result of Bill C-10.

The provisions of the code have remained unchanged since 1991 but the case law has evolved and new issues have emerged, for example, the expanded role for victims of crime.

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that our law must respect two goals: protection of the rights of the mentally disordered accused and protection of public safety.

Bill C-10 has been widely supported and carefully reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I am confident that the members of the committee share my goal of speedy passage of the bill by the House. I hope all members will support the amendments.

[Canadian Forces Reserves, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Thunder Bay resident Admiral Raymond Zuliani on his long and valued service to the Canadian Forces Reserves.

Admiral Zuliani was appointed Chief of Reserves and Cadets in 2000 and represents 27,000 reservists and 56,000 cadets. The reserves constitute 45% of Canada's military forces.

Among his achievements are the implementation of a pension plan for reservists and the protection of civilian jobs for reservists called to duty. He also assured education funds for reservists who attend post-secondary programs.

Admiral Zuliani joined the Canadian Forces cadets at the age of 12, moved to the reserves at the age of 16, and over the past 40 years has dedicated his life to the defence needs of our country while maintaining a full time career as an educator.

Admiral Zuliani will retire from the reserves in January. I invite my fellow parliamentarians to join me in thanking him for his exceptional service and wishing him a happy and healthy retirement.

[International Cooperation, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Cooperation.

The international community has launched a series of initiatives to promote financial systems that work for the poor, highlighting microfinance as an important tool for achieving the millennium development goal.

Could the Minister of International Cooperation tell the House what Canada is doing to contribute to international developments in microfinance?

[Volunteerism, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in 1979 the United Nations officially named December 5 as International Volunteer Day, a day to recognize and celebrate volunteers around the world for their contributions and dedication.

Recent figures indicated that more than 6.5 million Canadians volunteered just over two billion hours of their time to charitable and voluntary organizations in the past year. This is the equivalent of one million full time jobs.

Clearly, without these committed volunteers, organizations such as the United Way, chambers of commerce and arts councils would be unable to provide the valuable and varied services they do.

In communities large and small, volunteers put their time and effort into making life better for themselves and those around them. I ask my fellow parliamentarians to join me in recognizing those volunteers from across this great land.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all very familiar with the success stories of Georgia and of Ireland. Anyone who is involved in economic development knows those models.

Think about what has been achieved by the government in the past while in adopting new and innovative approaches. We have agreement among the premiers. They asked for something very substantial and received it in the $10.9 billion. Those are things on which we start to build. That is how we start. We do not do it automatically overnight, but the fact that it is happening has to be something of which each and every one of us should be glad.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ottawa South.

The October 26 first ministers meeting flowed from an earlier meeting. That was the historic meeting in September which saw the Government of Canada come together with all the provincial and territorial governments to achieve a $41 billion health accord.

In September of this year the premiers made the point that at least some provinces were not able to have a discussion about fixing and funding health care without also having some long term arrangement in place with regard to equalization, because for some provinces equalization is obviously a contributor to health care. The Government of Canada agreed at that time to have a further discussion not only about health care, but also about equalization.

The final arrangement with respect to health care involves $41 billion in incremental federal funding over the course of the next 10 years. To that $41 billion transfer to the provinces and territories, the government has added a further $33 billion over 10 years through the new equalization and territorial funding formula framework. That is a total of $74 billion altogether in new money over the next 10 years. This is a very strong commitment.

Obviously, an arrangement of this sort and a commitment of this size, is not simply drawn up on the back of an envelope. No, the Government of Canada arrived at its calculation by accepting the unanimous request put forward by the premiers at Niagara-on-the-Lake earlier this year. In their final communiqué the premiers asked that the equalization program be restored to the 2000-01 level; that is, they asked that equalization be restored to the highest level it has ever been at $10.9 billion. The Government of Canada agrees.

Following that meeting of the Council of the Federation in July, the premiers also said that they supported reforms to enhance the stability and predictability of the equalization program. Again the Government of Canada agrees.

There is also an escalation factor built in. It is 3.5% per year. To understand what that means, from today's figures which stand at $8.9 billion, what we have put on the table will move that number to $12.5 billion. That is a 42% increase. That is an annual average increase of over 7% per year, almost twice the rate of growth of the Canadian economy.

The objective is quite clear. We want to fill in some of the gap that currently exists between the more wealthy provinces and the less wealthy provinces, not by taking from one province and giving to another; no one is playing Robin Hood. This money comes 100% from the Government of Canada, not the so-called have provinces.

In total, to enable Canadians from coast to coast to coast to enjoy the same levels of social programs, the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, has made the very firm commitment over the past month to transfer $74 billion in incremental funding to the provinces and territories to assist them in meeting their very important social and economic priorities.

I would like to point out that our recent commitments on health care and equalization are on top of a further $36 billion per year which the federal government currently invests directly and indirectly in the health of Canadians.

As mentioned a few weeks ago in the House, this means that the government has met and surpassed all of the federal financial obligations laid out by the hon. Roy Romanow in his landmark report on health care. We have a long term agreement duly signed by every premier from every province and territory. It provides the best terms ever on transparency. It is a triumph of successful Canadian federalism and allows all of us to focus all of our efforts at long last on the real substance: shorter waiting times; more health care professionals; better equipment; improved primary care; home care and catastrophic drug coverage; better services in the north and for aboriginals; more health innovation; and improved public health and wellness.

The fact that Canada has been a strong fiscal, economic and social performer over the past seven years is a direct result of our successful battle in the 1990s to beat the deficit. It is a battle that we fought and a battle that we won, thanks in no small part to the leadership of the Prime Minister, and to the very strong commitment, determination and hard work of all Canadians.

After nearly three decades of chronic red ink, no growth, high interest rates and lost jobs, we balanced Canada's books in 1997 and we have kept them balanced every year since. We are the only G-7 country to be operating solidly in the black. Our triple A credit ratings have been fully restored from where they were in the mid-1990s and later.

Since moving into surplus, the average standard of living of Canadians has increased at a faster pace. There has been more improvement in the past seven years than in the previous 17.

Our careful planning and prudent budgeting have given Canada the strength to deal with expensive and unpredictable crises, such as security threats and natural disasters. It also gives us the wherewithal to invest in primary Canadian priorities, such as health care, learning, families and innovation, while also paying down debt, cutting taxes and always balancing the books.

However, we can never take our fiscal and economic success for granted. It is crucial to the well-being of Canadians everywhere, but it is not automatic.

Of course there is still that federal debt of more than $500 billion which, incidentally, is nearly double the size of all provincial and territorial debt combined. Just keeping that debt current consumes about 20¢ out of every dollar of federal revenue. It adds up to about $35 billion a year, probably the biggest single expenditure facing the Government of Canada.

No one should doubt the serious responsibilities carried by provincial governments. Of course their jurisdictions, just like the federal jurisdiction, must always be respected. At the same time, in fairness, it also needs to be noted that both orders of government have access to all the same major tax bases. It also has to be noted that some provincial revenue sources, such as royalties and the proceeds from lotteries, are not available to the federal government.

It has to be noted that the provinces have complete autonomy in setting their fiscal policies. It has to be noted that the federal fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and debt reduction save interest costs not just for the Government of Canada but for all Canadians, including provincial governments.

It has to be noted further that recent improvements in national economic performance will boost not only federal revenues but also provincial revenues.

Our commitment is to balanced budgets, fiscal discipline, steady and sensible debt reduction, and just as we have done in every budget since 1996, further reduction in federal taxes, especially for lower income Canadians, and to enhance the competitiveness of the Canadian economy.

The fact that Canada has been a strong fiscal, economic and social performer over the past seven years is a direct result of our successful battle to beat that deficit. It is a battle won and our fiscal house is in order.

Now that we have transferred that money, all that is left is to continue working with the provinces to transfer new money and certainty in their planning processes. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister and this government.