Jack Ramsay

[Petitions, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a number of petitions calling for significant changes to the present Young Offenders Act. Over 350 petitioners call upon parliament to make the protection of society the number one priority in amending the Young Offenders Act through measures such as reducing the minimum age of young offenders, publishing violent young offenders' names, increasing the penalties for crimes committed by youth and ensuring parental responsibility.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have now learned that the RCMP used money derived from the drug trade and organized crime to finance its Montreal based money laundering sting operation because of a lack of government funding. This lack of resources also contributed to the overall failure of this important undercover operation.

Why has the government denied the RCMP the resources to do its job? What has the government to say about the use of money derived from the drug trade and organized crime to finance portions of this operation?

[Judges Act, June 11th, 1998]

We could deal with that and we could deal with a lot of other things.

We are talking specifically about a bill that is designed on the surface to look good. Judges do a tough job and are required to interpret the law. They have studied long and hard and were found worthy to be appointed to august positions of responsibility. However, when we compare their lifestyle with the lifestyle of one out of every five children reported to be living in poverty surely we can tough it out a bit longer.

Surely the judges can go another year or so. Hopefully the economy will provide an upturn for them so that the wealth we tax from them will not be in as great a proportion as it is today. Surely we can do that. As members of parliament, we should be able to do that as well.

Yes, our judges need decent courts. They need decent facilities to function in, as we do. The people do not begrudge that but we are not talking about that in this case. We are talking about our take home pay. Really we are saying taxpayers are going to have to take home less pay because we want to take home more. How can we say that?

We confuse the issue. We mix it up with legal jargon and we put it in a bill. We have a commission look at it. It makes its recommendations. Then we do not go beneath that to look at what it has been looking at.

We just say this is the recommendation by the commission. Its members have looked at it. We have assigned them and we have appointed them to do the job. That is it. We are going to take their recommendations and go forward. The bottom line always is where does the wealth come from.

Governments do not create wealth. They only take it from people who do. We must do it in a balanced and fair way. I do not think most of our judges are selfish people, not at all.

How many of them are saying a raise would be nice, but let's consider everything, consider the people who are going to have to pay for their raise, how are they doing? I am sure they would say that.

We are not involving them directly. It would be hard, I understand, perhaps to do that. Nevertheless, when we look at a $17,000 pay raise over two years for some of our federal court judges, when my children and the children who are now entering the labour market take home $14,000 after labouring for a year at just above minimum wage and our judges are going to take $17,000 more home in the next two years and we as MPs over the next four are going to take home another $5,000, I can suffer a little longer. I think the judges can as well.

I want to point out what we can support in this bill, the appointment of additional family court judges to the bench.

Although this speaks of certainly a social if not a moral condition existing within our country where we need more judges in family court to deal with the increased workload, the backlog of cases coming forward, we can support that.

We do not think individuals who require the services of a court and the wisdom of a judge to decide the legalities of their precarious situations or any situation that might demand the scrutiny of a court should have to wait and wait. In the criminal court in B.C. I understand there are over 40,000 cases backlogged.

I cannot support this bill because of the financial burden it is going to place on our taxpayers. I think at times when we have to provide greater services in needed areas, we can do that.

If we have to ask the people to sacrifice more, it has to be in those areas and not to provide judges and MPs with more take home pay. We cannot do that. If we can, then I am missing something in this whole debate.

If we can say to my son and all our sons and daughters who are out there entering the labour force and making minimum or just above minimum wage that we are going to take more from them to give someone making $140,000 a year more take home pay, I cannot argue that. I cannot debate that with them because I will be on their side saying it is not fair because it is not fair and it is not right.

The greatest threat to the economic stability of the family and the individual is the unlimited power of the state to take, to tax away their wealth which they create. That is the greatest threat. Since I have been in this House since 1993 we have seen the continued erosion of the take home pay of our families.

Since 1993 the average family's disposable income has dropped by some $2,500. That is probably the minimum. We just go blindly on because the minister has brought in a bill. We are going to pass this and suffer the consequences. Who is going to suffer? Not the judges and not the MPs. We are not going to suffer but our sons and daughters will, our children will and our grandchildren will.

What are we getting to? Are we going to take more and more out of the economy and away from the families? Are we going to see the number of children living in poverty increase because of this? This bill is just a symptom where people are saying they want more and we are going to have to give more. We are saying that to the taxpayer.

I cannot support this bill, although there are parts of it that I can support. Not unlike the report tabled in the House on this benefit package, there are some things there that I can support, others I cannot. I cannot support the bill.

In this area I want to touch on something that is extremely important. It is the motivation for this bill. This bill was motivated as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the Alberta case and the P.E.I. case where those governments were attempting to roll back the salaries of judges because of the economic conditions existing in those provinces. They were trying to get their spending under control and so the judges fought that and took it to court.

The Supreme Court of Canada has simply decided that all governments in this land, including the federal government, must set up a commission which will at the federal level at least every four years examine the need for increased benefits to the judges.

The most alarming part of that decision is that it has been inferred that any unwarranted interference by the government, unwarranted in the eyes of the courts, interference in the pay and benefits of the judges, can be considered an interference with the judicial independence of the court. I say that is a grave decision because of what it means.

It means that if in dire circumstances we want to reduce as a government the tax burden on the people of this country and roll back the salaries of the civil servants, including MPs and judges, the courts alone can say we cannot do that because that constitutes in their judgment an interference in the judicial independence of the court.

I support the dissenting opinion of Judge La Forest that the Parliament of Canada and the governments of the provinces do have that right and that it does not constitute an interference in the judicial independence of the courts.

The spinoff effect of that is if this thinking and rationale are to be accepted by this parliament, what it means directly or indirectly is the courts impinging on the power of parliament to tax.

What they are saying is that we cannot reduce taxes to lower pay. We must maintain the taxation rate or increase it. That is an encroachment on the supremacy of this parliament in the area of taxation.

Although I would like to see the people of Canada have the power to encroach on parliament's power to tax, if the courts are going to do that then I think we are moving to the edge of a slippery slope. As this bill goes forward and as this parliament accepts that decision and the consequences of that decision we will see where this eventually leads this country.

It is so important that we maintain the division of powers between the executive and the judiciary. Do we not see the disintegration of the division of powers between our judiciary and the executive or the Parliament of Canada in some of these decisions, particularly this one? Where is it going to stop? How do we stop it?

How do we intervene? This bill does not intervene. This parliament is accepting and embracing it. I hope the upper chamber, the chamber of sombre second thought, will click in and take a look at this because it is obvious we cannot stop it here. We have not even looked at that aspect of it.

We had two hearings before our standing committee with two sets of witnesses where we could not even broach that question because it was outside the realm of this bill. It motivated the bill. It directly related to this bill because this is what spawned the bill. That decision created the need for this bill.

Is the Government of Canada prepared to hold back a minute to question whether it is prepared to accept the consequences of this decision? Are we prepared to accept an encroachment on our right of taxation? Are we prepared to accept that the Supreme Court of Canada appears to have read into the charter of rights of freedoms this whole question of judicial independence being interfered with by the Governments of Canada and the provinces? If they decide they cannot give a raise or they have to roll back pay, if this in a subjective way is not agreed to by the courts of this land, that is what we are looking at.

The gravity of that is yet to come and yet we are seeing that. If we see the collapse of the division of powers in this country what are the consequences of that?

Where did our parliamentary system evolve from? It evolved from the divine rule of kings. When we saw the split and division that occurred between those who create the law and those who interpret and enforce the law, that created the basis for a democracy. When we see the collapse of that then what are we going back to? Are we going back to the divine rule of kings where we are going to exclude the division of powers and the groups that represent the competing responsibilities in this country? Are we going to do that?

I say that this bill is heading us in that direction. In fact, I see the judicial activism in this bill loud and clear. The warnings are there. As the official opposition we are putting that warning on the record and have expressed that concern in committee.

I hope that other members who will be speaking on this bill will express their opinion on that. If I am wrong, then show me where I am wrong and I will accept that. Show me what I have not considered.

As a policeman I always followed the truth: the evidence, the facts. I based my decisions upon them. At the end of a day I might come to a conclusion based upon all the facts gathered, but the next day might bring additional facts which would expand my conclusion or change my opinion.

I invite members who might have an interest in this particular area of the bill to address it, to add their experience, knowledge and wisdom to this particular question.

Are we seeing in this country an erosion of the division of powers between our executive and our judiciary? If we are, what can we do about it?

I have great concerns about the bill. Earlier I spoke about it being the wrong time to give judges and others, including ourselves, a pay raise, when families are struggling to make ends meet. I recognize the need for us to suffer a little longer with them until the economy turns around and we can grant them greater take home pay through cuts in taxes and so on.

We are supposed to be working for them. If we deserve a pay raise, why do we not ask them? If we have done our job well and they are taking more pay home and doing well, and if there are no longer families and children living in poverty, at that point we could ask, if we are doing a good job and working very long hours, do we deserve a 2% raise? Do the judges deserve a 4.5% or 4.3% raise over each of the next two years? I think questioning that would be fair. Right now it is not fair.

This bill is heading in the wrong direction. The timing is wrong. I hope I hear from some of my colleagues in the House. I respect their opinions and always have in this area. I hope this area might be addressed. Are we witnessing a disintegration of the division of powers between the judiciary and the state? If we are, is it a good thing or a bad thing? Or am I seeing something in this bill that does not exist? I will leave it at that and wait with anticipation to hear from some of my learned colleagues who will be speaking to this bill.

[Judges Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I extend my appreciation for the clear and forthright manner in which the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister has put forward the program of government in the bill and the rationale that she has presented. We can examine that and we can critique that, and I appreciate that.

I rise today to debate Bill C-37 for the last time. This is the third occasion I have had the opportunity to state Reform's opposition to the bill which grants judges an unprecedented salary increase within the public service of 8.3% over the next two years.

For those who are listening or who may be reading Hansard either in paper form or on the Internet, I want to point out that 8.3% over the next two years does not tell the whole story. We have to ask 8.3% of what. It is of the base salary judges are making at this time. The average salary of federal court judges is approximately $140,000 a year.

The question is whether this is the appropriate time to be taking more wealth out of the hands of the people to give our public servants, in this case our federal court judges, a raise at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet and to keep body and soul together.

As I said in earlier debates on this subject I think this is wrong. It is the wrong time. I often wonder about the Scott commission which made this recommendation to parliament and that representation to the justice committee when witnesses were called. Mr. Scott himself appeared. I wonder if members of that commission went to the people of the country, to the families that money will come from to grant federal court judges that kind of a raise. I ask as well if members of the government have considered this not only in view of Bill C-37 but also in view of the report table that will give MPs a 2% raise, which amounts to about a 10% increase over the next four years. Is this the time to be doing this?

I say that it is not. We should be asking the people who will pay more in taxes whether or not this is fair and whether or not judges and members of parliament at our salary levels can suffer a bit longer, perhaps another two or three years. Perhaps we can see our way clear to giving the people of the country an economic benefit either through enhancing the economic climate of the country or reducing taxes to them and allowing them to take home more pay.

Would it not be wonderful if we did that first? The Scott commission and the government are now asking the people of the country to dig deeper into their pockets to give someone making the pay of an MP or the pay of a judge, $140,000 on the average for a federal judge, more pay so that they can take home a greater benefit. There is something wrong with this, and I just want to give some statistics.

Before I go any further I express my gratitude to the House and to the government for accepting my amendment to Bill C-37 that was supported and passed earlier this week. As a result every four years the standing committee on justice will have the opportunity to review the report of a commission on judges' salaries and benefits.

This task will not be left solely to the Minister of Justice. We will be able to call witnesses from the public to see whether any increase recommended by the commission to be established by the bill is fair, to see what are the economic conditions of families and people of Canada at the time, and to see whether there is a proper balance between the need for more take home pay by judges and the plight of Canadian families. We must remember that it is reported that one child in every five is living in poverty.

Did the Scott commission consider that? Did the commissioners realize that by asking for this kind of pay raise for federal court judges they would be taking money from the families of those children who are reported to be living in poverty? They are living in poverty while our judges are taking home a minimum of $140,000 a year on average.

There is something wrong. I understand the need to attract the best in the legal community to the bench. Surely there are top legal minds out there who are prepared to serve their country and its people and to show the leadership we so desperately need in this area.

A poll in July 1997 showed that 52% of Canadians had little faith in their courts, in their judges. Why is that? The people are saying to us, to the courts and to other Canadians that they are dissatisfied with the leadership being shown in some of the decisions being made by judges, which indicates very clearly that some decisions are not being made in the best interest of the majority of the people.

Are they pleased to be taxed more? Are they pleased that the power of the state is being used to take more money from people including families whose children are reported to be living in poverty in order that judges might have more take home pay? This is the wrong time.

I agreed with my Bloc colleague on the committee when he pointed out that it was not the right time. Should we not wait until we see the heads of families taking home more income than they are now before we begin to give ourselves and judges a raise? There is no question in my mind. If the government would take the proper economic course we would not be far from that.

The government has balanced the budget mainly on the backs of taxpayers. We are now in a position where we might be able to offer tax relief and debt reduction and to give our children and grandchildren hope that one day they will be able to take more of their dollar home. Fifty per cent of every dollar the average Canadian earns is taken by taxes in one form or another, and now the Scott commission and the government are asking that they take less home. Why? It is be cause we must have a pay raise of 10% over the next four years and the judges must have a pay raise of very close to 10% over two years, compounded as it is.

Let me give some statistics. According to an Ottawa Citizen article on June 10, family incomes are still dropping. As a result Canadians need to stretch the family budget more to keep a roof over their heads. The reason is that while housing costs eased during the first half of this decade family incomes declined even more. That nudged the proportion of Canadians who spend at least 30% of their income on shelter and thus potentially face problems covering their housing costs to one in four households or almost 2.8 million households. These are the people the government and the Scott commission are asking to pay a little more.

Why? First, the judges want more money. We have to make sure they take home more pay even though the people of Canada will not be able to take home to their families more pay to provide for their children and their needs in the areas of clothing, food and shelter. We spend more on taxes in Canada than we do on those three items. We are the highest taxed country in the G-7. Why? Is it not because of decisions such as this? Is it not because of legislation such as this? Through the force of law we are to take more money from these people. I do not think that is right.

The findings I referred to were released by Statistics Canada and were derived from the 1996 census. An additional Citizen article on the same date also revealed that more and more two parent families had two parents in the workforce in 1996 while at the same time the number of children left at home was increasing.

Statistics Canada reported that the overall lower incomes among Canadians in 1996 is the reason both parents were being forced into the labour market. Is that not wonderful, while judges and MPs will be taking home more money? How can we go back to our constituents and argue that? How can we do that? How can we say to those folks that we know they are struggling?

My constituency is facing a drought. I received a call from a rancher out in the Byemoor area of my constituency who said they were finished if it did not rain. They will have to sell off their herds. Their cattle are being moved out to the grasslands now because there is no grass. We are saying to them that is their problem but we need more money from them. Why? It is because we want to have more take home pay and we want the judges to have the same. How can we do that? I cannot do that.

We stand as the opposition to cry out against it. Although there are good things in the bill to which I will come that we could support, we cannot support a bill that will do this to the people of Canada. We just cannot do it. How can we look in the mirror and say this is fair? How can we do that?

As elected representatives of the people we are required to justify this to the source of our authority, the people who elected us, the people we represent. We represent everyone in our constituency, even those who voted against us. We have a duty to stand on guard to protect the economic viability of their farming and ranching operations. Some of them take home meagre pays.

My wife and I raised four children. I have young twin sons who are in the labour force now. The tax return of one son showed that he made $14,000 working at just above minimum wage. He had to pay with taxes and deductions almost $2,000. The bill is saying that Spencer Ramsay will be required to pay more. Why? It is because judges want to take home more pay and members of parliament want to take home more pay. He will have to provide that for us through the force of law and if he does not we will take him to court. We have ways of dealing with him.

There is something wrong with this story. There is something wrong when we do this to our own people and then we cry—

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to present a number of petitions which call for significant changes to the present Young Offenders Act. The nearly 250 petitioners from all across the country call upon parliament to make the protection of society the number one priority in amending the YOA through measures such as reducing the minimum age covered by the act from 12 to 10, allowing the publishing of violent young offenders' names, increasing the penalties for all violent crimes committed by youth and ensuring parental responsibility.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a number of petitions to the House today.

The first two call for the repeal of the gun control legislation passed in the last parliament. These 109 petitioners from my riding and outside my riding ask that the money presently aimed at the creation and implementation of the gun registration system be redirected toward more cost effective methods of fighting crime in this country, including more police on the streets, crime prevention programs, suicide prevention programs, women's crisis centres, anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for fighting organized crime and street gangs.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the fourth time the member has been asked to speak to the motion. If he has nothing to say to this motion, then he ought to be ruled out of order and go on to the—

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know what this member's speech has to do with the motion. It is supposed to be on justice and on the estimates. What in the world is he offering this House on this motion?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if we are to believe what we are reading we will spend another $133 million on top of whatever has been spent before a single firearm is registered.

If we look at the process to register a firearm or simply to get a licence to hold one, it is the same process or almost identical to the requirement for an FAC. The Toronto police board estimated the cost to process a single FAC requirement in 1994. I think it came to $181 to do that.

If Ontario is high and we knock it down to $100 and if there are three to six million firearm owners and we have to spend $100 to process a licence application, we will spend $300 million to $600 million before we register a single firearm. The cost has never been honestly declared by the government, either because it does not know it or it does not want us to know it.

The former minister of justice is on record as saying that if it came anywhere near half a billion dollars he would withdraw and not proceed. The government is hiding the cost and I dare say for that very reason.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the cost of the firearms program, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough asked the minister that very question when the minister appeared before the committee on April 20 of this year.

Of course the minister, with the deepest respect, mugwumped around that question and did not give us a clear and decisive answer as to the exact amount of money that had been spent up until that time, that is, April 1 of this year. What the minister did say was that they had spent $66 million, but that also included the administration of Bill C-17. We do not know the cost of Bill C-17. Therefore, we do not know how much had been spent up until that time.

Mr. Valin, who was reported by Sean Durkan of the Ottawa Sun , claimed that we just did not ask the right question of the minister and that the total cost for this year was the figure that my hon. colleague mentioned, which is $133.9 million.

It is such a confusing mess. We do not know if this is on top of the $85 million or on top of the $20 million that the estimates are going to send out to the provinces. We just do not know.

Mr. Speaker, if you are only going to give me 90 seconds on that question, then I will have to sit down and beg my hon. colleague's pardon for not getting to his second question.