Jack Ramsay

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. She is asking me a question after she refused to answer mine. I will do what she did not do and answer the question.

I have looked at both letters. The RCMP is saying that our statistics are true. Those statistics that we gave represent firearms used in the actual commission of a crime. What the deputy minister said was that their group looked at it from a broader point of view. They looked at firearms seized by the police in any type of investigation, not necessarily those used in a crime.

But that is not what is in this book of theirs. That is not in the “Illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada”. Chart No. 3 is found on page 10 of that book. At the top of the chart it says “Firearms Involved in Crime”. Under the violent column it says that rifles and shotguns were used in 915 crimes. When we met with the firearms officials, as well as a member of the RCMP, they admitted to us that the figure of 915 did not accurately represent firearms used in crimes, but that is the perception created there. They admitted it could very well create a false perception.

The point that we have been making is that this false and bogus piece of information was filed in the Alberta Court of Appeal in six different affidavits in the constitutional court challenge of Bill C-68. The figures are wrong. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have 20 minutes to address the estimates. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the justice minister refused to answer my question regarding the position that Manitoba is in right now.

Is there more money placed on the table to keep that government on side in terms of administering the Young Offenders Act? I asked that question very clearly. I repeated it and she refused to answer it. That is the type of response we get from this government on very vital issues. Yet she can stand in her place and criticize, scorn and mock the opposition, all opposition members, including the official opposition, that we have nothing good to say, nothing good to offer. There is nothing over here worth consideration.

Yet when we ask her a straightforward question about a province struggling to administer a key component of the justice system what do we get from her? Her answer is on the record. My question is on the record and her non-answer is on the record. She ought to be ashamed of herself.

To the motion we are debating now, Motion No. 1 moved by my hon. colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I cannot support this motion because if passed it would mean that all funding would be eliminated within the solicitor general's department.

If these motions were to pass we would effectively shut down the RCMP, the DNA databank, the RCMP external review committee, the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada. Although we have some serious concerns and reservations about these departments and the expenditures within, we cannot support completely shutting them down.

I appreciate this motion put forward by the hon. member because it does open the avenue for the debate I think is very necessary in this whole area of justice.

We do not support certain expenditures under the solicitor general and we do not agree with particular expenditures of this government under justice.

Justice is one area the Reform Party believes funding should remain constant in, with priorities being shifted. The Reform Party would increase spending in areas such as community policing. Our police forces are slowly diminishing to the detriment of public safety. Thus we would propose increased transfers to the provinces to provide for more police on the streets.

We moved 200 RCMP officers to an international posting but we did not replace them. Imagine the positive effect of having 200 RCMP members wisely deployed across this country and the enormous deterrent they would have on the streets.

We are making these types of decisions and expending this kind of funding to help internationally while at the same time reducing the effectiveness of our police forces and law enforcement agencies at home. We question that.

I have proposed to reduce spending by $20,390,330 within the Department of Justice under grants and contributions. This money has been allocated as a contribution to the provinces and territories for the firearms program. Under the supplementary estimates I proposed the $87,467,000 allotted for the Canadian firearms registration system be reduced to $1. It is no secret that the Reform Party is opposed to the expenditure of scarce dollars for the registration of riffles and shotguns.

For years we have been fighting long and hard to repeal Bill C-68 and its ill conceived firearms registry. We are adamantly opposed to the costly bureaucratic registry because to date the government has failed to provide any statistical justification for registration. The statistics used by the Department of Justice have caused significant controversy and concern among firearm owners, Canadians in general and specifically the Canadian Police Association since the release of a letter from the commissioner of the RCMP to the deputy minister of justice regarding his concern over the bogus use of RCMP statistics.

I have a copy of that letter from the RCMP commissioner's office dated July 21, 1997 to Mr. George Thompson, deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada wherein he expresses his grave concern and the grave concern of the RCMP over the misuse of RCMP statistics.

In spite of that, these statistics were placed in a document called “The Illegal Movement of Firearms In Canada”. One example is on page 10 of the document, and there are many other examples in this document. On page 10 is table III. The top of the table states “Firearms Involved in Crime. Type of Firearm Removed According to Offence”. Then there are categories such as violent offences, rifles and shotguns, 915.

When this first came to the public's attention we met with members of the firearms section of the justice department and also with a member of the RCMP. It was admitted to members of parliament that this creates an erroneous perception that all the 915 riffles and shotguns recovered in violent crimes, according to this table, was not accurate. Many of those rifles and shotguns had never been used in the commission of a criminal offence. They had been seized by police in other matters. For example, they would stop a drug dealer and conduct an arrest. He would have a rifle or a shotgun in the trunk of the car. It had not been used in the commission of a crime. They would seize that.

Another example given was they would attend a domestic dispute. Although the spouse had not been threatened by a firearm she felt that she had been threatened. For safety reasons the police would seize the firearm in the house.

They are using those kinds of statistics to justify what amounted to be an erroneous and false perception of the number of firearms used in the commission of criminal offences.

The worst part about this is that this letter expressing the concern of the RCMP was dated July 21, 1997. The Alberta court case, the constitutional challenge to Bill C-68, proceeded I think in November of that same year, a number of months afterwards. In spite of the concerns raised here there were six affidavits filed by justice officials containing these same bogus statistics, creating a false representation of the number of firearms used in the commission of a criminal offence. There we go. In the letter from the commissioner's office, concern is expressed that there was an improper and a false basis created to justify the creation of Bill C-68.

It is clear there is not anyone in the House who does not support firearms control. We have asked the former justice minister, now the health minister, we have asked all the proponents of that bill to please tell the House and the people of Canada how the registration of a rifle and shotgun will reduce the criminal use of those firearms. Of course they were never able to do that. If they could have shown us something that we were unable to see of course they would have had our support.

The fact is that is a myth. The registration of a rifle or shotgun will not reduce its criminal use. The weapon of choice for the street criminal is still the handgun, which has been registered in this country for the last 64 years. It has not reduced the criminal use of that firearm, because the use of that firearm, by their own statistics, is on the rise, certainly over the 64 years since registration was put into place.

When we look at the enormous cost contained within these estimates simply to administer, to set up the software, to get things ready for October 1, 1998, it is an unacceptable cost that ought to be going to crime prevention or it ought to be going to our DNA databank where it will have an impact on the commission of crime and there is a chance of reducing crime in certain areas.

Look at the polls. They quote the polls to support this erroneous, ill conceived piece of legislation. After this bill came into effect we had the province of Manitoba go to the polls, the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Ontario. In every case the party that formed the government came out strongly and publicly against the registration and licensing portion of Bill C-68.

If we want to talk about polls, the most significant poll we can get is a poll where the issue is debated and the people have a vote. That is exactly what happened in all three of those provinces. To suggest that 80% of the people support that portion of this ill conceived bill is utter nonsense. If that were the case we would not have Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta risking their political future by taking the most obnoxious portion of the bill, the licensing and registration portion, to court on a constitutional challenge. We would not have the two territories saying the same thing.

We have here a needless and useless piece of legislation and we are spending millions on it.

What we are saying is that there are other areas in justice crying out for these types of resources which are being ignored. Why? It is because the government has set itself on a path and will not change it in spite of evidence to the contrary.

What is the government going to do? The registration and licensing portion of that bill is not aimed at the criminals who use firearms, it is aimed at the law-abiding gun owner. If someone deliberately and knowingly refuses or neglects to register their .22, what is the penalty they will pay under the bill? The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison. Is that not wonderful? They will have to do that simply because they failed to fulfil an administrative requirement.

When we look at the legislation that has come forward since the Liberals formed the government in 1993, it is unbelievable that they are allowing conditional sentencing to continue. Convicted rapists and people who have been convicted of manslaughter have been allowed to walk free, and yet they are saying to the law-abiding rancher, farmer, gun owner that if they do not register their firearms by the year 2003 there will be a series of penalties, the most severe of which can be a 10 year jail sentence. However, the rapists are walking free. Violent offenders can walk free. It is a gift from the Liberal Party.

We have examined what is happening in our country in this particular area and at the economic impact. We had witness after witness appear before the standing committee, not only on the bill itself but on the regulations, who told us about the enormous negative impact it is having on the economy in certain areas of this country.

When we asked the justice officials if they had done an economic impact study on this bill and what impact, negative or otherwise, it would have on the economy, they said they had not done an impact study. They do not seem to care whether they drive people out of business or shut down gun shows, shooting ranges or gun clubs. They do not care.

When the witnesses appeared before the committee that was what they told us. Their testimony is on the record. They were saying that with the implementation of these regulations they may not be able to function as a gun club, as a shooting range or as a gun show any longer. The government is threatening to destroy the social events in the firearms community, those social events where people get together at a gun show to display their collections. They buy and they trade. It is much like a garage sale.

When we asked the witnesses from these shows who appeared before the committee if their activities over the past 20 years of running these gun shows had ever created personal or public danger to anyone, they replied that they had not. We asked them why they thought the government was regulating something that was not causing a problem. They had no answer for that. The minister has no answer to that question either.

The government is simply regulating many of these law-abiding organizations out of business, possibly through the increased insurance they are going to have pay.

This bill and the money that we are spending on this bill is wrong. It was wrong-headed at the beginning and the government has never been able to admit that it is wrong.

In spite of the fact that evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, it still continues with its mantra: gun control. Bill C-68 and the registration of rifles and shotguns is not gun control at all.

Everyone is in favour of the common sense control of firearms. The registration of rifles and shotguns does not contain the capacity to do that, nor does it contain the capacity to reduce the criminal use of the firearms.

The legislation will allow the confiscation, without compensation, of thousands of firearms. Bill C-68 will prohibit over 500,000 handguns. Why? The barrels are too short.

This is property which has been lawfully acquired and legally held for years. It is going to be confiscated, ultimately, without any compensation. Again, this is wrong.

We are saying that it is wrong to spend money on an ill-conceived bill like this and the government is not fully disclosing the cost to us.

The firearms group has said that it is the greatest boondoggle this country has every seen.

We will see. We will watch to see whether it comes into effect on October 1 and what kind of mess occurs. There are 20,000 to 30,000 of these handguns under this specific category that are going to be lost by the firearm owners themselves, the dealers. There is no law covering them. Therefore, they will lose them, apparently without compensation.

We will watch to see this ill-conceived piece of legislation as it moves into effect to see whether it brings safety to streets and homes or whether it continues to be an unmitigated mess.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice speaks in the House.

She is given the opportunity to bring forward the programs of government and the benefits that it believes will flow from those programs. She either seems to be uncomfortable or lacking confidence in her own position or in her government's programs and legislation because she always has to take up much of the time simply attacking the opposition.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the gun control program and said that 80% of the people supported the hideous, ill conceived Bill C-68. If that were the case we would not have four provincial governments having to answer to their electorate just as the federal government will have to do. If 80% of voters were telling their provincial governments to support the bill, we would not have four provinces and two territories supporting the constitutional challenge that is occurring now before the appeal court of Alberta. I will get back to this point when I speak in the House on the estimates.

The member talked about spending more money. The minister announced the expenditure of $32 million in the area of crime prevention and so on. However, when the justice minister and her officials appeared before the standing committee on the estimates I asked this question of the minister: “Why is it that the province of Manitoba is considering litigation to get out from under the administration of the Young Offenders Act? Why is that happening based upon the fact that the federal government is reneging on its cost sharing program?” I also asked the minister where that stood and if there was more money on the table to bring Manitoba back onside. At that time the answer was no.

In view of additional expenditure in the area of justice, has new money been offered to the province of Manitoba to get it onside and to get it to continue to administer the Young Offenders Act, or is it still heading for court to get out from under the administration of the Young Offenders Act?

[Dna Identification Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-3 at third reading. I have some concerns about this bill.

The Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a truer sense of security. This includes strengthening our law enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes committed in our society. DNA identification is that kind of tool.

If used to its full potential, the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. To deny our police the full use of this technology in their fight against crime, as Bill C-3 in its present form does, is reprehensible and unacceptable because it maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our citizens. If passed unamended, Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, will provide Canadians with at least a false sense of security. Therefore the Reform Party cannot support this inadequate piece of legislation. The Reform Party fully supports the creation of a DNA databank. However, we do not support the limited scope of Bill C-3.

Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of the DNA technology so readily at their disposal. It is a tool that would help close hundreds of unsolved murders and rapes with an enormous potential to save lives by removing predators from the streets.

Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers. If a multiple murderer commits the murders on the same night we cannot take a sample from him. The murders must be committed separately. Again, it is unacceptable from that point of view.

Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption. It authorizes judges not to issue warrants for the taking of samples if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society. We asked during committee hearings for an example of that. I did not hear a reasonable or common sense example of what that meant, what that part of the bill is really addressing.

There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator. DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases and bring the perpetrators to justice. However, because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of those responsible for these heinous crimes, it is restricting the use of this very important technology by our law enforcement people.

As it stands now Bill C-3 is a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society by these limitations. Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy. I sometimes wonder if the government does not consider the lives of Canadians very cheap.

It is very unconcerned about the lives and safety of people in society although it expresses comments contrary to that. Life is pretty cheap when we look at some of the decisions being made as a result of legislation passed by this place and the refusal of the government to move where it is obvious that it could move and where there is no obstruction except its irrational fear of what the Supreme Court of Canada might do with regard to the charter of rights and freedoms.

Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy whether by paroling violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing or by tying the hands of our police officers through Bill C-3. The safety of society seems to be a secondary issue to this government.

During report stage of this bill I introduced an amendment which would allow for the taking of samples at the time of charge from offenders with one previous conviction and retained for analysis upon conviction. Our original amendment introduced during clause by clause review was to allow for the taking of samples from all persons charged with primary designated offences. Since this amendment was defeated, we put forward an amended version at report stage taking into consideration the concerns raised by the government.

The government cited finances as one reason why it would not expand the DNA bank and allow for samples to be taken and analysed at the time of charge rather than conviction. I specifically addressed the issue of cost, proposing that samples be taken upon charge but not analysed until conviction. This would satisfy the Canadian Police Association's concerns regarding offenders who are released on bail pending trial skipping out.

If offenders are guilty of a previous offence for which they have not been charged, they may not appear for their trial if they realize that upon conviction their DNA sample may be compared to DNA evidence left at the scene of unsolved crimes. This amendment was recommended by the Canadian Police Association.

The other reason supplied by the justice minister for refusing to allow samples to be taken at the time of charge was that it would not withstand a constitutional challenge. To date, a number of this government's bills have resulted in court challenges.

Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the two territories are awaiting the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision on the constitutionality of Bill C-68, the firearms legislation.

The rape shield law, brought in by the former justice minister, has been deemed unconstitutional. Conditional sentencing, also courtesy of the former justice minister, has been the subject of controversy in the courts. In January a three judge panel from the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a ripping indictment of what it termed unimaginative and skimpy attempts to apply the new law.

In the 50 page ruling the appeal justices detailed several major complaints they have on the way judges and lawyers have been applying the reform. The Alberta court blasted judges for handing out poorly reasoned and lenient conditional sentences that amount to little more than house arrest.

After Bill C-3 was reported out of committee and ready for report stage, the justice minister circulated to members of the standing committee three legal opinions on the constitutionality of taking DNA samples at the time of charge. The legal opinions were expressed by the hon. Claude Bisson, the hon. Martin Taylor and the hon. Charles Dubin. They all stated that the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge would be unconstitutional. The minister failed to provide any dissenting opinions such as that prepared by Tim Danson for the Canadian Police Association.

I have examined the three opinions hurriedly provided to indicate that the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge would be unconstitutional. They seem shallow and unconvincing perhaps because of their hurried nature. The opinion prepared by Tim Danson for the Canadian Police Association was presented before the committee and we had an opportunity to examine it. We have not had an opportunity to examine the three legal opinions by the authorities that I quoted. The committee has not had an opportunity to call witnesses or to ask witnesses who appeared before the committee questions about the three legal opinions.

I want to just touch on why I have a grave concern in this area and to quote from legal opinions. The honourable Claude Bisson does not deal with the authority of police to obtain a blood sample from a person suspected of impaired driving from alcohol or drugs. That authority is contained within the Criminal Code now.

Why would he not deal with that? If there is authority to take a blood sample now for impaired driving, why is there concern about taking a blood sample or a hair sample or a swab from the mouth? Why, if the authority is there now and it is constitutional, would an amendment allowing for a blood sample to be taken at the time of charge for a primary designated offence for the purpose of DNA sampling be unconstitutional in the bill?

I do not understand why the honourable Claude Bisson did not address this issue in his legal opinion. Also, the legal opinion prepared by the honourable Charles L. Dubin makes the same omission. It does not deal with the authority of police to take blood samples when individuals are suspected of driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs.

That issue is covered to a certain degree by the honourable Martin R. Taylor in his legal opinion. Yet it is difficult for me to understand the reasoning in this document, why it is constitutional to take a blood sample today under certain circumstances but unconstitutional to take a blood sample from someone not suspected of a crime but charged with a crime, of committing a primary designated offence.

I say with consideration and respect that these three legal opinions appear to be hurried and not well thought through. I want to quote one of them. This is the legal opinion submitted by the honourable Martin R. Taylor, Q.C., who stated on page 4:

Certainly some scepticism is to be expected in Canada today regarding the handling of bodily substances by public authorities. When DNA samples pass out of the control of the arrested person into that of the State, the uses to which they may be put depend not only on the law as it is and may become, but also on the competence of those who take control of them and their willingness to obey the law. The uses to which DNA may be put in providing personal information regarding the individual, while known to go well beyond the field of criminal identification, are at present only partly and imperfectly understood. Such factors as these will, in my opinion, be found by the courts to render the taking of DNA samples against the will of the individual particularly significant in terms of both denial of reasonable expectation of privacy and invasion of security of the person.

It seems it is all right to take a blood sample in the case of a suspected impaired driver but when we start to talk about DNA it is altogether different. The word DNA seems to create a degree of apprehension, a degree of perhaps even fear. The consequences of not properly guarding and protecting a DNA sample, whether we call it a blood sample taken for the purposes of determining if a person is impaired by alcohol or drugs, or whether it is a sample to compare with a DNA sample left at the scene of a crime, does not really matter. The invasion of privacy has taken place. We already have that in the criminal code. It is already there. What is the difference?

When we talk about the security of the person there is no justification to deny on the grounds of privacy because the authority is already there, as I have said, to take a blood sample in the case of impaired driving. That authority is there and overrules the privacy of the individual.

Let us look at the other reason the honourable Martin R. Taylor pointed out, the invasion of the security of the person. Privacy and security. The point I am making and I am coming to is that thousands and thousands of blood samples are taken every day by doctors. There are blood banks in clinics. Every time we go for an annual check-up and a blood sample is taken it goes into a bank. Every time a child is born a blood sample is taken from that child for obvious reasons.

Those samples are there for at least a period time. I do not know how long banks hold them. If there was a realistic concern as expressed in this legal opinion that the privacy of the individual were at stake and that somehow these samples would be used improperly, why is that not happening? Why is there no evidence of that happening?

Surely the bank, the taking of samples and the databank designed through Bill C-3 provide the greatest protection of the gathering of blood samples and other samples anywhere in the country today.

These people are telling us different through their legal opinions. They are trying to convince us that somehow there is lurking in the wings a successful charter challenge against doing what is being done all over the land based upon the fact that someone may use these samples incorrectly.

There is no evidence that has ever been done. There is no criminal offence as there is in the legislation for the improper use of DNA samples. There is no offence legislated for anyone misusing the blood sample that I give during my annual check-up or those of anyone or the samples taken from human beings at the time of birth. There is no evidence of this and this is not addressed in the legal opinions.

This is very important. With the greatest respect, the government has obtained legal opinions that suit its purposes and has brought them forward to attempt to negate the clear legal opinion by Mr. Danson who prepared and submitted a legal opinion for the committee by the Canadian Police Association, clearly indicating that there is no constitutional concern about taking samples at the time of charge.

The three legal opinions were obtained after we had an opportunity to call witnesses and to examine the contents of their findings, their recommendations and their decisions on this question. I am prepared to move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

“Bill C-3, An Act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and others Acts, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 17, in order to ensure that the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge be subject to review”.

[Dna Identification Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sydney—Victoria has a plane to catch. We would be prepared to switch the order of speakers.

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

moved

Montion No. 2

That Bill C-37, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 3 the following:

“(6.1) A report that is tabled in each House of Parliament under subsection (6), shall, on the day it is tabled or if the House is not sitting on that day, on the day that House next sits, be referred by that House to a committee of that House that is designated or established by that House for the purpose of considering matters relating to justice.

(6.2) A committee referred to in subsection (6.1) may conduct inquiries or public hearings in respect of a report referred to it under that subsection, and if it does so, the committee shall, not later than ninety sitting days after the report is referred to it, report its findings to the House that designated or established the committee.

(6.3) For the purpose of subsection (6.2), “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, sits.”

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 2. Bill C-37 establishes the judicial compensation and benefits commission to inquire into the adequacy of the salaries and benefits of judges under section 26(1) of the bill. Inquiries will commence on September 1, 1999 and on September 1 of every fourth year after 1999, and the commission is to submit a report with recommendations to the Minister of Justice within nine months after the date of commencement. That is authorized by section 26(2) of the bill.

The Minister of Justice is to table a copy of the commission's report in each house of parliament as required by section 26(6). The minister is to respond to the commission's report within six months after receiving it as authorized under section 26(7).

Parliament is given no opportunity or authority to respond to the report. Motion No. 2 gives the appropriate committee, which is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, an opportunity to review the commission's report, call witnesses, examine the commission's report and report its findings to the House.

Why do we want this? For one thing to determine on behalf of the people of Canada whether or not the recommendations contained within that report are fair to society at large, the people of Canada.

What is being recommended in terms of pay raises by this bill is it is going to increase the pay for federal court judges all the way from $5,000 to $17,000 over a two year period. It reminds me a little bit of the report that was tabled in the House recommending that members of parliament receive a 2% increase over the next four years. This is at a time when so many families are struggling.

The Kim Hicks family, a family of six, is trying to make ends meet on approximately $30,000 a year. They are having difficulty paying for dental treatments and eyeglass appointments. Thousands of families in this country are living under economic conditions today where they are struggling to keep the family body and soul together. If this bill is passed it will demand more money from those families by way of taxation in order to give judges a raise in pay. These are judges who, as my colleague has indicated, are receiving on average $140,000 a year. The chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada receives over $200,000 a year.

It is not fair for this bill to command parliament to use its taxation powers to again weaken the economic stability of thousands and thousands of individuals and families across this country. This applies equally to the report tabled in the House indicating that we as MPs deserve another 2% raise over the next four years. We are going to take money from these families that are struggling to provide for their children.

Why are we going to tax them more? Because judges need a raise and of course we need a raise. This is wrong. It is wrong because it is not fair.

If we want to give the judges or the members of parliament more take home pay, why do we not offer them a tax cut? I would sooner have a 10% tax cut than a 15% raise in pay. But let us do it for all Canadians. And until we can do it for all Canadians, let us not put a greater burden on them by demanding that they pay more in taxes so that we and the judges can receive more for ourselves and our families. It is not right. And it is not right because it is not fair.

The greatest threat to the economic stability of individuals and their families is the unlimited and unrestricted power of government to tax away their wealth. It is absolutely wrong. When the commission makes its report saying that the judges' benefits should be increased at the expense of Canadian families and society at large, surely we must examine our own consciences and ask ourselves whether this is fair. I think when most of us look in the mirror we have to say no it is not fair. It is not fair. How can we compare an average salary of $140,000 a year for the judges with a family of six struggling to make ends meet on $30,000 a year?

If this bill as it is worded goes through without any scrutiny, some of these judges are going to receive a $17,000 increase in pay over the next two years. We as MPs will receive 2% a year, almost $5,000 more in the next four years. We are going to receive that. How? By the force of law determined by the majority over there. We are going to take that $5,000 for each one of us out of the pockets of the taxpayers, out of the pockets of the families that are struggling to feed, clothe and shelter, to educate, to care for their children. We are going to do far, far more when we pass the bill that is going to give the federal judges in this land a raise of over 8% in the next two years.

There is something wrong with this. It is simply the unrestricted and abusive power of the House, of this government to tax the wealth away from the people in this country who make and create that wealth every year.

Right now we are the highest taxed country in the G-7. The average family spends more in taxes than it does on food, clothing and shelter. One in five children are reported to be living in poverty. What does that say about the families they come from? They are living in poverty too. Why? Because approximately 50 cents of every dollar earned is paid toward taxes in one form or another. This bill is going to take more from them.

It is reprehensible what we are doing to the people of Canada. We are sent here to stand on guard, to protect the rights of the Canadian people who have sent us here. We are not protecting their rights when we do these kinds of things. We are not protecting their rights when we demand 2% for ourselves and they have got to suffer more. That is not right. It is not fair. It is reprehensible and should be reconsidered.

I cannot go back to the people in Crowfoot and say this is fair and just. I will go back and say it is wrong. We are caught in the middle of this, all of us. Why? Because the government simply decides what it is going to do and it is going to do it. It is going to exercise its power to take money from them. Why? Because the judges need more on top of $140,000 and we need more. It is not right.

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Motion No. 1.

[Judges Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the motivation for this bill is very unusual. I want to speak to this bill and to this particular amendment.

I begin by pointing out to the House that when this bill was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights only two witnesses appeared. We had Mr. David W. Scott, the author of the Scott report which had the recommendations that my hon. colleague across the way referred to, and we had the commissioner for federal judicial affairs. Only two witnesses.

We had asked for other witnesses. We asked for two constitutional lawyers who would have been able to answer some of the questions I had concerning the contents of the bill and the motivation for the bill. Even though the committee had time we were denied that. It had originally scheduled time to hear 10 witnesses. It appears that at least six refused to appear to give testimony to the committee on this bill. The witnesses we had asked for were not asked to attend. This was a decision made by the Liberal majority on the committee.

What do we have in this bill? I support my hon. colleague's motion. I will not spend as much time as my colleagues and others in this House will on the raises the judges will be receiving if this bill is passed without this particular amendment.

Over the next two years, the Chief Justice of Canada will receive a $17,000 increase in pay. The other justices will receive the same. The chief justice and associate chief justice of the Federal Court and Tax Court of Canada will receive a $15,000 increase in pay. Justices of the federal court will receive $13,000. When we get to the superior courts, the chief justice and associate chief justice will receive a $15,000 increase in pay over the next two years. Justices of the superior court will receive a $13,000 increase.

I agree with my hon. colleague that that is quite a raise in pay, considering that at this particular time there are families with children who are struggling to make ends meet. They are making $35,000 and less. The chief justices now make $208,200. Other justices of the Supreme Court of Canada make $192,000. I think a lot of Canadians would agree that that is a pretty comfortable salary.

Yes we have to attract top qualified people to the courts but nevertheless this is a subject that should be discussed in this House. I think my hon. colleague brought forward this amendment for that very purpose, to enable this matter to be looked at and debated and not rushed through this House unexamined as the bill was rushed through the justice committee.

I want to touch for a moment on the motivation for this bill in the first place. It was motivated by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada on the P.E.I. and Alberta cases where it was determined that a commission must be set up by all provincial governments as well as the federal government to examine the benefits and pay of judges. Recommendations must go to the government.

The problem with this is that it has been determined, if I understand correctly and I believe that I do, that if the government of a province or the federal government does not follow through with the recommendation, it can be taken to court. It can go to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the decision of the supreme court indicates that the decision of that government is not reasonable and that the raise or other benefits should be provided, that can be construed as interference by the Government of Canada or the government of a province into the judicial independence of the courts.

When I read Justice LaForest's dissenting opinion he said clearly what I think the common sense of this country would support. He indicated that any interference in any decision by any government, whether federal or provincial, that deals with judges pay or benefits that is not satisfactory to a court, including the supreme court of this country, ought not to be considered as an interference with the judicial independence of the court.

There is another area of grave concern which this bill raises. If the Parliament of Canada goes along with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, there is also an interference, an abridgement or an encroachment upon the supremacy of parliament to tax because the pay of judges comes from the public purse.

Suppose that the economic conditions of this country are such that everyone must take a pay reduction and the courts feel that that pay reduction is unacceptable or unfair, their subjective assessment is that it is not fair. According to that decision if the governments of this land do not want to face the consequences of the inference that that decision to reduce their pay interferes with the judicial independence of the court, then they are going to have to be guided by a decision of the court to tax the people in order to pay their salaries and benefits.

This is wrong. I agree with the dissenting opinion of Judge LaForest in this particular area. For the House of Commons to bring in this kind of bill in response to that decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is wrong as well. When they do that and refuse to bring in witnesses who could address some of the concerns that I and other members of the committee and perhaps this House have on that issue, this is wrong again.

What we are seeing is an encroachment by the powers of the judiciary into the supremacy of parliament not only to pass laws but also in the area of taxation. This is very serious. This is why I cannot support this bill.

My recommendation to members of the House, certainly my caucus but the rest of the members of this House is that we had better examine this very carefully because of the consequences of moving in concert with that judgment. If it is not challenged, where is it going to end?

I see that my time is up. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair and the House. I will continue my debate when we arrive at the next amendment to this bill.

[Crime Prevention, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the justice minister.

The official opposition is very supportive of crime prevention programs, in particular for our youth. However, 50% of the $32 million earmarked for the minister's crime prevention program is going to administration.

Why is the minister giving this money to bureaucrats rather than spending it on children in need?

[Crime Prevention, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that was not a bad question from that Liberal backbencher, but it certainly was a pathetic answer.