Lost his last election, in 2000, with 34% of the vote.
Judges Act March 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the idea here is to make the system as transparent and as accountable as possible and the way the judges would be chosen if it could be done through the process of having nominations from all aspects of the system in place would make it more so.
Judges Act March 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and other consequential acts.
Bill C-37 is the government's response to the last triennial commission on judges' salaries and benefits, the Scott commission. Since 1981 Parliament has provided for an independent commission to examine judges' salaries and benefits.
Bill C-37 is also responding to the Supreme Court of Canada's independent decision on judicial compensation. On September 18, 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada released a key decision relating to the constitutional requirements of financial security of judges. That decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence and outlined the broad constitutional requirements for the determination of judicial compensation such as there must be an independent, objective and effective commission that makes recommendations on all aspects of judicial compensation, salaries and benefits.
To be independent the commission members must be appointed for a fixed term and the judiciary must nominate at least one member. To be objective the commission must use objective criteria in coming to its decision.
To be effective the government must deal with recommendations with due diligence and reasonable dispatch. Bill C-37 proposed amendments to the Judges Act that will, following the Supreme Court decision, improve the independence, the objectivity and the effectiveness of the salary and benefits commission process.
Regarding the principles of Bill C-37, there is very little we can disagree with. The bill establishes new rules for an independent commission which has the responsibility to review the salaries and benefits of judges every four years. These rules do seem to ensure in a certain way that the system is equitable and reflects reality.
Where the PC Party of Canada has concerns is in the way these new proposals will be implemented. As parliamentarians we must ensure that the commission will be accountable to Parliament and that the process will be transparent. On accountability, the membership of the commission should not become once again an opportunity for patronage by the government.
Section 26 of the Judges Act, before the amendments proposed in Bill C-37, requires that the minister of justice appoint the whole commission, which means all three to five members. The new provisions certainly improve that situation. While one of the three members will be appointed by the minister of justice, we are encouraged by the provision which makes the other member appointed by the judiciary. Together the two members will appoint a third member as the chair.
One question has to be raised here in favour of improving the accountability and transparency process. Why not have the one member nominated by the minister appointed instead by a committee of the House, such as the standing committee on justice?
Such a process would not only improve the transparency but also avoid patronage appointments. It also appears that Bill C-37 is addressing the important question of transparency. The commission will have to report at regular intervals, which encourages an open process.
The commission's report with its recommendations has to be presented to the Minister of Justice who in turn has to table it in the House of Commons within 10 sitting days after having received it.
This is certainly playing in favour of accountability but a question should be raised in the interest of further transparency. Why not make the commission accountable directly to Parliament? If the report has to be made available to both houses why not then eliminate going through the minister?
For example, government Bill S-5 which the standing committee on justice has just completed studying provides for the human rights commission to report directly to Parliament instead of the minister. If this can be done for the human rights commission, why not do it for the commission on judges' salaries and benefits?
By reporting to both houses, the commission would be more accountable and more transparent than if it has to report to the minister first. Furthermore, the standing orders of the House of Commons provide for the report to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights which completes the public request on transparency and accountability.
With regard to the amendments pertaining to the salary commission, improvements have been made but we could do more in order to have more accountability and transparency.
Bill C-37 supports the creation and expansion for unified family courts across Canada. Bill C-37 will appoint 27 new federal judges for unified family courts in four provinces. We welcome these amendments as they will permit the improvement of legal services given to families and help the provinces direct more resources to the courts and the services themselves.
Finally, Bill C-37 provides for some changes in the criteria for supreme court judges to retire with a full pension. Judges will now have to be 65 years of age or older and have served for at least 10 years. The PC Party of Canada does not have any problem with these proposals. The bill could be improved further on certain provisions dealing with accountability and transparency. The commission could report directly to the House of Commons improving its accountability.
The one member of the commission appointed by the minister could instead be appointed by a committee of the House of Commons, improving its transparency and avoiding the possibility of patronage. We will be raising these points in committee.
In conclusion, we are encouraged by the provisions contained in Bill C-37. We are prepared to support it in principle at second reading.
Pensions March 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in the meantime boat owners will have to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay Revenue Canada, leading to numerous layoffs.
The tax program is slated to end August 1998, leaving thousands of fishers and plant workers wondering how they are going to survive. Both the Harrigan report and the standing committee on fisheries report recommend the creation of a new post-TAGS program. Is the minister of fisheries seriously considering the creation of a post-TAGS program? If so, in what timeframe can we expect a response?
Pensions March 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on February 3, I wrote to the hon. minister about a decision to change the employment status of fishers and subsequent demand for retroactive CPP payments effective January 1, 1997. Subsequently I asked the minister to address this issue during question period. I even submitted another letter on March 12, yet there is no response.
Will the minister here and now commit to removing this retroactivity request and agree to negotiate a more suitable implementation date?
Broadcasting Act March 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-288. Much has been said on this very important subject by my other colleagues so I will be brief in my remarks.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton brought forward a similar bill, known then as Bill C-216, in the last Parliament. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for having brought back this private member's bill. It is unfortunate, however, that his efforts and those of many in this House and in the other place will not reach fruition again.
This bill provides for the necessary changes to the Broadcasting Act in order to prevent negative option billing for new specialty services. This bill is the only way the House can respond to the consumers who are asking for a decision on this issue. Unfortunately, this bill is not a votable item.
During second reading of Bill C-216 in the last Parliament, my colleagues from the other place defended the French language pay tv and specialty services.
My party shared its concerns with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Canadian Cable Television Association and the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick among others, and then brought forward amendments to the bill.
The proposed change still aims to protect the consumers, which is the main purpose of the bill. It also answers the main concerns about the delivery of French language services, mainly the availability and cost of specialty services in French. The proposed amendment to the bill is a compromise which would facilitate the delivery of services to the French communities.
We have consulted with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and both were in favour of this amendment.
This bill, as amended by the Senate in the last Parliament, would have gone a long way in preventing the CRTC from gouging its consumers. When Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper last April, when the Liberals called an election after only three and half years in office, it looked like the CRTC was about to back off, but it has not.
If we take my own experience in Ottawa, Rogers Cable has been pushing the ME-TV package for months. It offered a free subscription for a couple of months and consumers were told that billing would start for this package after Christmas if they chose to keep the service.
What Rogers was not saying last fall was that if we chose not to take the package at $6.95 a month we had to pay $2 more a month. That does not sound like a very good deal for the consumer. On the one hand you have to pay $6.95 for 15 channels although you may only want one. On the other hand if you do not want any, you get charged $2.00 more per month.
I reiterate my support for this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect the rights of consumers.
Petitions March 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition signed by 819 constituents from my riding of West Nova.
The Government of Canada officially refers to the 1991 gulf war as special duty area Persian Gulf whereas many government officials including veterans affairs through press releases and internal memos use the term gulf war when making reference to this conflict.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada officially recognize this conflict as the gulf war, thus resolving confusion leading to the proper recognition of the valiant efforts of its approximate 4,000 military members who served in this conflict.
Revenue Canada February 13th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in mid-December 1997 Revenue Canada announced to many owners of fishing vessels in West Nova that they were now responsible for CPP contributions on behalf of their crew members, retroactive to January 1, 1997. This sudden change in policy will have an enormous financial impact on the industry. Layoffs have already been announced.
Will the Minister of National Revenue re-examine this decision and invite his officials to meet with the fishing industry to negotiate a more equitable start-up date.
Lighthouses February 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians lighthouses are simply a symbol of our maritime heritage, but for some people in my riding the lighthouse might just save their lives.
While it is true that most vessels have on board navigational aids such as GPS, a number of lighthouses are still indeed necessary.
Recently my constituents of West Nova, including fishers and recreational sailors, were very concerned about the possible closure of the Yarmouth light at Cape Forchu. Their fears were legitimized in Halifax
Chronicle Herald
interview when coast guard officials confirmed that the federal government was exploring the possibility of further lighthouse closures as a cost cutting measure.
Our fishers already affected by the downturn in the industry must put their lives on the line each and every time they venture out into unpredictable seas. Many men and women still depend on the Yarmouth light to guide them home to safety, in particular during very adverse weather conditions.
Further reductions of national aids will put fishers at risk of serious injury or even death.
Fishing Industry February 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's Revenue Canada has opted to change the employment status of fishermen in West Nova.
Those owning fishing vessels, whether large corporations or individual fishermen, will now be required to make CPP contributions on behalf of their employees. These changes will mean significant increases in costs for these vessel owners of several hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases.
In December 1997, despite ongoing negotiations with the fishing industry, Revenue Canada unilaterally set the start up date for these changes as January 1, 1997, followed by a demand for retroactive payments plus interest from the vessel owners to cover CPP contributions for this past year.
This request is very damaging to an industry that has already been decimated by quota cuts over the last few years.
On behalf of the people of West Nova I urge the government to cancel the request for retroactive payments on CPP contributions, return to the negotiating table with representatives of the fishing industry and help devise a more reasonable timetable for implementing these changes.
Criminal Code February 3rd, 1998
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on a bill which would amend the Criminal Code with respect to the arrest of those in breach of condition of parole, statutory or temporary release.
This bill introduced by the Reform member for Langley—Abbotsford will do two things.
First it will amend the Criminal Code to make a breach of condition of parole, statutory release or temporary absence a criminal offence. As a consequence, this would under section 495 of the Criminal Code allow police officers to arrest without a warrant an offender who is found in breach of his or her parole or release conditions.
The second part of the proposed bill is to amend section 497 of the Criminal Code. The amendment would grant arresting peace officers the authority to detain an individual found in breach of his or her conditions in custody until the National Parole Board consents to or opposes the offender's release on bail.
Immediately I want to say that this would not constitute an arbitrary detention. In fact we are talking about the rights of an individual who had the benefit of due process and has been convicted of a criminal offence. His conditional release was a second chance and I do not see why we should give the individual a third chance when he breaches his conditions. The individual is still paying his debt to society and by breaching his conditions he is breaking society's trust in his ability to respect the law. Therefore it is my view that this would not be an arbitrary detention.
Before I go any further I want to say that, like my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said in this House in November 1997, the Progressive Conservative Party supports this bill. The intent of this bill is positive. It will provide our law enforcement officers with an additional tool in their fight against crime.
The changes that are proposed in this bill are constructive for society and are very important. They give police officers who observe individuals who have these conditions placed on them the ability to act and to act quickly and decisively.
The problem with our Criminal Code and our laws is not that police officers do not have the power to arrest but that they have to get authorization to do so. Timing, as they say, is everything. Such events often unfold quickly and officers do not always have the time to get the necessary authorization. Police officers do not always have the time to get a justice of the peace or to contact the parole officer involved. That is even more true in rural parts of our country.
In rural parts of our country police detachments are often comprised of only two members and they are responsible for vast territories. With justices of the peace not always being available 24 hours a day, it becomes quite obvious that the amendments proposed in this bill would be very helpful for our police officers.
Bill C-211 is intended to enable police officers to act immediately to arrest an individual who is found in breach of release conditions without having either to seek a warrant from the National Parole Board or justice of the peace or wait until another crime is committed.
Let me give a practical example on how this bill could be helpful. An offender subject to release conditions that require him or her to stay away from a particular address, either in the case of domestic violence or in cases where pedophiles are involved, could be arrested immediately upon being found in a forbidden area.
Another reason why I support this bill is that it will give authority to police officers to keep in detention individuals who are in breach of their parole conditions. This means that the offender in breach of his or her conditions could not only be arrested immediately but also detained until the National Parole Board has been notified and given an opportunity to react.
Offenders who are breaking their terms of parole are, like I said earlier, once again breaking society's trust in their ability to respect the law. I do not favour any sort of special treatment for such people. Being released under certain conditions does not mean being free. It means that these individuals are still paying their debt to society, a society that has already given them the chance to rehabilitate. This is why I believe that their detention would not be an arbitrary detention.
In conclusion, I would ask all members of this House to ask themselves the following questions. Will this bill improve the present law? Will it allow police officers to more effectively carry out their duties and to better protect society? The answer to these two questions is yes. I ask this House to work together in a non-partisan way to see that Bill C-211 is carried through.