Michel Bellehumeur

[Quebec Referendum Act, November 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, are we to conclude from this clear response by the Minister of Justice that the minister recognizes the full and total legitimacy of the Quebec referendum act, and consequently disapproves of the actions of certain of his colleagues who deliberately violated the referendum act during the last referendum in Quebec?

[Quebec Referendum Act, November 20th, 1996]

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

According to a Toronto morning newspaper, the federal government was to announce this week if it is going to intervene in the Libman case, in which the Quebec referendum act is being contested before the Supreme Court.

Can the Minister of Justice confirm to us that the federal government is seriously considering contesting the Quebec referendum act?

[Judges Act, November 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as I am reading the amendment moved by the Reform Party, I find it somewhat dangerous to state in the amendment that the chairman of the judicial council is in a potential conflict of interest. We know that the chairman of the judicial council was merely consulted with regard to Bill C-42 as he is an extremely important player in its implementation.

We only have to look at what happened in the past with highly charged issues such as the case of Judge Bienvenue when all parliamentarians rebelled and rose to condemn the state of affairs. In the end, the people in charge of the issue were the members of the judicial council. To consult the chairman of the judicial council on such a bill is, I believe, necessary and very important.

I would like the member to tell me in what way he believes the chairman of the judicial council is in a conflict of interest with respect to the debate we are having on Bill C-42.

[Judges Act, November 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is with some consternation that I keep hearing the Reform members talking about certain things that cause us in Quebec to wonder what planet they are living on.

I do not want to return to the question of pensions and so forth, because I think it has nothing to do with the amendment before us, but the hon. member seems unable to distinguish between a judge appointed to serve an international community, who has an ad hoc mandate, a specific mandate to serve as attorney, which is one thing, and a judge who decides from one day to the next to request leave without pay to act as crown prosecutor in Canada, Ontario or Quebec. These, I think, are two different things.

For a judge to decide to take on a specific assignment to go and serve internationally to help an international community gather evidence to convict individuals who have committed major crimes, that is one thing. However, I do not understand the hon. member saying that once Ms Arbour, in this particular instance, returns to Canada, should she resume her duties as judge, there would be doubts as to her impartiality. What world do the Reformers live in?

Are they forgetting that judges are lawyers, crown counsel or in private practice before they are appointed judges at some point? When arguing his case, is the crown attorney right to question the judge's impartiality because he comes from the private sector, or vice versa?

I have often argued before judges whom I knew to have worked for the crown. Do I fear from the outset that they will not be impartial? It is part of the training of someone in the legal profession to be able to separate things.

To conclude, I would ask the member if he does not think it beneficial to Canadian and Quebec jurists to work internationally showing how we do things. Does he not think international exchanges should be promoted?

[Judges Act, November 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this bill as official opposition justice critic, given that Bill C-42 has already been debated in this House and sent subsequently to the Senate. It has been returned to this House as the result of certain changes the Senate wanted to see in the bill.

I think that, to properly understand the full implications of the changes proposed by the Senate, we must at least look to see whether the bill initially met certain requirements and whether it followed due legislative process: that is, first, second and third reading.

Did the government, the official opposition and the third party seriously vet this bill to see if it required changing? Was Bill C-42 studied in committee? Was each clause studied by the parliamentary committee of members elected to this House? Was it passed at report stage?

The answer to all these questions is yes. Bill C-42 passed through all these stages. Those who received a very clear mandate from the people and who are in the House of Commons analyzed Bill C-42 and passed it. Yes, under the present system, this bill must go to the other House, the Senate. Why? Because that is the way it is, because that is the way the system works.

However, we must not take away the essence of the bill when it comes back to us. I think that Bill C-42 as passed by the House of Commons achieved the objectives that were set. It revolves around four main points, on the basis of which the members of this House decided this was indeed a good bill, one that should be passed.

I tried to understand the Senate's changes and I think that, for the people watching us, following the debates to some extent, to have some understanding of the Senate's changes, they must at least be familiar with the four main ideas behind Bill C-42.

We in the Bloc Quebecois supported the bill for many reasons. There was, among other things, a series of provisions which created new positions for judges. As we know, the present law allows the Canadian provinces and Quebec to create seven additional positions. With the change proposed in Bill C-42, which was passed by the House, legislative assemblies in each province can now decide, if necessary, to increase from seven to ten the number of additional judges.

Given what the provinces are experiencing, given what Quebec, Ontario and other provinces are experiencing, given the court delays, given the workload of judges, this change was normal. This has to be left alone. It was passed by this House.

There was also a series of clerical and wording changes. It was normal to update this law, to make it fairer. Judges were granted leaves of absence in order to ensure their independence. This is a very important criterion if we are to properly assess the changes proposed by the Senate, which must be approved by the House of Commons.

Bill C-42 included a new paragraph requiring the approval of the Governor in Council only for leaves of absence of more than six months. At the present time, his approval is required for leaves of absence of a month or more. If a judge wanted a leave of absence of one month, he had to submit a request to the Governor in Council.

This change was to keep away the executive branch, to keep judges' decisions free from any political intervention. It was a deliberate choice, a very important change for the Canadian legal system, for the Quebec legal system. We welcomed this change and we supported it in this House.

The fourth amendment provided for in Bill C-42, which was quite new, and met a need in today's world, but which has been directly impacted by what came back to us this morning from the Senate, was the possibility for a judge, with the government's authorization, to take part in legal activities at the international level. Until now, judges had to devote themselves exclusively to their judicial duties. There exists, furthermore, a tradition requiring

judges to avoid involvement in situations that could oblige them to take a stand in public. Bill C-42 therefore represents a departure from our legal tradition in that it would allow judges to take part in international activities. But this was a good thing, since Bill C-42, which was duly passed in the House of Commons, set out very clearly how this was to be allowed.

This bill also rightly provided that a judge could not be paid twice. In other words, if a judge took on international duties, during that time he could not be on paid leave nor receive any kind of remuneration from the country where he had been appointed a judge.

Clearly, as a whole, the amendments in Bill C-42 met a national need, an immediate need, a need of those involved, as well as an international need given the major conflicts and international trials we are faced with nowadays on a regular basis. In a sense, the bill was a response to the needs of the international community.

This bill was carefully reviewed by a team of experienced researchers as part of a thorough analysis, and it was decided that the bill should be passed without amendments, that certain comments should be made in committee, but the elected representatives decided very democratically to pass Bill C-42 this way.

As I said at the beginning of my analysis, in Canada, we have another House, a non-elected House, some of whose members I could describe as slightly out of touch with reality, it is a fact, people who occasionally nod off, lulled by the sounds of party politics. One morning, in a fleeting moment of wakefulness, a senator said: "Fear not, we shall not let this bill pass without amendments. We will amend it for the sake of justifying the money we make here at the Senate. At least part of the $43 million spent yearly on the Senate must be justified".

The senators decided to take a specific example. They said: "Let us amend Bill C-42 in a specific fashion, taking one judge in particular. This way, every time judges want to get involved on the international scene, they will have to start all over, going first before the House of Commons, then before the Senate. This will give us a little work to do. It will give us a chance to poke our noses into these matters, and make amendments. It will be great fun". So, to a large extent, the Senate basically considers the general idea behind this bill as a specific case, and decided to amend it to have it apply only to the case of Madam Justice Arbour from the Court of Appeal of Ontario.

Some of our listeners, including the Liberals across the way, may think that the Bloc is trying to protect some Quebecer. The fact is we are do advocate the principle of independence. But in this case, where the Liberals condone, to some extent, the attitude of the Senate, the person involved is a judge from the Ontario court of appeal.

This amendment has been sent to us after the House of Commons went through a clear and comprehensive process: first, second and third readings, not to mention a clause by clause review in committee, and report stage. Now we have to start all over again; we have to review the nice amendments made by the Senate. But what prompted the Senate, if not partisan considerations, to make amendments such as these?

I decided to have some fun. I rarely do this, but I read the great philosophical debates of the other place. Once in a while, we should read what senators have to say on a particular issue.

I read the Debates of the Senate for Monday, October 28, for November 7, and for October 22, 1996, to see what senators had to say on Bill C-42. I must say I was very surprised by the depth of the senators' review, by the seriousness with which they reviewed the legislation, and particularly by the sources that prompted them to propose amendments.

In the case of one senator, whom I will not name, out of respect for her, one such source is the infamous gossip magazine Frank . The senator said: Listen, in Ms. Arbour's case it does not make sense. We have to make a specific amendment''. The October 23 issue of the gossip magazine <em>Frank</em> carried an article on Madam Justice Arbour's friends in high places. It stated:Ms. Arbour has many friends and allies to boost her to the top- It was Goldstone who finessed Arbour's appointment through the United Nations. In Canada, the deal was stick-handled through judicial circles by her common-law husband, the sebaceous deputy attorney-general of Ontario, Larry Taman''.

The senator relied on this gossip magazine, this rag and the article published in it to say that a specific amendment had to be made to Bill C-42 to deal with the appointment of Madam Justice Arbour. Can that be the only evaluation criterion by which one can determine if a bill coming from the House of Commons, which is composed of democratically elected members, must, yes or no, be amended? Every four or five years, we go before the people to get elected. I find it hard to believe that a senator with such great intellectual capacity, one who likes to quote Frank , would be prepared to stand for re-election now and then.

The same senator went on to say, in her analysis: "I am informed that Justice Arbour's contracted salary with the United Nations is US$250,000 tax free with, in addition, many more hundreds of thousands in expenses. With remuneration like that, Canadian judicial benches will soon be empty if Canadian judges are permitted to roam internationally in procurement of such employment and remuneration".

Still, why should it matter to senators that such a person should earn US$250,000.? If the senator is afraid that judicial benches will soon be empty, since there would surely be judges who would decide to work internationally, she has nothing to worry about.

I believe the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada would be only too happy to appoint their good friends to the bench. Good? We know very well that, at the federal level, these are political appointments. But, up until now, even though these appointees have been friends of the government, I have no complaints, at least as far as Quebec is concerned. Having practised law before becoming a member of Parliament, I saw that the judges were quite competent, after all.

When the Conservatives are in power, all the judges are Tories, and when the Liberals are in power, all the judges are Liberals, but that is part of the game, as we say in my part of the country.

But let us be clear. Let us reassure the senators so that they are not worried or afraid. We will always find judges, we will always find very competent and well trained persons for the bench. The walls of the temple of Canadian justice shall not crumble because one, two or three judges decide to serve on an international tribunal and put their knowledge at the service of the world community. I thought that only one senator thought this way, but I read on and, unfortunately, there is more than one.

There is another senator who is a former member of this House. He was appointed to the Senate by the previous government. He says that there must be an amendment. He approved of the proposed amendment and said: "Listen, the independence of the judiciary is one of the principles that all Canadian parliamentarians must strive to protect and advocate". This is profound and it is true. He thought long and hard before coming to that conclusion.

"The independence of the judiciary is one of the last defences for the respect of democratic values in this country". When a non-elected senator speaks of democratic values in defence of an amendment proposed by the Senate itself, I think this goes against the very principle of independence he claims to be promoting.

In Canada, we have written rules, unwritten rules, customs, and what not. The Minister of Justice or his parliamentary secretary must certainly know that there is an unwritten rule that says that Parliament should never adopt a bill for one specific judge. Never. To do otherwise is to go against the independence of the executive branch and of the courts.

I know that this is not meant to be a specific legislation, that Bill C-42 is not about Madam Justice Louise Arbour, but by bringing a specific amendment, by changing the spirit of a provision to make it specific to a particular case in order to solve a problem, I think the Senate is making this a specific legislation.

I think it is dangerous and deplorable that the government has decided to give up its powers because of the wishes of the other place. The government had taken a stand in Bill C-42. It had clearly stated its position. However, for considerations that nobody else knows, it has decided to yield to the Senate to amend the legislation and, indirectly, to undermine a recognized principle.

During the debate on Bill C-42, many things were said about impartiality, about the appointment of judges and about the whole legal system within which this legislation must be viewed. I will not repeat them.

However, if the government is using the Senate to amend a piece of legislation, to bring amendments to a bill or to parts of a bill because of things it had not noticed, it is cause for concern. I do not think this is the case. I know the Minister of Justice. We can agree or disagree with his position in certain matters, including his decision to refer to the Supreme Court a matter of a very political nature affecting Quebec, we can disagree with some of his decisions, but I think the justice minister is a man who knows his bills inside out.

He is a man who, before making a decision, has the bill analyzed by his advisers, by his team of researchers, by experienced lawyers. And only then does he decide to table a bill. It has been discussed, he changed his position. The bill was passed after it is discussed, after the government and the opposition parties debated it.

I think that it is unthinkable that, in 1996, the Senate can force the government to backtrack on an issue as important as that of the independence of the courts.

I say to the government and its representatives that they are on the wrong track, they should not do this. Instead, they should make the Senate toe the line on this sort of issue. In this case, we are not in agreement with the Liberal government, the Canadian government, on this amendment. In fact, if I had not afraid that it would be interpreted as opposition to Bill C-42, I would have asked the House not to approve the bill at second and third reading. But as for the substance, as I said earlier, we are in agreement with Bill C-42.

As the opposition party, we are against the amendment made by the Senate through the government. We will therefore be voting against this amendment.

I urge the government to do its homework over again. I urge the government to consult its lawyers, researchers and special advisers a second time. I urge the government to do its homework over again, to take another look at the bill, so that it knows exactly what the situation is on this extremely important issue, so that we have legislation that is clear and that does not encourage judges to leave Canada. That is not what the Bloc Quebecois wants. We want

legislation that is clear. We want judges to know the rules ahead of time, and if a judge has expertise in a certain field and would like to be useful at the international level by being seconded to a court outside his jurisdiction, I think we should encourage that with legislation that is clear.

There should be a fair and equitable process for all individuals who would like to take advantage of this international experience. The amendment proposed by the Senate would make this impossible. How each case is evaluated would depend on the amount of pressure on the government opposite. I think this is disastrous in a society that calls itself democratic and emphasizes the independence of the executive and the judiciary.

In concluding, I would urge the Minister of Justice to review his calculations, if he has done any, to review everything with his legal advisers to make the necessary adjustments and in the end decide that the amendment proposed by the Senate is bad for the Canadian judiciary system and therefore for the Quebec judiciary system.

[Divorce Act, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech made by my Liberal colleague. There is an issue on which I would like to hear his opinion because he did not address it. As we know, the Liberal government often claims to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness. It says it adopted certain motions to that effect and even accuses the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, of complaining for no reason since, finally, the Liberals are recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness.

As far as Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, is concerned, everyone knows that, one, the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction in this area and, two, Quebec has some very special demands. We know that the National Assembly would have liked to be consulted more extensively. It particularly wanted the federal government to specify in the clause dealing with guidelines that it would recognize any guidelines adopted by the National Assembly.

I am asking the hon. member opposite, whose Liberal government likes to brag about its recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness, if he agrees that, if the government really cared about this, it would have provided for Quebec's distinctiveness in Bill C-41.

Why does this bill not provide for Quebec's special legislation? Yes, it deals with divorce, but it is mainly concerned with children. The main purpose of Bill C-41 is to protect children, to pursue a family policy Quebec is developing, as we clearly saw last weekend.

I am asking the hon. member why Bill C-41 does not make special provision for Quebec's distinctiveness?

[The Fisheries Act, November 5th, 1996]

To be a card-carrying Liberal.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak briefly on this amendment, and not on the approach per se, whereby we examine a motion introduced by the government at the very last minute, as the hon.

member for Québec indicated. On the whole, this is an amendment that does not affect the substance of the clause in any real way.

Where I am concerned however is when the parliamentary secretary brings in a motion under such circumstances, claiming this was an oversight on the part of the government. If that is so, how many more oversights have they made in this bill? As far as we in the Bloc Quebecois are concerned, the five or six motions we have put forward also addressed oversights. Why did they not act on these motions?

It is disturbing when the Liberal Party, the overly self-confident governing party that puts forward just about anything and refuses to see reason, because of its arrogance, on very important points made by the official opposition, through its parliamentary secretary, tables a motion in this House at the very last minute, claiming it was an oversight. I think this is an unforgivable oversight, one that we in the Bloc Quebecois cannot forgive, because we are convinced that there are more oversights in this bill and some more striking than those raised today in motions put forward by Bloc members, which the government chose to ignore.

We in the official opposition are quite worried about this government's administration. Bill C-41 is a very important bill in that it affects the future of our children, including children of Quebec, an emerging nation.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief since this supports what I said earlier. I gave the example of Reform Motion No. 14, which adds 30 days to the period proposed by the government. This would give a defaulting debtor up to 11 months, plus Reform's 30 days, for a total of 12 months. I am somewhat taken aback by the fact that even this is not enough for the Reform Party.

I do not know what Reform's goal is in favouring defaulting debtors, but it gives 10 days more than the period specified in the notice. According to the legislator, the purpose of the 10-day period provided in Bill C-41 after the notice is sent to the debtor is to prove it has been received. The Reform motion provides for a 20-day period. It gives another 10 days.

Given the reasons I mentioned earlier, I personally would not give a defaulting debtor a single day. After nine months, he must know he owes at least $3,000 in unpaid child support. In any case, his wife and children probably called to remind him to send his cheque for $500, so there is no reason to give him more time. For all these reasons, all members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.

[The Divorce Act, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we must understand what the impact of the Reform Party motion would be. I will not repeat the arguments offered by my colleague, the member for Québec, because she did a very good job of presenting the nuts and bolts of this amendment compared to Bill C-41 in its present form.

However, I would like to give further explanations, so that everybody, including members from the other side, will understand quite well what this is all about. Personally, I would have gone much further than the minister. The person who does his best to avoid paying child support has not earned the right to a further 30 day extension.

I have children for whom I pay daily. I think one should assume one's responsibilities. The father or mother, because the payer can be either one, the person who has to pay child support and who does not should not get any sympathy from the government. Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever for those people.

Bill C-41 proposes a complete system under which the government can take action. The minister responsible must submit a request, there is a complete process. We must understand the context of what persistent arrears means, under Bill C-41. We find the definition in clause 62, which describes what it means to be in "persistent arrears".

What does it mean? According to the legislation, that expression refers to a debtor who has, in respect of a support order or support provision, arrears in any amount due to the failure to make payments for any three payment periods-depending on the order, a period can be a week, a month, two months or six months-or one who has accumulated arrears of $3,000 or more.

Let me give you a very precise example. Let us say the man is paying support. Following a ruling, he must give his child or children the sum of $500 a month. According to C-41, the judgment takes effect on January 1st, 1997. He pays child support in the amount of $500 on January 1st, 1997. In the month of February, he does not pay. In the month of March, he does not pay. In the month of April, he pays $500. Until now, the provisions of the law do not apply because this does not amount to three consecutive periods or a total of $3,000 in non-payments.

He continues. In the month of May, he does not pay. In the month of June, he does not pay. In the month of July, he decides to pay. In such a case, it takes exactly nine months to reach $3,000 in arrears. For nine months, the husband will apply pressure, how could I say, he will annoy his spouse. I think that is the best and the most explicit term. But who suffers? It is the children.

It takes nine months to arrive at the total of $3,000 in unpaid child support. What does Bill C-41 provide for after nine months? It provides that the minister will send the debtor a notice informing him that he is $3,000 in arrears. In law, there is a very clear principle saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is even truer that no one is supposed to ignore a court judgment or order.

The debtor does not pay on purpose and the government will send him a notice informing him that he has not paid child support for X number of months, for a total of $3,000, according to the example I gave. He is given an extra extension of 10 days before the minister files an application to withhold certain licences or freeze certain applications for licences the debtor has made to the federal government. And he is given another 30 day extension.

So, after about 10 to 11 months, sanctions are applied to the debtor. Between you and me, I think this is very permissive. Personally, I would not have given 30 days to this repeat deadbeat father, who does it on purpose.

However, Bill C-41 gives him these 30 days after a 10 day advance notice. We, of the Bloc Quebecois, decided, after examining all this, that we would not put forward an amendment on that. We will accept this approach the government has taken.

You will understand that I do not agree with the motion put forward by the Reform Party to give him 50 days instead of 30. That is 50 days after the 10 days, so that, in the example I gave, it is not after 11 months that sanctions are applied to the debtor, but after 12 months, after one year. The person receiving child support, the $3,000, has been waiting 12 months for it.

You will understand that Motion No. 14 put forward by the Reform Parti is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, and that is why we will vote against it.