Madam Speaker, here we are at third reading of Bill C-9, which provides for the creation or rather the exhumation of the Law Commission of Canada. Whatever the case may be, the Minister of Justice today wants to revive this useless body, which cost taxpayers $105 million over its 20 years of existence and which made few recommendations that Parliament actually used.
The Law Reform Commission was established in 1971 under the Law Reform Commission Act. Its role was to systematically study and review Canada's laws. It did three main types of research: substantive criminal law, criminal proceedings and administrative law.
In its last year of existence, the commission had a budget of $5 million. In addition to the commissioners and employees, the commission hired a number of consultants on contract. More than 82 per cent of the commission's expenditures went to salaries and special professional services-primarily university researchers and lawyers hired as consultants for short periods. In this area, the accent is on research and not on practical management.
Unrealistic research programs and astronomical costs were the two main reasons the government of the day chose to abolish the commission.
When the commission was dismantled, the Department of Justice received interim credits so that the work that was furthest along could be completed, particularly the work in the multiculturalism and justice project, undertaken at the request of the minister.
In addition, in June 1993, Treasury Board gave final approval to the funding needed for the Department of Justice to set up and implement a long term law reform strategy. One of the aims of the program was to provide the department with the resources it needed to study more law reform issues internally, for example, by paying experts on a contract basis in the areas under study; to work with other organizations such as the Quebec law reform institute and other major institutions in the field of justice.
The annual budget for projects in the law reform division ranges from $500,000 to $600,000. The studies funded by the division dealt not only with multiculturalism and justice but also with a whole range of problems related to law reform such as human rights, euthanasia, changes to the preliminary investigation procedure, jury selection and many others.
The division now includes three full time and one part time employees. The minister wants to set up a new commission when there is already a competent staff ready to respond to the government's requests.
The division is doing a very good job. The minister could very well entrust this law reform division with all the work needed to direct and reform Canadian law and to find innovative solutions to endemic problems. When I think about how this government is slashing the budgets of the NFB, Telefilm Canada and the CBC, I feel like hitting someone.
The Canadian government would rather waste $3 million a year on a commission that will carry out consultations. The Minister of Justice finds it desirable to appoint 29 federalist friends to this commission. The minister of consultation may not like it, but Bloc members will not be fooled. Ironically, it is the law reform division that, in May 1994, distributed a consultation paper and questionnaire on the creation of a new law reform commission to 884 individuals and organizations.
Of the 884 questionnaires that were mailed out, 126 were returned to the department. These are the extensive consultations referred to in the bill's preamble. Former members and researchers of the old commission were undoubtedly consulted. However, it is not so clear that consultations were held outside that community. But the consultation paper and questionnaire were distributed to all senators and members of the House of Commons.
One thing is clear: the provinces as legal entities were overlooked. The desire to seek out people's views is expressed several times in Bill C-9 but nowhere in the text could I find some concern about consulting the provinces as major stakeholders in Canada's legal community. According to the constitutional distribution of legislative powers, the federal government must legislate in its areas of jurisdiction. By creating a new commission, the federal government may well overstep its jurisdiction.
What concerns me the most is that the new commission's mandate is, and I quote: "to study and keep under systematic review, in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the common law and civil law systems, the law of Canada and its
effects with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform that- meets the changing needs of Canadian society and of individuals in that society".
In light of this statement of principle, we must conclude once again that the federal government is seeking to centralize reforms and to standardize legislation across the country without taking regional disparities into consideration and above all without considering Quebec in its study and review of both legal systems in Canada. It is outrageous on the federal government's part to claim to be reforming and reviewing ing Quebec's civil law, since it has absolutely no jurisdiction.
The Minister of Justice should reread carefully section 92 of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is very upsetting to see him condone such inappropriate legislation. What are the real motives and goals of federal authorities concerning the new commission's role? Will the commission be yet another centralizing instrument? Is this not an indirect way of doing what is prohibited by the Constitution? The federal government's intentions are clear: It wants to standardize the law, whether civil or criminal, across the country.
The unavowed dream of federal authorities is to move into various areas of provincial law under the cover of direct consultations with the public, while ignoring the provinces. They want a single federal law from coast to coast.
This emphasis on the consultation by the commission can only be done at the expense of the research component, particularly if its budget is two million dollars less than that of the former commission, even with the use of new communication technologies. Indeed, these technologies involve costs which will probably be as high as the travel expenses incurred by the former commission, if not higher.
One has to wonder how an agency such as this one, with an annual budget of $3 million, can truly conduct or commission research and develop various programs to that end, while also holding major public consultations.
Bill C-9 provides that the research and analysis responsibilities that are incumbent on a reform commission will be assumed primarily by various social bodies independent from the commission itself. This is how the federal government will ensure the financing of its initiative.
Indeed, the Minister of Justice seeks to have the provinces indirectly finance research activities relating to law reform by having such activities conducted by university research centres, and even the Institut québécois de réforme du droit.
Under cover of a partnership and a streamlining of resources, the federal government is once again showing us that we have to keep a close eye on it. The cost of the research conducted by the commission will be borne by the provinces.
The mandarins in Ottawa, led by the Minister of Justice, view the provinces, and Quebec in particular, as nothing more than pressure groups, on the same footing as a gun manufacturers association, a seniors club or a chamber of commerce.
The bottom line is that the field of action of the new commission will not be limited to federal law. On the contrary, it appears from the policy statement and the preamble that the federal government will not make any bones about stepping into the provinces' fields of jurisdiction. The consultation paper published May 16, 1994 was already ominous. It says, and I quote: "-the need for law reform stems from the inability of existing laws to deal effectively with problems, and the root causes of those problems often involve the complex interaction of social, economic, health, education, and other factors".
What is the most worrying is that, with Bill C-9, Quebec loses its guarantee of representation on the commission. In effect, subsection 4(3) of the old Law Reform Commission Act guaranteed that two of the five commissioners came from Quebec. Not only is the federal government not consulting Quebec in the areas that concern it, but it is also excluding it outright by not having a representative from our province.
In addition to the absence on the commission of Civil Code experts from Quebec, the skills and abilities of the commissioners are extremely vague. I note in passing that the government has completely ignored the recommendation by the Canadian Bar Association that women be represented equally in the composition of the commission.
If we look at clause 7 of Bill C-106, before it went to committee, all we find is the following passage, and I quote:
- As a group, the Commissioners should be broadly representative of the socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canada and represent various disciplines.
In committee, we attempted to reason with government members, but they turned a deaf ear. At the very most, and as often happens with this government, we are left with an empty shell, in the form of clause 7(3) as it now stands:
7.(3) As a group, the Commissioners should be broadly representative of the socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canada, represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of the common law and civil law systems.
This means that, if the commissioners have a knowledge of the civil law, they do not have to come from Quebec. What explanation can there be for this lack of logic? What explanation can there be
for the only province in Canada with civil law and which comprises one quarter of the Canadian population not being represented on the commission?
The federal government's intention to shove Quebec aside is still more obvious in the English version of Bill C-9. It states, and I quote, that the commissioners "represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of the Common law and Civil law systems". In the English version, then, they need only reflect a degree of knowledge of the Quebec system and can, just as easily as not, come from British Columbia or the Yukon. This is shameful.
Not only does the federal government wish to interfere with areas that are not within its jurisdiction, but it has the audacity to do so in a cavalier fashion. This is a situation in which incompetence comes very close to deception.
The composition of the Supreme Court ought to have been the exampled followed. The Supreme Court Act calls for at least three of the nine judges to be from Quebec. It is totally logical for the highest court in Canada to reflect the two legal systems in the country. Why did the Minister of Justice not subscribe to the same logic?
A final consequence of the federal approach is that, by allowing the future commission to address provincial law, the provinces face the risk of bowing to pressure for uniformization. This will be even stronger, to the point of being unbearable, if the provinces do not have a hand in determining the composition of the commission and its mandate, and in approving that mandate. For this reason alone, Bill C-9 is unacceptable.
This is not all. Unlike the former Law Reform Commission Act, clause 4 of the bill accords less importance to the new commission's research role and focusses more on lucrative and other organizational and promotional activities. This contradiction is striking, to say the least.
These new requirements are indeed surprising and a long way from the role that should be played by a commission responsible for reforming the law and carrying out the mission set out in clause 3 of the bill. The reason is simple. The Minister of Justice wants to make his commission into a propaganda tool through a basic shift in its mandate.
Not only is he broadening the scope of the commission in order to encroach in areas of provincial jurisdiction, not only is he dropping Quebec's representation on this commission, but he has the gall to use his new commission as a marketing tool to promote federal interests.
How do you expect the Bloc to support such a bill? The minister wants us to believe that his commission will be independent. In clause 3, the bill clearly provides, and I quote, that:
The purpose of the Commission is to study-the concepts-of the common law and civil law systems-with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform-
This is bunk. The appointments of the five commissioners are clearly partisan. It reeks of payment for loyal services. The five commissioners will be appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Department of Justice. The commissioners will also be appointed during pleasure. In other words, they will be relieved of their duties if they are unsuitable and fail to follow the party line and the legislative program of the government in power.
Following their appointment, the commissioners then appoint the members of the advisory council. There will be 24 of them. They too are appointed during pleasure. They are not paid for what they do, but do receive travel and living expenses. These 29 people will make up the Law Commission of Canada. With 29 partisan appointments, the Minister of Justice is creating his own fan club of intellectuals, who will philosophize over the ins and outs of the law.
They will be so far removed from reality, that the Minister of Justice will soon realize his error and put an end to this commission.
In a different but equally important connection, any reform agency has problems inherent to its nature and mandate. The former commission never overcame the intrinsic problem of time. The more complex and lengthy the bill, the longer its consideration takes and, consequently, the higher the chances that the sociopolitical context has changed drastically between the time when the commission started studying the bill and the time when it finished, which makes it more difficult to adopt reform proposals as submitted.
The former commission was severely criticized in this respect by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada in the House of Commons. In 1985, the auditor general's office conducted an in-depth audit of the operation and management of the former commission. In his report, the auditor did not mince his words about the project management approach of the commission.
One excerpt speaks volumes; it says, in essence, the following: "Since 1972, the commission has neither reviewed its initial research program nor submitted a further program, in spite of the fact that its work has changed considerably. There were also major delays in the implementation of its research program and major cost overruns compared to 1972 cost estimates. For example, not one of the completion deadlines were met, and in many cases, projects have yet to be completed 10 years after the original completion date".
In paragraph 10.30 of his report, the auditor general points out that the absence of written guidelines and procedures has caused deficiencies in the commission's contracting process. The report cites among other examples the fact that the basis for selecting
various consultants or researchers were not put in writing. The report concludes that, unless it goes to tender, the commission should justify its choices in writing to ensure that any given choice was reasonably motivated.
Bill C-9 does not act on the auditor general's recommendations. A follow-up audit conducted by his office in 1998 showed that, three years after it was initially recommended that it do so, the former commission still had not undertaken a comprehensive review of its program effectiveness.
If I interpret the commissioners' complaints correctly, the former commission was in greater need of direction and control than of an arm's length situation and mandates as broad as they are ill-defined. The justice department never assumed its responsibility as a regulatory body. The situation had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the government did not have a choice any more. It had to get rid of the commission and integrate some of its resources into the Department of Justice, hence the establishment of the law reform division.
I would like to say that the justice minister cannot be serious when he describes the future commission as a streamlined law reform commission of Canada. If he was serious about streamlining, he would let it be. A streamlined commission already exists within his department.
The Minister of Justice did not learn from the mistakes of the former commission. He chose to ignore the report in which the auditor general severely criticized the former commission. It has not gotten through to him yet that there is already, within his own department, a division whose sold purpose is to reform Canadian law. By failing to learn from past mistakes, he runs the risk of making the same mistakes.
Moreover, and the minister will not be warned again, Quebec will not be fooled by this cheap trick aimed at invading its areas of jurisdiction, spending public money needlessly in the process. The Bloc Quebecois cannot condone this kind of manoeuvring.
