Peter MacKay

[Judges Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some remarks with respect to Bill C-12, the Judges Act, which deals specifically with the compensation and remuneration of judges.

We have had an opportunity to review some of the technical amendments. These amendments correct some of the language in the bill to ensure that there is parity, that the French and English versions correspond exactly.

Some of the minor amendments are very technical in nature, for example: clause 12, line 9, removes the language “plus $2,000”; clause 23, section 44.01(6), line 9, amends the English version with “takes effect on the day this section comes into force”.

The Conservative Party supports these amendments and any attempt to ensure consistency in legislation. These amendments would affect approximately 1,000 federally appointed judges. When it comes to the issue of whether it is deserved, I would make the case that judges deserve a fair compensation package given the stress that is involved, the important work, and the ongoing and increasing complexity of the law.

It is also necessary to note the importance of independence when it comes to our judiciary. Some individuals have talked about comparing judges' salaries to those of others in the public sector. There is some danger in doing that. Judges play a very unique role, as do other public servants. However, to try to somehow bring into play the underpayment of armed forces personnel, the need to give greater compensation to the policing community, those in the administrative justice community, leaves the wrong impression and tries to diminish the importance of what judges do. It is a very complex melee that is somewhat like the pay equity argument we have embarked on at various times in the Chamber.

The complexity of the law, the way in which the law has evolved and the interpretation that goes on daily in the courtrooms across the country, is something that is very onerous for judges. We had a comprehensive bill yesterday on organized crime. It is a step in the right direction, but it is legislation that would probably lead to a number of court challenges. That emphasizes the impact of changes in legislation. It also emphasizes the necessity for judges to deal with it and to put in place a proper judicial interpretation of the legislative initiatives that are taken here.

Fortunately, in Canada we have not seen any active attempts, at least that have been reported, to influence the judiciary by organized crime, but we must be vigilant. We must maintain the scales of justice and ensure that justice continues to be blind to outside influences on decisions made by the judiciary. We must ensure that it never happens. Part of this, I would suggest, comes from a fair compensation package.

We must ensure that our judiciary is independent, at arm's length and is feeling secure in their occupation. Thus, our party would support an attempt for a fair salary to preserve judicial independence. The Conservative Party has a long standing interest in the administration of justice and in ensuring that the judiciary are given support. Much of that support must come from financial stability.

The government accepted the recommendations that came from an independent Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The board made recommendations after broad consultations and examinations of all economic factors that should have been considered.

First reading of the bill occurred on February 21, 2001, and the Judges Act would implement the recommendations made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The legislation does not come out of thin blue air. It came about from recommendations of an independent commission. It also followed a 1997 supreme court decision that established new constitutional requirements for determining compensation, requiring every Canadian jurisdiction to have an independent, objective and effective commission. It takes away the normal allegations that we often see pertaining to interference and an unfair process.

The bill would also increase salaries and allowances, improve the judicial annuities scheme and put in place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges. It would make consequential amendments to the Judges Act and Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.

In recent years, because of the increasing complexity of the law, although there is no shortage of applicants, many judges weigh heavily the decision to leave private practice and enter into a new form of service to the law. That decision, I am sure, is one that many members can appreciate for many members of parliament have left behind other careers to come and serve their country in this Chamber. It is very much analogous to the decision that judges take when leaving their profession to serve a higher calling, to serve the courts and their country in the form of interpretation and administration of the law.

In recent years there has been growing concern for some decisions made by judges. However, I would suggest that this is not reason enough to deny that judges play a crucial role. Organized crime is on the rise in Canada. It was addressed somewhat yesterday with the introduction of a package of changes to our laws. New legislation, such as this one, goes some distance to addressing this very serious matter, but it is crucial that judges would now be required to interpret this law.

Like many other institutions, we have seen judges in recent years come under attack for their salaries and the compensation they receive when compared to the low end of compensation. It sometimes seems somewhat askew, but I would encourage people to keep in perspective the salaries that are received at the high end, that is, the salaries that are sometimes paid to athletes and movie stars, and the role they play and the return they offer to society. It is important to look at the entire scheme when one considers the pay scale.

The judicial compensation and benefits commission has been appointed to a four year mandate. It is required to consider all these factors in arriving at its recommendations. When one considers the private sector scale in the area of the law, many judges take a pay cut upon assuming a role on the bench. There are many lawyers who are making modest salaries, for example those who continue to strive to administer the law in crown attorney offices.

Legal aid is often not mentioned in these deliberations. There are many legal aid lawyers who later go on to make significant contributions in courtrooms in their current occupations. They also go on to serve the country nobly as members of the bench, as judges.

Arguably it is the best training ground. I have often compared it to a MASH unit when it comes to triage and the medical profession. Legal aid lawyers and crown attorneys who are working in provincial and supreme courts across the country go on to become fantastic judges. I have borne witness to that myself. I had the opportunity to work with some individuals who later were elevated to the bench.

Referring back to the commission, its recommendations were based on research comparing judges' salaries to lawyers' salaries in the private sector and to performance bonuses of senior federal deputy ministers. It looked at the importance of salary and benefits in attracting the best of the best, the outstanding candidates that we require to administer the law.

The Judges Act would officially establish the judicial compensation and benefits commission, requiring the commission to convene every four years and report its recommendations within nine months. There is a very strict mandate and timeframe within which it must review the adequacy of judicial compensation. The commission would also consider the economic conditions at the time, the cost of living, overall economic position of federal judges, the financial security of the judiciary to ensure judicial independence, and the need to attract the best of the best.

Recommendations are not binding but the supreme court in its decisions requires the government to publicly justify any decision and acceptance of recommendations. These salary changes have already been put on the record. They range in the area of $200,000 for the Chief Justice of Canada, the puisne judges, and various federal court judges across the country.

The increasing complex legal malaise that faces judges and lawyers is something that we must consider when weighing the question of compensation. There has been quite a lengthy commentary about the need to compensate members of the RCMP, members of our armed forces and other public servants.

It is not to deny in any way that those salaries must be reviewed and elevated as well. It is not to suggest that if we compensate judges fairly we should not be focusing attention on these areas as well, or to deny that there are other very important pieces of legislation in the legal field that we should be examining.

Other members have mentioned the need to bring forward a youth criminal justice act and the important fact that after seven years it has not happened. There is also a need to examine a plethora of other legislative initiatives. We have seen the government's failings and shortcomings when it comes to addressing issues of the day.

Our party supports the concept that we must move on a number of areas in the near future. It is not to suggest that the bill should be given any great priority. It is the government's decision to set the priorities in terms of the legislative timetable. It is in everyone's interest to move the legislation before us forward and to get on to other important issues of the day. When that happens it would allow some of these other fields to be considered. When the legislation receives passage we can then look at other areas in terms of compensation.

[Canada Elections Act, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Bloc member for bringing forward this motion in amendment. It is a sincere attempt to improve upon a bill which is rather narrow and rather focused in its content. It is a response to a supreme court decision in Queen v Figueroa that basically looked at the definition of a political party as it appears on a ballot and at the requirement to have a certain number of candidates in an election to qualify for the right to have a name denoted on a ballot.

This debate is somewhat digressing into a broader issue. A number of members have a very legitimate interest in the issue. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been a longstanding abolitionist of the Senate. He brings a great deal of knowledge and history to the debate. We have heard his facts as well as the comments of other members about what they would prefer to see.

As a member of the Conservative Party I am quite proud of the fact that real efforts were made to reform, improve and modernize the Senate. Major initiatives were put before the country. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords dealt in great detail with the ways in which we could approach the Senate.

There are recent converts to the cause who suggest the Conservative Party has perpetuated the existence of the Senate. There were very legitimate attempts to bring the Senate into the modern era. In fairness, when we look at the model in Great Britain, the mother of all parliaments, we see that country struggling with its upper house.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle also talked about the history of the provinces, particularly the province of Quebec which most recently went through this debate and in its wisdom decided to do away with its upper chamber.

There is a very legitimate basis to the motion that has been put forward today. On behalf of the Conservative Party I would reluctantly say that this is not the way to go about it. It should not be done in a piecemeal fashion. I do not say that in a derogatory sense, but to exempt the Senate from certain legislation while allowing it to continue to perform its function on other legislation is not the way to go about changing the current system. It is not the approach we would advocate.

There is a legitimate concern when we are talking about elections. This legislation is about elections, yet senators do not subject themselves to elections.

However, to suggest that we simply exempt them from the process of sober second thought, of examination of legislation on this one bill as opposed to other bills, is not the approach we would advocate.

As a member of the Conservative Party I do not shy away from involving myself. The party has never shied away from looking at how we bring the Senate into the modern era, if at all. There are many members in our party and many senators who realize that the system cannot currently bump along and continue to exist in its present form. It is not acceptable. It is not something that the overwhelming majority of Canadians accept.

The Senate, as it has in the past, continues today to perform a very legitimate service, although the fashion in which it is constructed is not in favour with most Canadians. It is not popular or politically correct to praise senators, but there are many in the Senate who currently take their role extremely seriously. They serve the country with great distinction. They come to the Senate with skills that are of great assistance and they continue to be a great asset.

It is wrong to suggest that because senators have never been elected it is illegitimate that they sit in the upper chamber and preside over medicare improvements, justice issues or issues that affect Canadians in a fundamental way.

There was a gathering this morning in the foyer of the Senate where they were discussing ways in which the medical community could work closer with politicians, both elected and unelected, to improve our health care system. Liberal Senator Kenny presided over a Senate committee that has brought forward many good ideas which form the basis of the upcoming study that will be chaired by the prominent former premier, Mr. Roy Romanow.

It is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we rush headlong into Senate abolition there is a risk of losing a great repository of information, knowledge and ability. That would be a shame if that were to happen.

I am not in favour of the amendment. There is a time and a place to go into the issue of Senate reform and the ways we can improve our entire democratic system. There are ways we can improve our electoral system and the voting process which is the basis of how this place exists and how we interact with Canadians at election time. However, to vilify the institution in its entirety and to denigrate individual members is not the approach that I would put forward.

There are recent converts. The Canadian Alliance has a senator. It is quite interesting how its approach has softened so much, now that there is a senator in its midst. We have to be at least intellectually honest when we are discussing this issue. There have been offers in the past for members of the New Democratic Party to join the Senate. To their credit they have remained consistent in their position on how they would approach the Senate.

The motion focuses on removing the Senate from how legislation would proceed. If we are to do it, we should do it in an overall fashion, not by exempting Senate deliberations on singular bills, which is what the amendment would accomplish.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

There is a ban in P.E.I. because of potato wart.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

Just before the election.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

And women.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a brief question to bring some focus back to the debate.

It is unfortunate that we have seen these personal jibes going on here for the past number of hours. However to get to the point of the motion, the evidence is mounting. There is sufficient reason to take it out of the bear pit that is the House of Commons and put it into the hands of an impartial and objective forum.

I strongly suggest that the only way to bring closure to the issue is to remove the partisanship and give the issue to a judicial or public inquiry. Would the hon. member not agree that would be ample opportunity for the Prime Minister to exonerate himself? If there is compelling evidence to suggest there was no conflict, such a non-partisan forum would be an ideal way to establish the truth.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to first address the issue of bringing in other people's families or personal attacks. Obviously, Mr. Carle, Mr. Pelletier and others in the PMO palace guard have a direct involvement in this. This is not somehow a superfluous attack on individuals. These individuals were acting on behalf of the Prime Minister. They were making interventions directly to his benefit. So to suggest somehow that I have gone far afield in chastising or spreading slurs against anyone outside of the Prime Minister's immediate circle is complete rubbish.

To the point itself, the hon. member also has legal training. He knows that document is very suspect. There are no witnesses to the document. We do not know where it was signed. There were no resolutions attached to it. It referred inaccurately to 22% of the shares when we know it was actually 25%. There are numerous inconsistencies in the document. The hon. member, as someone with legal background, knows that this type of very speculative document may or may not stand up in a court of law.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Calgary who I also understand has a background in criminal law as a police officer. He served the Canadian public in that capacity. He asked a very relevant question.

As I understand it, the RCMP did not conduct an investigation. No relevant witnesses were interviewed. It did not go far afield. It did not interview anyone, as far as I am aware, who could have shed light on this particular investigation.

More directly to his point, the conflict of interest that is alleged here is not one of criminal jurisdiction. It is an issue that arises because of a code of conduct entered into by the Prime Minister. More importantly, it is a code of conduct that the Prime Minister enters into with the Canadian public. He owes a duty to the Canadian public not to put himself in an apparent or real conflict, which is what has happened here. Even if he had no interest whatsoever in that golf course, his actions in enhancing the businesses of a former partner, his partners in the golf course and his close association with all of this property should in and of itself have barred his intervention with the Business Development Bank, and he would not have sullied his name or his office if he had followed that simple maxim.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this motion and in particular to share my time with the former prime minister, whose career, whose service to Canada and whose reputation are impeccable in the House.

As has been stated already, it is quite a sad attempt, and I would go so far as to say a pathetic attempt, by the government to deflect attention from the issue when we see the desperate references, even to go so far as to try to insult a person's family. I am surprised, frankly, that Liberal members on the opposite side of the House would, in their own conscience, sit by and cheer in their churlish, childish way those attempts to distract attention from the real issue.

We know what the real issue is. It is here and it has been defined in this motion as one calling for an independent, judicial, public inquiry into the affairs surrounding the Prime Minister's business transactions in his riding of Shawinigan.

The facts now on the public record are such that there is a mounting case, whether it be public opinion or whether it be evidence if it were before a criminal court, that would suggest there are irrefutable facts that the Prime Minister put himself deliberately in a conflict of interest by his business dealings and by his direct interventions with the Business Development Bank of Canada.

For many years it has been a longstanding accepted tradition that government would not deal directly with arm's length corporations that were set up to serve the public. This is what has happened.

The Prime Minister directly called the president of the Business Development Bank with the full knowledge that he had an interest in a golf course that was adjoining the hotel. He lobbied on behalf of that same hotel, in which he once held an interest, to give it public money, and this is the key. Public money in the amount of $615,000 was put into the hotel that was directly adjacent to the golf course while the Prime Minister still had a financial interest in that golf course. It is not rocket science. It is not any sort of a legal leap of faith to suggest that the Prime Minister had a stake in the approval of the loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère.

The evidence surrounding this and the attempts by the Liberal government to obscure, to cloud, to somehow make murky the clear evidence that the Prime Minister made this intervention from direct denials in the House, from letters and media manipulation on the part of the Prime Minister and some of his poisoned partisans like Warren Kinsella is very much something that should concern the Canadian people. People should be concerned about the efforts and the lengths at which the government has gone to obscure the truth.

Attempts to penetrate what has taken place through clear questions in the House, very straightforward penetrating questions, have been brushed aside. There has been continual public slurs of individuals' names, their records and their families. This again heightens the frustration and I would suggest the animosity of this debate.

There are clear indications now that the Prime Minister obviously did not have his shares in a blind trust, even though that was misstated on the floor of the House by himself and his trained protector, the Minister of Industry. There have been clear contradictions on the public record about the actions of Mr. Jean Carle, who lived in the Prime Minister's basement and who was his anointed son. He is the same individual who was dispatched to the Business Development Bank as a courier of PMO speaking points for the Business Development Bank president. The Prime Minister stood here and said there was no involvement of Mr. Carle on that file, which was completely false.

There is clear evidence that even Jean Pelletier, the Prime Minister's personal Rasputin, involved himself in this matter. He indicated that Mr. Carle was not introduced to the president of the Business Development Bank by him at a hockey game in Montreal. That in fact was a fallacy.

There have been many occasions where the Prime Minister could have been forthcoming. He could have come before the Canadian people and used the House as his forum to set the record straight. Instead he has done the opposite. He has taken every occasion to run from the truth and add further fuel to the fire by selectively releasing documents that try to exonerate him. It is now clear that this was very much an after the fact attempt to corroborate or somehow exonerate the Prime Minister. We know that this was not full disclosure.

As required by law, in a legal sense, in a criminal court full disclosure is necessary. The crown cannot decide whether to give little dribs and drabs of evidence to the defence to make its case. It has to give full disclosure. That obviously has not happened here. What we have seen are documents resembling, in the case of the supposed bill of sale, something that a couple of kids would write with a crayon on the back of a napkin at a Kool-Aid stand. This is not the type of documents or documentation we would expect from two millionaires with legal training.

Let us debunk the myth about the little guy from Shawinigan. This is the big enchilada from Ottawa with whom we are dealing. This is a multimillionaire who just wanted to get paid. He stated quite clearly in the House that he just wanted to get paid.

What does that denote? A financial interest, even though he maintained repeatedly and still maintains that he sold his shares in 1993. There is a very clear question here. Why is the name of the Prime Minister's company still appearing on documents in 1999, six years later? Obviously, a financial interest remained.

There are more mounting contradictions. The more we delve into it, it is like an onion. The more we peel away, more questions emerge. The government has gone to great lengths to try to obfuscate what has taken place. This plethora of contradictions remains.

We know we are supposed to put all assets in a blind trust when one enters the office. If a person is in cabinet, all the assets go into a blind trust. That obviously did not happen. There was a $300,000 debt owing and it was not declared. The incredible efforts that are being made here should be cause for alarm. Canadians deserve better, particularly from the Prime Minister. They have suffered now for several years this sad spectacle of the Prime Minister twisting and turning in the wind over the auberge affair.

It is a very complicated tale but at the very root of it is a simple matter. It is one of conflict of interest. It is one of a Prime Minister retaining a financial interest in a property while trying to enhance a nearby property. The government even tried to deny the connection between the golf course and the hotel, as did the industry minister and the very partial and involved ethics counsellor. It is absolutely false to suggest somehow that the hotel would not benefit from having the golf course or the golf course would not benefit from the hotel. Canadians are not that naive.

No one needs a business or real estate background to understand. The hotel includes in its literature the presence of the golf course nearby. The comments now on the public record from the owner, the good friend of the Prime Minister, Mr. Duhaime who bought the hotel from the Prime Minister stated under oath that he in fact relied on the golf course for business. To try to deny the obvious is really a sad spectacle on the part of the government.

The Prime Minister's credibility is very much at stake, as is the credibility of other individuals involved in the issue. The ethics counsellor, not to attack him personally, cannot have a shred of objectivity or credibility in this. He reports to the Prime Minister. His livelihood depends on the Prime Minister. It is unfair to even suggest that somehow he could fairly judge the circumstances. Even if he could, he could not report to parliament because the Prime Minister has set it up in such a way.

The truth is out there. We simply have to have a forum to get at the truth. A full judicial public inquiry would provide us with that opportunity. We have to submit the facts before that objective trier and that would very much satisfy the opposition. The Canadian public are calling for a public inquiry.

What would have happened in the cases of Milgaard, Morin and Marshall if there had been no opportunity to go back and revisit the facts and if they had not been given an opportunity to bring forward new evidence, put the matter behind them and shed light on this issue?

There is an old legal maxim that says guilt always hides from the light. The attempts that have been made on behalf of the government to keep the Canadian people in the dark clearly indicate there is more to this issue. The public deserves better. A full judicial inquiry would allow the public to put the issue behind them. It would allow the Prime Minister to put this behind him.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

You are on a high road now.