Peter MacKay

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 12th, 1998]

With regard to the application by the province of Nova Scotia to Revenue Canada for a $16 million refund to compensate a tax overpayment made by Nova Scotia Power, Inc. when it was a crown corporation: (/a/) what is the status of the review of this application by the Department of Justice; and (/b/) when will the department release its decision, if it has not done so already?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 12th, 1998]

Which ministers of the Government of Canada visited the Drummondville-Trois-Rivières vicinity between August 2, 1996 and June 2, 1997?

[Petitions, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition also from the riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough calling upon parliament to reaffirm the concept of marriage to ensure that the traditional concept of marriage is preserved and protected in Canada.

I also table this petition on behalf of my constituents.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough with respect to changing the Young Offenders Act.

They call upon parliament to inject, among other things, greater measures of parental responsibilities and to make changes to the Young Offenders Act that will increase accountability by youth involved in crime.

It gives me great pleasure to table the petition in the House today on behalf of my constituents.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and pleased as well to gain further insight from the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

Hon. members such as he who have been in this place a long time have different perspectives on this issue from a new member of parliament. That is the case with many of the members in the Progressive Conservative Party. We are here for the first time, a year as of June 2.

I think there is some important insight to be gained from members such as he who have indicated yes on the 2% raise in terms of merit, in terms of whether it is deserved. The hon. member has said he would defend that position. I would agree with that and the Progressive Conservative Party takes that stance.

However, it is an issue of timing. With respect to that, the Progressive Conservative Party has taken the stance that given the sustained high level of unemployment in this country, given the average salary of the average Canadian, we do not feel this is the time to implement such a raise.

With respect to the other element of Bill C-47, the element that would pertain mainly to the official opposition, the Reform Party, once again when one looks at merit those members should be treated no different from any other member of Parliament. In essence we feel they should be welcome back into the pension plan in whatever form they choose, whether the severance type of arrangement or the regular pension plan.

However, it is important that sanctimony be left at the door and that it should also be left out of the press releases. We all need to be a little prudent as to what we say not only here on the floor but at home in our constituencies. When I return to Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough I am sure I am going to receive questions about this. Every individual member is going to be forced to have a gut check. They are going to be forced to check their conscience and decide what they choose to do if this raise is passed through the House today.

When one looks at the bigger picture as to what MPs receive in terms of remuneration and the work done here, one has to take a wider view and see what salaries are paid in other professions, doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, professional entertainers and heads of corporations. One has to make a comparison in those areas when looking at this increase. I am sure there is going to be a great deal of scrutiny about it in the coming days.

There is certainly an element of sensitivity about Bill C-47, but the discussion that has taken place here today and the opportunity that members and parties have had to put their perspective forward is an important one.

Once again I indicate that we are not supporting the legislation because we cannot pick and choose elements of the bill we want to see implemented and what elements we do not want to see implemented. We find ourselves in the position of not supporting it wholeheartedly.

The political angling and the reality of what is going to occur is important. I hope a lesson was learned in all this. A lesson in process may have been absorbed. There has been a great deal of criticism about a perceived gold plated pension by the Reform Party and a great deal of political hay was made out of that characterization over the years. Reformers now find themselves in the official opposition status. They have moved forward in their political aspirations.

I could not help but notice in the remarks of the House leader of the Reform Party the reference to when they achieve government. Pipe dream is the word that comes to mind. If the Leader of the Opposition chooses to take clothing allowances, housing allowances like Stornoway, a car allowance, all those things, while in opposition, one can only shudder to think what would happen if he were ever to achieve his aspirations of the prime minister's office.

I am not going to engage in partisan remarks but that is on the record observation. Bill C-47 has been brought to the floor and I guess the timing is suspect with but a day remaining. It was a government priority to bring this bill forward and that has to be questioned in terms of why we would bring this to the House of Commons on the day before it closes.

We choose not to support the legislation and yet we are going to be subject to criticism too because there is no opting out provision. The hypocrisy is there for all to see. We can choose not to support it yet we will be the beneficiaries of it. Those will be the glaring remarks in the editorials.

There is no option. It is a piece of legislation that allows us no option but to take the raise. There should not be different levels of members of parliament, those who are receiving a certain set pay compared to what other members of parliament receive.

There has also been reference made to what individuals may choose to do with that 2% increase accrued over the life of this parliament. I do not think here in the House of Commons or in the media is the place to talk about what individual members choose to do with it, whether they choose to put a percentage of their salary into a certain charity or name those charities. That is an individual choice every member is going to be forced to make.

The opportunity is there for Canadians to judge for themselves as they will and to choose how to react to this and ultimately come the general election they will choose to make this a large issue or a small issue. In the grand scheme of things, it is not a major issue for most Canadians. More important issues will come to the floor, one would hope, on the national agenda and then we can earn our pay, so to speak. Canadians can then judge for themselves what members have earned their pay. Those results will no doubt be seen at the time of the next general election.

The timing of this is suspect and it also comes in very close proximity to Bill C-37 which would also raise the salaries of judges. I am sure there is an inevitable comparison that will be made again between the decision of this government to bring forward those types of legislative initiatives so close to the end of this parliament.

On behalf of the Conservative Party all I can say is that we did not ask for it and we did not anticipate it. The members of this party did not run with the expectation that we would be receiving an increased salary. We also did not feel it was a priority at this time.

[Business Of The House, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period. There was some discrepancy about the figures I put before the House and they were questioned by the solicitor general. I would like to table the main estimates so the solicitor general might have an opportunity—

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, here is a number. Three times in the past 20 months solicitors general of this government have promised tough legislation for money laundering but none have been delivered.

The solicitor general knows full well that Bill C-95 in the last parliament did not include mandatory reporting requirements for cross-country currency movement or suspicious financial transactions.

How long do we have to wait before the government puts some teeth into the laws? Will the solicitor general stop the rhetoric and the heel dragging and introduce legislation to give police officers the tools they need to fight organized crime and money laundering?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today we obtained further proof that the RCMP does not have the resources it needs to fight organized crime. Despite existing problems, the solicitor general plans to cut $74.1 million from the RCMP federal policing services, whose main objective is to fight organized crime.

The U.S. state department has already said it considers Canada to be one of the best places in the world for criminals to launder money.

How can the solicitor general justify cutting the RCMP organized crime budget by 13% when Canada is already a haven for money laundering?

[Judges Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his commentary. His remarks reflect a great deal of insight into this area.

With respect to the issue of mandatory minimum sentences which he raised, I tend to agree that judges need to exercise discretion. That is what they do. They exercise discretion daily. The scope, breadth and effect of decisions are sometimes staggering. The effect they can have on the everyday lives of Canadians and of those affected can be very far reaching. However there is a time and place for some limitations on that and those would be imposed by mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code.

It is important to note that increasing victims rights does not necessarily mean decreasing the right of the accused to be presumed innocent. I do not think it is necessarily a proportionate counter to say that any increase in victims rights will result in a decrease in the rights of the accused.

I use as an example the discretion of a judge to use conditional sentences in the area of serious sexual assaults or crimes of violence. There is a need for parliament in that instance to place some restrictions on the discretion of a judge to use a conditional sentence for those types of crime. I do not think that was the intent of parliament when conditional sentences were introduced into the Criminal Code. As is the case with the law, a growing tree moves in different directions. I believe that provision of the code has been misinterpreted.

Impaired driving legislation was another example that was cited by the hon. member. Once again I believe there is a need for changes to the provisions of the Criminal Code as they pertain to impaired driving. There is a need to improve the level of accountability that impaired drivers suffer to their peril when they decide to get behind the steering wheel of a car and potentially put people's lives in jeopardy. If that means upping the ante or improving the provisions of the Criminal Code for sentencing I would encourage those changes.

He also spoke of the discretion judges can exercise in ordering therapy or mandatory treatment for offenders. That is something we should be encouraging, not trying to limit by imposing mandatory use of those provisions in the sentencing provisions of the code.

There is certainly a need for more discussion in this area. I look forward, as I am sure the hon. member does, to trying to improve our justice system and working diligently in that direction.

[Judges Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and speak today on this bill as well. It is always an honour to follow the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria who pointed out that he and I did partake in a protest of sorts in Nova Scotia some time ago. Although I am not prepared to proclaim complete solidarity with the hon. member on political grounds, I guess it is not only politics but professions and personal contacts that sometimes make strange bedfellows as well.

Turning my attention now to the legislation before the House, it is a piece of legislation that we have seen has invoked a great deal of passion and a great deal of provocative commentary within the House of Commons and to some extent a great deal of righteous indignation on the part of some. Much of that I think arises from the issue of the salary increase itself and the fact that judges, as a result of this legislation, will be receiving a significant increase in remuneration.

I think it is important as well to focus on the role of judges and the important task they are charged to perform. Although Bill C-37 does address a lot of other issues such as the commission of salaries and benefits and unified family courts, I think we have to put the salary question in perspective.

We have had an opportunity throughout today's debate and earlier to talk about the important question of the separation of powers in our society. I indicated in earlier remarks and reiterate that judicial independence is definitely the cornerstone of our democracy. There is no question that we in parliament may not always agree with what the courts decide, and there are numerous examples I can think of. The most recent perhaps is the Feeney decision. Parliament has since come to grips with that issue. The broader issue is that there is another body out there, a check on what takes place in parliament.

This body is armed with the charter. The charter has been the subject of much debate in recent years. Parliament once elected, and the important difference being the election of the members of parliament as opposed to the appointment of judges, can at times be heavy handed. Majority governments in particular have a tendency after several years in power or successive mandates to perhaps embark on heavy handed measures which the judiciary may be called on to check. I think that is a very important balance that has to be struck. It cannot be stated often enough or with enough vehemence the importance of having our judiciary independent of the elected body.

On September 18, 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada released a key decision that related to the constitutional requirements of financial security of judges. That decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence and it outlined broad constitutional requirements for the determination of judicial compensation.

The creation of an independent, objective and effective commission is what makes recommendations on aspects of judicial compensation, salaries and benefits possible. This arm's length body, independent of the judiciary, independent of parliament, I think is an important step that this piece of legislation does bring about.

To be independent, commission members must be appointed for a fixed term and the judiciary must nominate one of the members, and to be objective the commission must also use objective criteria to come to its decisions. To be effective, the government must deal with the recommendations of the commission with due diligence and reasonable dispatch.

Bill C-37 creates a body that will in effect set up a commission for any future changes with respect to remuneration. I will be the first to admit that timing in life seems to be everything and the timing of this bill is something that does lead to questions from the opposition, questions from the governing side as well, as to why this piece of legislation is coming through when it is coming through.

The perception out there among the Canadian population may be is this a priority, is this something that should be happening now. Without casting aspersion on the bill, I do cast aspersion on the decision making and the priority setting of this government in the timing of this piece of legislation.

The proposed amendments brought about by Bill C-37 that will, following the supreme court decision, improve the independence and objectivity and effectiveness of salary and benefit remuneration process must be viewed in a positive light. Bill C-37 will also implement the Scott commission's recommendations. The Scott commission recommended that judges' salaries be gradually increased from 8.3% from the date which the salary freeze was lifted, April 1, 1997, and bring about a gradual process rather than a lump sum process.

In the supreme court decision in Beauregard: “Canadian judges are Canadian citizens and must bear their fair share of financial burden of administering the country”. Although judges' salaries will be increased as a result of this piece of legislation, they will obviously be in a tax bracket which will see a significant portion of that salary returned to government, as all Canadians in their various tax brackets.

I certainly share the view echoed in the recent supreme court decision that judicial compensation is a necessary thing when it comes to placing the importance and the significance of the role judges play. I quote from that decision again: “Nothing could be more damaging for the reputation of the judiciary and the administration of justice than a perception that judges are not shouldering their share of the burden in difficult economic times”.

The timing is always questionable. That is perhaps what has led to some of the animosity about when this salary increase is going to be effective. We cannot blind ourselves to the fact that the important role of judges leads to the necessity for making this an attractive job financially.

It has been discussed at the justice committee and it has been raised here in debate that if we are to have individuals willing to give up the practice of law and become appointed and take on that task, there has to be compensation that is at least attractive enough to, in some cases I suggest, result in a pay cut.

I know that what we are talking about here is a salary in excess of $100,000, which is certainly a great deal of money when one considers the average salary of Canadians.

In to Toronto as opposed to New Glasgow, Nova Scotia there is a difference in the salary range. But the suggestion is if we are to have the best and the brightest leave the practice of law and take on the role of a judge, we have to be able to compensate them in a fair way that is at least going to be on par or perhaps in the ballpark of what they were making in private practice.

In deciding what was reasonable, the Scott commission recognized that a complex range of factors had to be considered in establishing an appropriate level of remuneration and that included the need to ensure that levels of compensation did attract the most qualified candidates.

During the hearings in the standing committee I asked on numerous occasions of different witnesses appearing on this issue if salary was an important factor for lawyers in the decision to accept or refuse a judicial appointment. Each and every time, sometimes reluctantly, the answer was yes. It was an important decision.

We can no longer let qualified and excellent private practitioners refuse judicial appointments due to salary alone. If we need to improve the quality of our tribunals and judicial appointments, and certainly this is something we want and strive to do, I believe we cannot simply ignore that salary and compensation is an important factor.

Salaries may very well be one factor but certainly the quality and the process in making those selections is equally important. Although it is somewhat off the topic of this bill, certainly what we want to do is ensure that we do have a process in place that enables input from the various levels of society that are going to be most affected by judicial appointments.

I keep in mind some of the comments made by previous speakers about judges. I am troubled with the perception the Reform Party would leave with the Canadian public on the issue. I am not here to say that all judges are infallible and that decisions are not sometimes bizarre and difficult to understand and stretch the bounds of comprehension. That is one of the human qualities every judge has. We in this House have bad days too. It happens on occasion that a judge makes a terrible decision and that the following day with some circumspect and perhaps a different outlook he or she may have made a completely different decision.

There is no need to engage in what I saw taking place during the debate on this topic that judges themselves are being personally attacked, much in the same way that we see senators personally attacked. It would seem that judges, when they do not religiously follow the Reform Party line, can be denounced as elites. They are denounced as undemocratic and they are described, quoting the words of the hon. member from Wild Rose on March 30, 1998, as greedy little parasitic fraternities that exist across the land.

In my opinion that goes a long way to further undermine public confidence in the judiciary. It does not add anything to the debate.

A basic respect has to exist and this type of personal scathing attack should not occur here or anywhere for that matter. It happens far too often. I think it bears repeating that this is not going to further this debate in any way. There are always those in every profession of whom we will be less than proud but judges, like all professions, are for the majority a number of hardworking professional and committed people who are in the pursuit of justice. That is what is important. They do a very necessary job and at times a very stressful and morally taxing job. We have to try to avoid that type of talk when we can.

There are a number of provincial governments across Canada that have already reacted to the supreme court's decision of increasing judges' salaries. In most cases retroactive adjustments would also have to be made to remedy previous salary cuts and freezes. For the reasons I have outlined, the Conservative Party does not oppose these amendments to the Judges Act to increase the salaries by 4.1% for two years, effective April 1. It is proportionate and we believe it is not a bad thing.

The old expression that you get what you pay for does apply in this instance. The bill also provides for new rules in establishing an independent commission for the responsibility of reviewing salaries and benefits every four years for judges. These rules do not ensure in any certain way that the system will be perfect. However I suggest it goes in the right direction in ensuring that it will be equitable and reflect reality in Canadian society. A four year review seems like a reasonable period of time. The Conservative Party of Canada has concerns that we must always emphasize there will be changes. New proposals may arise. New circumstances may come to light. A four year review process is a necessary step.

As parliamentarians we must also ensure that the commission will be held accountable to parliament and that the process is as transparent as possible. While three members on the commission is a good idea, there will be an appointment by the Minister of Justice, another from the judiciary and the third one by the first two appointees.

One suggestion would be that perhaps the third person should be selected from the bar society. I believe it was the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria that made the suggestion. It is a good suggestion and one that we would support. It would approve accountability and transparency. Another suggestion might be that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have a hand in making that appointment.

The bill provides for a commission that would report every four years. The report would be presented by the Minister of Justice who in return would bring it to the House and table it here. This improves accountability. It improves input and the process itself is elevated as a result. It is certainly a way of doing what the government often talks about and that is having more transparency. I question whether that is happening to the extent that it could.

Another suggestion would be that the commission could be held accountable directly to parliament. Like the human rights commission which reports directly to the House of Commons and not through the minister, this commission could report directly to the House and therefore be held more accountable. It would also allow the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to review the report in a more significant way.

In summary, with respect to this element of the bill and these amendments pertaining to salary, we see them as positive improvements that perhaps could have been brought about in a different way. The timing could have been different, but I believe it is the beginning of a recognition that in the justice system there is a need for more resources.

I do not disagree with the suggestion about other segments of the justice system like legal aid and crown prosecutors who are presently toiling in Nova Scotia under less than ideal conditions. There is a need to improve the situation of frontline police officers. There is a need to have more children's aid societies and more programs aimed at preventing crime. However I believe this is a start. Perhaps it is the top end when it comes to judges but it is a start.

There is also a very important segment of Bill C-37 which deals with the unified family court. Bill C-37 supports the creation and expansion of the unified family court across the country. The Conservative Party supports the model of a unified family court in part because it allows one judge to resolve all family court issues: issues relating to separation, divorce and custody access. This reduces complexity and delay when its comes to the court. This is a problem that many encounter in the court system today.

It would create a system which would ensure that matters are presided over by experts in the area, judges who have an expertise particularly in the area of family matters which can become very complex and emotionally driven. I see it as a positive step.

Unified family court offers services which include information on family law, educational programs on the effects of separation on children, home studies, referrals to counselling and other community services, information on alternatives to litigation, and access to services that include mediation and supervised visits to homes.

These are areas that we should be focusing on. The bill is a step toward improving our system in family courts. Because these services would be available under one roof, public access would be improved as a result.

From the perspective of the children involved, better long term plans can be expected from these changes; lower levels of conflict; quicker resolutions; greater focus on the impact on children; and increased durability of outcomes with emphasis on integrated services, an intense approach to child protection, child support, custody and access. All these things are viewed positively by the Conservative Party.

Bill C-37 will also appoint 27 new federal judges for the unified family court in four provinces, eight in the province of Nova Scotia. We welcome these additions. These amendments will permit the governments and the provinces to improve legal services available to families.

Regarding the pension itself, Bill C-37 provides for changes to the criteria of the supreme court that allow retirement with a full pension. Judges will now have to be 65 or older and have to accomplish at least 10 years of service on the bench prior to their retirement. The Conservative Party does not have difficulty with that change.

In conclusion, we are encouraged generally that these amendments have been brought about in good faith although we question the timing. We believe there could be other improvements as they pertain to the accountability and transparency of the salary and benefits commission. As a whole we support the bill. We are ready to support it because we believe it is a good thing. The bill will bring about some of the changes that we have had the opportunity to discuss. We are thankful for the opportunity to do so.