Rob Anders

[Judges Act, March 12th, 2001]

I hear some squawking on the other side. I know I am hitting home when that happens. I know they are sensitive to this issue.

Despite all these problems with their process, nonetheless the Prime Minister has been democratically elected. If we can choose the Prime Minister democratically in the country, who then goes on to appoint people to the supreme court and to thousands of other positions, many of which are patronage positions including the other place which I like to rant about every now and again, and if he seems to accept the will of the people for his nomination and for his choosing, then by what rational argument do members across the way or anyone in this place say that judges, or any other position for that matter, cannot be democratically elected?

If we choose the man who is supposed to be the head of the government in this place, the Prime Minister, and he is democratically elected as one of the most important decision makers supposedly around, then why would we not choose judges or senators or many other people by democratic election? This makes absolutely perfect sense to me. Yet we have people across the way who will argue one side and then the other side, equivocate and try to muddle this issue by saying it is complex.

Fundamentally it comes down to from where people believe the power is derived. I happen to believe, and I will state it squarely today, that the power is derived from the people. I think they generally make pretty good decisions when they are given the chance.

I have asked many people today about the appointment process, what they think would be a better process than the one we have now. I happen to think that vetting them before a committee at least would be better than what we have. In my ideal scenario I would probably want to have them democratically elected.

I know right now with the process as it stands that people are given justice positions because of political favours they have done for a government. There are people in this place that can try to sideline that by saying that is not the case and by asking how dare I raise questions about these things.

Every one of the people in here, especially the practising lawyers in this place, know all too well that there are people who are given justice positions because of their political favouritism, of their stripe, of their donations or some mishap like that. Frankly there is a better way to go about it and I think the wisdom of the people is a good way to go.

I know that one of my NDP colleagues in this place asked why we would want to have these people determined by committee because the Liberals would just use that as a rubber stamp anyhow; they go ahead and do whatever they want in committee so why would we want a committee to vet it.

I realize that the Liberals abuse the committee process in this place better than pretty much anybody could. They are experts at abusing the committee process, even for their own members like the member for Mississauga East where they severely abused the committee process to try to kill her bill.

I recognize that if these appointments had to go before committee at least they could be some form of questioning. Hopefully we could shed the light of day on some of these appointments. If we cannot actually change what the Liberals decide they want to shove down peoples' throats, we could point out to the public that a person has made large contributions to the Liberal Party or has some sort of connection to someone in government.

It is an issue that deserves a lot more time than what you are giving me, Mr. Speaker. Nonetheless, there are ways we can improve the process by vetting through committee and possibly electing them.

[Judges Act, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for the folks back home, what is happening today? Basically we have a Liberal government that has just come off an election. It did not really have much of a mandate to go to the people with, so it is putting forward a Judges Act which was put forward in the last parliament, and it wants to give a significant raise to judges.

The important thing for people back home to keep in mind, and I will discuss many of the details of the bill, is that rather than bringing forward legislation on the Young Offenders Act in order to strike at serious repeat offenders who are causing all sorts of problems with the legal system, the Liberals want to deal with judges' compensation. The Liberals did not want to talk about the Young Offenders Act. They did not want to deal with serious repeat offenders.

It goes on. The Liberals did not want to deal with consecutive sentencing, where somebody who commits a crime only serves one murder sentence and gets a multiple discount for multiple murders. They did not want to deal with consecutive sentencing so that the individual could serve one sentence after another sentence, which is, by the way, something that the Liberal member for Mississauga East brought up in the House and tried desperately to get her government to adopt. Despite that fact, they tried to kill her bill in committee. Despite that, no, they do not want to talk about consecutive sentencing. The Liberals do not want to deal with issues that have been brought forward by their own members like the member for Mississauga East, a good loyal Liberal who has probably been there for a decade.

The government does not want to listen to that. It does not want to listen to what her constituents have to say on this. Instead it is raising judges' salaries.

I will go on. These Liberals do not want to deal with pedophiles. They say it is okay for people to possess kiddie porn, that the judge's decision on it is all right. They do not want to deal with pedophiles, pedophile legislation and possession of child pornography. No, the top priority for the Liberals when they come back after going out on the stump and getting elected is raising judges' salaries.

Those are Liberal priorities for you. This goes on. They do not want to bring up the idea of a violent sex offender registry. We have people in Canada who have committed multiple rapes, yet does the government come up with an effective strategy to deal with multiple rapists? No. The government paroles them and put them back on the streets.

Instead of dealing with these real and serious issues, what does the government come to us with after an election? It wants to raise judges' salaries.

Let us talk about raising judges' salaries since we are not going to talk about all those other important things that a Liberal justice minister should be bringing forward. We are not going to talk about the things people really want. We are going to talk about what the bureaucrats want. We are going to let them drive the agenda. That is the Liberal way.

Let us talk about this whole idea of how judges are chosen. I take issue with the Prime Minister. I recognize that the Prime Minister was elected yet again by the people in his riding. I would not have voted for him, but at least a plurality of the people in the Prime Minister's riding decided to vote for him. At least he has some sort of mandate. Not only was he elected by some number of people in his own riding, but as well he actually had to get enough delegates at the convention for the Liberal Party. Back in 1990 he was in my home town of Calgary, much to my chagrin. Nonetheless that was where he was elected. He had probably a few thousand people who said they wanted to give this guy the nod.

At least the Prime Minister has been chosen by the delegates within his own party and by the people within his own constituency. It is not as democratic as I might like. I think it would have been better if all Liberal Party members across the country would have voted rather than just the palace guard.

[Judges Act, March 12th, 2001]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Basically the question was this: Does the member have suggestions for improving the selection process?

[Judges Act, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member of course was previously, and I imagine still is, a lawyer himself, so he speaks with some level of knowledge about this, which many others in the country would not have.

I would like to ask him, as I asked the colleague from the New Democratic Party who spoke before him, about what he feels might be a way to improve the appointment process. In his speech he talked a great deal about the compensation judges should be given for the type of job they do. I can appreciate some of the arguments made in that respect, but I know there are abuses in the system.

I will relate to him one example that I am aware of in Calgary, whereby a particular firm was given the nod, as it were, in terms of it being the firm's time to put forward one of its people for a judgeship. Officially it is supposed to be an open process. What happened was that someone who did wills and estates in a particular firm—and I do not want to name that particular firm even though I could here in the House—and who was not a particularly accomplished lawyer sent in an application. When the government received it, it took that application to be the application that the firm in a sense had anointed as its application and that person was appointed.

Later on, two individuals, one of them representing the government, happened to meet on an elevator. The one representing the government said to a senior partner with the law firm that he hoped everything had worked out okay, that the government had received the firm's appointment and everything was taken care of.

The senior partner said that the firm's selection had not yet been made. The government official said that of course the firm had made its selection, that the government had the piece of paper, and he asked if that was not what it was supposed to get. The official said he thought that was what the firm wanted. The lawyer then replied that he did not even know who the individual was and that he would look it up on the letterhead.

He had to look at a list of about 200 lawyers and finally found the lawyer who had been struggling in wills and estates. He then realized that someone had openly sent in a bid and had been given the judgeship.

I tell the story because I know there have been problems. I know that people have been appointed to these positions—

[Judges Act, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member who just gave us his speech with regard to this particular bill is populist. I recognize from the comments he made that he does not see the election of judges as the way he would go. I happen to favour the idea of electing judges, but obviously it does not carry the day with all.

He alluded in his comments to the idea that possibly the appointment process might need to be changed. My question would be along the lines of what ways or suggestions he might propose for changing the appointment process. I happen to like the idea of people being brought before committees, which are responsible in some way or degree for those particular departments, to face some sort of vetting process. There was earlier discussion on this very matter in terms of the process that goes on south of the border, but certainly there are other ways it can be done.

I would just like to mention in the question as well that the way I am familiar with the process working at least in my province, and I am sure it is not the only province that this is done for, is basically along the lines of political favours, whereby a group of cabinet lawyers or possibly, if there is not enough lawyers in the cabinet, the caucus lawyers in a particular party gather around and names of potential appointees are suggested. They run the gauntlet. During the process the lawyers in that particular governing party determine it by saying “Know him, know him, don't know him”. If a person gets enough know hims and general favourable nods, the person gets the appointment. If a person gets more do not know hims, where people say they know him but they do not happen to enjoy his particular political stripe, then he does not get appointed.

The previous comment about people being good donators or good fundraisers does have validity in terms of how people get some of these things. Does the member think that that process is a fairly accurate way of describing some of the ways in which people get chosen to be justices? Does he think that there is some form or process that would be appropriate? What does he particularly think about the idea of running appointees past a cabinet committee that is in the area of responsibility?

[Museums, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few years veteran groups and private donors have been raising money for a new war museum to be built at the former Rockcliffe air station. Right beside the aviation museum and the national military cemetery, this site is a perfect location. At 35 acres it would have ample space to store and display the museum's vast collection of tanks, artillery and even a submarine.

However, just three years before its scheduled completion, the government has now unexpectedly decided to switch locations to LeBreton Flats, which is half the size. This change in plans will not only delay the opening by years but will also significantly reduce the outdoor display area and likely double the original $80 million price tag.

Would it not be wiser to stick with the original plan, which would give us a bigger and better space sooner and without wastefully spending another $80 million? Perhaps the heritage minister could explain this persistent Liberal habit of spending more to get less.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, right from the beginning this issue has been a massive waste of taxpayer money. I agree with the hon. member. I could look at some of the statistics I wish could have been included in the main part of my speech.

There are cancellation penalty costs of $478.6 million. Then the cost of actually upgrading the Sea Kings. Mechanics can only do so much but they have to go ahead and repair them. It is $50 million to upgrade them. Then there are maintenance costs. As I said, for every hour in the air it is 40 hours of maintenance. That is another $750 million. Then there is the cost of the replacement at $2.9 billion for 28 helicopters.

This means that the government is spending close to $5 billion. The original contract was for seven helicopters and would have cost only $3.24 billion. It is an absolute waste of money.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I have been given the opportunity to tell Canadians that Liberals across the way and the member who just asked the question have written it so that they can rule out Cormorant and Sikorsky from competing in the bids.

How will it be a fair bidding process when the government has specifically structured it so that Sikorsky and Cormorant cannot compete? Cormorant won the process fair and square before. Sikorsky is one of the biggest manufacturers in the world of helicopters. They are both ruled out of the bidding process because the PM does not think that meshes with what looks good on his face. That is a shame.

I will tell members a little private story in response to that question. I flew in the Eurocopter when it was brought to Ottawa. My staff and I had an interest in this issue even before I was serving on the Standing Committee for National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I actually flew around in that helicopter.

I asked the officials from Eurocopter about some of the details of the aircraft. They crassly told me, because I do not think they figured out that I was an MP, that it would come down to where the helicopter was assembled. Because of the way the Prime Minister wanted to guide the process for getting jobs, they said the government would not go with the other helicopter. Because of where it would be assembled and because of the jobs that would be in and around the Prime Minister's neck of the woods, the Eurocopter would win. It was driven by the most partisan political considerations of all.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the guilty do not like having their names read out loud. What it boils down to is that the Cormorants were the proper choice. It did not cost the Prime Minister. Who are we kidding? He is using taxpayer dollars in Shawinigan. It actually cost Canadian taxpayers $600 million. Then he decided he needed a political fixer.

Since I cannot name names, he brought in the Deputy Prime Minister as his trusty political fixer. The Prime Minister instructed the Deputy Prime Minister that the Cormorant through another bidding process was not to win. In other words, there would be a contest but the Cormorant or a version of the EH-101 could not be allowed to win. That was the rule. It goes on:

In December 1997, the (Prime Minister) headed south for his usual month of golf, reassured by the military that the Cormorant bid was history. But a funny thing happened on the way to the contracting office. The (Deputy Prime Minister) had to phone the (Prime Minister) in Florida to tell him the Cormorant had won.

They rejigged the process all over again and the Cormorant won fair and square. The Prime Minister's response to the news was described as largely unprintable. Expletives were uttered by the Prime Minister because he hated the fact that the Cormorant won the process by a fair bid.

It talks about a memo from a fellow officer to Air Force Commander L.C. Campbell, whom I have quoted before, which began:

Assuming there will be a competition to select the new maritime helicopter, it is quite possible that the Cormorant might win it.

It went on to ask:

How do you ensure that it does not win a maritime helicopter competition?

It then referred to the military and went on to say:

If the Cormorant were to win a military helicopter competition on its merits, wouldn't we again be in the same position of being accused of tricking the government?

Should the military not be the one to decide what helicopter would best service its function? Yet we have the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the cabinet interfering with the decision and competition process by saying the Cormorant is not allowed to win because they promised they would gut the program in 1993 when they were running during the election campaign.

It is very serious that they would waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money, put lives on the line and contribute to the death of our armed forces just because they did not want to get egg on their faces. Shame on the government. Shame on the Prime Minister and shame on the Deputy Prime Minister.

I would like to talk a bit about what these helicopters will be used for because even the minister seems to have some fuzzy logic about it. Basically they would be used for search and rescue. When I visited the base in Esquimalt I was told by military personnel that they could not do the job because of the situation. They had to bring in Americans in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. The Canadian forces could not perform this job but the Liberals are continuing to delay.

Search and rescue is one of the functions. Canadians are not doing a lot of it or as much as they should, especially when we consider that for every hour in the air there are 40 hours of maintenance on any helicopter in the air. That is the search and rescue story.

Let us think about the anti-submarine warfare activities. By having helicopters on the back of naval warships it multiplies by 25 times the ability of the ship to conduct anti-submarine warfare. As the ship is sailing along the helicopter flies off the back of the ship, goes out to the limits of its circumference, drops a boom into the water and listens for subs underneath. It drastically improves the ability of sub hunting.

Even though we only spend a scant few hours a year up in the Arctic with icebreakers, if we are lucky, our minister happens to think that anti-sub warfare is “a relic of the cold war”. He does not believe we should be enforcing sovereignty. The minister does not think that is important.

The job of our military, our navy, and these helicopters is to police our boundaries and to find out whether other nations are conducting submarine operations, whether they be under the ice or off either of our coasts. If our minister with his Liberal, fuzzy-headed, soft, mushy logic does not think we should be finding out whose subs are in our waters, we have a serious problem. That is pretty serious.

I could go on and on but I realize that my time has come to an end. I know that members on the other side will prattle on about procedures for bureaucratic buying.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the folks back home. I want to tell everybody who is watching at home or in the offices around the Hill today what is going on.

The Liberals are swallowing hard on a subject on which they ran a campaign in 1993. They told Canadians they wanted to scrap a Conservative initiative to purchase EH-101 helicopters which were clearly the best helicopters that could have been purchased. The Prime Minister went about beating his chest during the election campaign and said that cancelling this would save money. At the end of the day, what will happen is that the Liberals will spend a lot more money in aggregate and we will get less helicopters in return. That is what is called Liberal fiscal responsibility; pay more for less.

In the meantime, this is not just a tongue in cheek kind of cute argument. People have died as a result of that flawed decision. People lost their lives operating those helicopters that should not have been in the air because of the Prime Minister and his government's decision. This is not just a question of money. This is a question of sacrificing the lives of our forces. The Liberals should be really ashamed of that.

We are looking at about $600 million in cancellation fees that the Liberals brought upon themselves by cancelling the contract. It is a lot of money but it gets worse than that. It is also the fact that they paid all that money over the last decade to keep these flying heaps in the air. When we consider that some of them were bought in 1964, that is a long time.

As a matter of fact, it was 12 years before I was born. I will even venture to say that the Prime Minister, who went about beating his chest in 1993 about the ending of this contract, was probably not even elected when these helicopters were bought. It is an absolute shame to consider that our men and women in the forces have been flying things that are absolutely in heaps by everybody else's standard.

I want to quote from some things here. This is absolutely choice. This just goes to show to what lengths the Prime Minister and some of those around him are willing to go in order to try to quash this project so that they do not have to wipe the egg off their faces because they did not order the EH-101. The EH-101 won the contract fair and square. What did the government do to hide that, to obfuscate it, to delay it?

This is from an article from the London Free Press written by Greg Weston. The date of this is last February 22. For those folks back home who want to check it, they can look it up on the Internet. He said:

By mid-1997, sources say it had become apparent the bidding was again going to be won by the Cormorant.

By the way, the Cormorant is the parent of the EH-101. It is the same brand of helicopter. It goes on:

Now, buying Cormorant helicopters from the same group that got $600 million of public money for Chrétien's cancelling of the original contract of Cormorants—