Rob Moore

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the debate on the amendments made in the Senate to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

Bill C-13 was passed by the Senate on January 29 with six amendments. I will speak to each of them.

Four amendments to the language of trial provisions were made, including the creation of two new provisions. An additional amendment makes changes to the coming into force provision of Bill C-13, while the sixth amendment coordinates changes proposed to the same Criminal Code provision in both Bill C-13 and Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

Before turning to each amendment, I wish to underline the fact that, with respect to the language of trial amendments, both the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, a national federation representing the provincial associations of francophone jurists, are satisfied with the proposals found in Bill C-13 as passed by the House of Commons. The proposals in this regard were carefully studied by both the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

I will now turn to each amendment.

The first amendment proposed by the Senate is with respect to clause 18, a clause meant to ensure that all accused persons in this country are aware of their fundamental language rights. As members know, the current Criminal Code provision grants only unrepresented accused the right to be advised of their language rights by the judge.

As passed by the House of Commons, clause 18 proposed to extend this right to all accused, whether represented by counsel or not. In other words, clause 18 would broaden the right to be advised so that it would benefit all accused persons. This would heed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Beaulac case of 1999 as well as respond to a recommendation made by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This being said, clause 18 as introduced did not impose a duty on the judge to personally inform each accused of his or her language rights. Rather, the clause stated that the judge “shall ensure that they are advised”.

The amendment proposed to clause 18 by the Senate would now require the presiding judge, at the accused's first appearance, to personally inform each and every accused of their language rights. We do not agree with this amendment.

During the consultation on the proposals that led to Bill C-13, provinces and court administrators clearly told the government that a requirement for the judge to personally inform all accused, including accused persons with legal representation, would create a significant burden on judges and courts as well as considerably increase delays in criminal proceedings.

Obviously, further delays in criminal proceedings is something that all of us in this House should work against.

As many provinces developed efficient ways of ensuring that accused persons are made aware of their language rights, the government drafted Bill C-13 with a specific view to recognizing different provincial and territorial practices in this area.

Let us be clear. The duty continues to rest upon the judge. He or she must ensure that the accused is advised. The use of the words “shall ensure” does not, as some have suggested, dilute in any way the right that is granted.

In fact, it is an expression that is often used in federal legislation, for instance, in the Official Languages Act. For example, section 22 of that act states that:

Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from its head or central office in either official language....

Section 16 states that federal courts have the duty to ensure that judges can understand the proceedings in either English or French, without the use of an interpreter.

To use the wording of the Supreme Court of Canada, the right granted will continue to be “a substantive right and not a procedural one that can be interfered with”.

By ensuring that all accused, whether represented or not, are advised of their language rights, clause 18, as introduced and as passed by this House, not only avoided the possibility of accused persons exercising their language rights outside of the prescribed timeframe, but, more importantly, ensured that positive measures are taken to improve the means by which all Canadians can avail themselves of their language rights.

For all of these reasons, we disagree with this amendment, this being the first amendment.

The second amendment proposed in the Senate was made to clause 19, dealing with the translation of charging documents. Clause 19 of Bill C-13 grants all the accused the right to ask for a translation of the information or indictment. An amendment to the English version of clause 19 was made by the Senate, as it was felt that the wording needed to be changed to clarify that the entire charging document is to be translated.

I must say that this was the intent of the initial provision and as such, we do not think that the amendment is absolutely necessary. This being said, we do not object to the amendment, as it has simply clarified what was the original intent.

The third amendment adopted by the Senate is the creation of new clause 21.1. This clause calls on the Minister of Justice to prepare and table an annual report in Parliament on the number of bilingual trials, the number of trials held in French outside of the province of Quebec and the province of New Brunswick, and the number of trials held in English in Quebec.

I appreciate that statistics of this kind may be useful in assessing the implementation of the language rights provisions of the Criminal Code. Detailed statistics often provide indicators that are essential for an overall appreciation of the impact made by legislation. Indeed the department has explored with its provincial and territorial counterparts ways in which this could be accomplished and will continue to do so in the future.

I am sure that hon. members will agree that it is not good public policy to enact a provision that imposes responsibilities on those that do not have the means to fulfill them. Practically speaking, the amendment also fails to take into account the fact that in some jurisdictions, minority language trials will take place without any formal orders issued, pursuant to section 530 of the Criminal Code. These cases are thus difficult to track and call into question the accuracy of the data that would be collected.

However, the problem with this amendment is that it imposes a statutory duty on the federal Minister of Justice, whereas in fact it is only provincial and/or territorial attorneys general who have the ability to actually collect this information. In addition, provinces and territories have told us that they do not keep statistics related to the language of trial provisions in the Criminal Code.

As I already stated, we would be asking for, and enforcing in criminal law, provisions that the provinces are not at this time equipped to fulfill.

For all these reasons, we do not support this amendment, not because we disagree with the principle or the idea that statistics of this kind would be useful, but mainly because it imposes upon the federal Minister of Justice an obligation to provide information the minister does not possess or control.

Other informal avenues to collect such data will continue to be explored. However, we cannot support the inclusion of a legislative requirement in the Criminal Code to report on information that is not under the responsibility of the federal Minister of Justice.

The fourth amendment creates new clause 21.2. This clause requires a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code's language of trial provisions be undertaken by a parliamentary committee. I understand that the Senate committee considered it necessary to create this provision in order to ensure that monitoring the implementation of the new provisions, as well as of part XVII of the Criminal Code as a whole, will occur within three years of the coming into force of this provision.

Although we do not disagree with this amendment, we do not believe that this new section is actually needed in order for Parliament to review the provisions and operation of the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code.

Section 88 of the Official Languages Act specifically provides for the creation of a committee of the House, of the Senate, or both, to review the administration of the act. Two such committees currently exist and have the authority to study the language of trial provisions of the Criminal Code.

The fifth amendment adopted by the Senate makes corresponding changes to the coming into force provision at clause 46. It provides that new clauses 21.1 and 21.2 will come into force in the same manner as other language of trial provisions. While I disagree with the creation of new clause 21.1, we support the amendment to the coming into force provision as it does not directly refer to clause 21.1.

Finally, a sixth amendment was made to create new clause 45.2 for the purpose of coordinating two sets of amendments in Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act, and Bill C-13, both of which propose changes to the same Criminal Code provision dealing with impaired driving. This amendment is required and should be supported.

I would like to urge all hon. members to support amendments numbered 2, 4, 5 and 6, but not to support amendments numbered 1 and 3.

I hope that both Houses can come to an expeditious agreement on this very important piece of legislation that aims to improve many other aspects of the criminal justice system.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind causing difficulty for those who are producing and distributing drugs. The bill will create some difficulty. It will create difficulty for those who have been arrested and convicted for production of drugs.

That is exactly what the bill would do. I do not mind that it creates some difficulty. I hope it creates some difficulty for those who would prey on young people, sell drugs to kids who are on school grounds, traffic in dangerous—

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I do not take the approach the hon. member seems to take, that we will be stuck with what happens afterwards anyway, so why should we bother to do anything? What are we doing here if we are not going to try to make things better?

Some of us in the House believe there should be serious consequences for those who produce methamphetamine in super labs. I happen to believe that. Some of us believe there should be serious consequences for those who traffic in cocaine and heroine and for those who would sell drugs to young people.

We are either in favour of getting tougher on people who operate methamphetamine super labs or we are not in favour of it. Many of us in the House are in favour of it. It has been shown that the approach we have taken over the past few years has not worked. This is evidenced by some of the statistics I presented.

Sometimes it is not even a case of getting ahead of technology. It is a case of keeping up with technology. As I mentioned, most drugs in the past have required a crop. Methamphetamine is not like that. It is a synthetic drug and we have to keep up with those in organized crime. We have to keep up with those technological advances.

We on this side of the House are in favour of an approach that says, “Let us do it. Let us have an attitude that we can make a difference”. We should all be here to make a difference. If we can impact on the lives of our young people and keep them from getting started on methamphetamines, I am all for it. I and our government is for an approach that says that if people are going to operate methamphetamine super labs, if they are thinking of constructing one of these and producing methamphetamine, they are going to face serious consequences.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Yukon, another Liberal member from the provincial government in Ontario, a former justice minister, famously said about a year ago that the Liberal approach to crime was stuck in the summer of love. What we have seen, even from the type of questions that we get, is that there is such a hesitancy on the part of members opposite to get tough in any way on crime.

Our bill strikes what I think is an extremely reasonable balance between all of our goals, which is to help people who are addicted to drugs, but to get tough on those who are producing drugs, who are distributing drugs, who are putting drugs into our communities.

We all represent, as the member for Yukon said, from coast to coast to coast, communities in Canada, both rural and urban, that are struggling with drug problems and young people who are addicted to drugs. We want to cut this off.

I would have to ask, is what we are doing now working? The approach that is soft on people who produce drugs, soft on people who distribute drugs, a system that says there is no or very little consequence to a person's actions, that the person can commit a serious crime involving drugs and perhaps not go away to jail, is that working? That is not the message we want to be sending to society or to our young people. We have to show that we will be tough on those who produce methamphetamines in labs in our country.

I commend to the member the stats that I gave that show an alarming rise in methamphetamine labs, both small labs and superlabs. Individuals are taking legal substances, cooking them up and creating a very harmful and in some cases deadly concoction that has a devastating impact for those who are addicted to methamphetamine, preying on the most vulnerable. I say there should be no tolerance in our society for those who would operate a meth lab and have this product eventually wind up in the hands of our young people.

We have to be caring. We have to show compassion for those who are addicted to drugs. This bill does that. We also have to get tough on those who would produce drugs and put this scourge on to our communities, both rural and urban.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-26.

As members know, the Minister of Justice tabled this bill last year. It proposes a number of mandatory minimum penalties to ensure that appropriately high sentences are imposed on those who commit serious drug offences.

The bill is not about applying mandatory minimum penalties for all drug crimes. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act contains a complex offence and penalty structure. Penalties depend on the nature of the prohibited activity and on the type of substance involved.

The most problematic and dangerous substances, such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines and morphine, are listed under schedule I. Offences involving these substances attract the severest penalties, up to life imprisonment.

Cannabis is a schedule II drug and attracts lesser penalties. It is only if at least three kilograms are involved that trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking is punishable by up to life imprisonment. Production of cannabis is punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment.

The least severe penalties, up to 12 months' imprisonment on summary conviction, are reserved for offences involving substances listed in schedules IV and V.

It should be noted, however, that most of the prohibited activities in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are legal if committed by someone possessing the proper licence, permit or exemption.

For example, the marijuana medical access regulations that came into force on July 30, 2001, provide a scheme for sick individuals to apply for licences to possess or grow marijuana for medical use with the support of their doctor or, in some cases, with the support of a specialist.

As such, there are individuals in Canada who are exempted from the production offence contained in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and who are growing marijuana within their residences or in their yards. The amount of plants that the individual is permitted to produce is derived from a formula tied to the amount of dried marijuana product which the individual holder of the permit requires on a daily basis.

Some members of the House may be of the view that serious drug offences do not require a response such as the one contained in this bill. However, serious drug crime is a growing problem in Canadian cities and towns and a serious legislative approach is required.

According to Statistics Canada's Juristat, “Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004”, the rate of marijuana cultivation offences has more than doubled over the past decade, from approximately 3,400 offences in 1994 to 8,000 in 2004.

According to a study on marijuana grow operations in British Columbia, approximately 39% of all reported marijuana cultivation cases were located in B.C. Between 1997 and 2000, the total number of these cases increased by over 220%.

Although the number of individual operations in B.C. levelled off between 2000 and 2003, the estimated quantity of marijuana produced has increased from 19,729 kilos in 1997 to a seven year high of 79,817 kilos in 2003, due to the size and sophistication of individual operations.

Recent investigations by B.C. Hydro indicate the existence of up to 17,000 possible marijuana grow operations. The increase in the illicit production of marijuana has occurred not just in B.C. but across all of Canada.

There are no available national data on synthetic drug production. Available RCMP data, however, indicate a steady rise in these production operations, where the RCMP seized 25 synthetic drug production operations in 2002, 51 in 2003, 60 in 2004 and 53 in 2005.

Of the 60 operations seized in 2004, 17 were producing ecstasy and 40 were set up to produce methamphetamine. Of the 53 labs seized in 2005, 60% were producing methamphetamine and 30% were producing ecstasy.

I should add that we heard in justice committee about some of the very troubling effects methamphetamine can have on its users and about the difficulty in tackling methamphetamine production. We heard testimony on the devastating impact it can have on individuals. It is something that we should all be mindful of, because none of us, whether our communities are rural or urban, are immune from the challenge that the production of these drugs presents.

Unlike better known drugs of abuse such as heroin, cocaine or marijuana, methamphetamine presents some unique challenges. Methamphetamine is a synthetic drug. It is not dependent on cultivation of a crop. Its production requires no specialized skill or training, and its precursor chemicals are relatively easy to obtain and inexpensive to purchase.

Part of the problem is that the purchasing and obtaining of those precursor elements, which are very much legal at the moment, are some very common chemicals that many of us would use in our day to day lives, but when they are combined in the proper doses in methamphetamine labs, they can produce extremely harmful results. These factors make production of methamphetamine attractive to both the criminal trafficker and to the addicted user.

Methamphetamine also presents a threat to law enforcement authorities. They must simultaneously combat both small toxic labs and superlabs which are primarily controlled by drug trafficking organizations.

The small labs produce relatively small amounts of methamphetamine and are generally not affiliated with major trafficking organizations. A number of factors have served as catalysts for the spread of small labs, including the presence of recipes easily accessible over the Internet. Indeed, the widespread use of the Internet has facilitated the dissemination of technology used to manufacture methamphetamine in small labs. This form of information sharing allows wide dissemination of these techniques to anyone with computer access.

Aside from marijuana, methamphetamine is the only widely used and widely abused illegal drug that is capable of being easily produced by the abuser. Given the relative ease with which manufacturers or cooks are able to acquire recipes, ingredients and the unsophisticated nature of the production process, it is easy to see why this highly addictive drug is spreading.

Methamphetamine has a number of impacts on users, on our communities and on society generally. The quality of life among users of methamphetamine is typically greatly diminished. Addicts may experience dissolution of relationships, social isolation, altered personality, difficulty with academics, loss of employment, involvement in crime, trouble with pre-existing mental illness, drug related psychosis and brain damage, health risks and declining physical fitness.

Furthermore, individuals may be unmotivated to seek help as methamphetamine can create seemingly high levels of energy and productivity. Communities can become vulnerable to petty crime, social disorder, associated risk to health, increase in violence and increases in large scale labs and drug trafficking.

Production operations also pose serious public safety and health hazards to those in and around production operations. These operations can result in serious physical injury from explosions, fires, chemical burns and toxic fumes. They produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems and endanger the lives and health of community residents.

The collateral damage of methamphetamine includes impacts on families, school staff, students, law enforcers, fire departments, paramedics, health care practitioners, businesses and property owners. These individuals experience second-hand symptoms of meth use.

First responders may experience exposure to production byproducts and may be subject to violence and aggression from addicts, or frustration and stress from inadequate resources, or judicial restraints preventing them from taking action.

Parents may also experience emotional and financial stress as a child goes through treatment, strain from missing work, fear, embarrassment, shame and guilt. The family may also encounter gang related crime, contamination, violence and disciplinary problems as the child continues to abuse the drug.

Furthermore, siblings and children may experience neglect, abuse and negative influence from family role models. Staff and students in the schools may face users with behavioural problems, classroom disruptions, absenteeism, negative peer influence, and once again, possible contamination. The stress of having insufficient resources to handle these issues is also a cause of stress.

We all know, every one of us who represents communities from coast to coast to coast, that communities in general may be exposed to violence, property damage, identity theft, decreased public safety, contamination of public areas from the disposal of cooking byproducts, and an unreliable or decreased workforce that impedes the safety of co-workers.

There are also significant health risks and costs associated with dismantling labs and removing processing agents from these locations.

As parliamentarians, we are this country's lawmakers. It is incumbent upon us to see that our laws provide appropriate and adequate measures to address serious problems. Our government has responded to the dangers caused by meth production by this bill, which proposes mandatory minimum penalties for those who produce the drug and traffic in it.

The proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are not exclusively about imposing minimum penalties. The bill contains a provision allowing for certain offenders who would normally be caught by the proposed minimum penalties to be dealt with by drug treatment courts.

A drug treatment court is a substance abuse intervention model that operates within the criminal justice system. Drug treatment courts provide judicially supervised treatment in lieu of incarcerating individuals who have a substance use problem that is related to their criminal activities, for example, drug related offences such as drug possession, use or non-commercial trafficking and/or property offences committed to support their drug use, such as theft or shoplifting.

Individuals may need to meet other requirements specific to individual courts or court systems to be deemed eligible for admission. The eligible accused must choose between the drug treatment court program and traditional criminal justice processing that can result in various dispositions ranging from fines to incarceration.

Typically, formal admission into a drug treatment court program requires the individual to plead guilty to his or her charges. If an individual fails to comply or participate in all aspects of the drug treatment court program, consequences range from an official reprimand or revocation of bail to termination in the program and the handing down of custodial and/or community supervision sentences.

There are a number of key facets of a well designed and implemented drug treatment court model. These include: early identification of those who meet the program eligibility criteria; access to treatment programs that integrate evidence based practices of the offender and substance abuse treatment to meet individualized needs of participants; extensive ongoing judicial contact with each participant; intensive supervision and drug testing to monitor and ensure abstinence from all intoxicants; positive reinforcement for compliance; partnership among other drug treatment courts and community based organizations; continued education for those involved in the field to promote effective operations; the use of a non-adversarial approach in the court system to ensure public safety as well as the rights of program participants; and comprehensive evaluation to monitor program objectives and measure efficiency.

That is something we should also all agree on. We want to have programs that work. If a program does not work, then obviously there is something wrong with it and we need to take a serious look at it. If a program does work, then we should encourage participation in that program.

Compared to traditional criminal justice approaches, the intent of a drug treatment court is to permit motivated clients to avoid incarceration and other sanctions and to allow them access to treatment service more quickly due to dedicated services and resources. It is also to encourage clients to remain in treatment until completed, through intensive and frequent monitoring and supervision by the court. Obviously, our number one goal for those who are addicted to drugs is to treat them and have them become contributing members of society once again.

Participating in a drug treatment court program is intensive and demanding. It includes court attendance up to twice a week, random urine testing, and attendance and treatment from daily to weekly as clients progress through the program. At some sites there is a primary treatment provider, for example, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, whereas at other sites there are various community agencies providing primary treatment services.

Drug treatment courts have a great deal of promise. We will be monitoring their effectiveness. This proposed legislation has been drafted in such a manner as to ensure that drug treatment courts would not be negatively impacted by this important bill.

Canadians demand that the criminal law provide adequate penalties for those who engage in serious drug crime. This bill responds to that demand and provides tough, yet fair, mandatory minimum penalties. I urge all members of the House to support these measures.

[Petitions, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present eight petitions containing hundreds of signatures urging Parliament to update current laws on animal welfare.

[Death Penalty, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and participate in this debate. Unfortunately, the motion before this House today is really a total waste of this House's time and nothing more than what I would say a cheap political trick and a feeble attempt by the Liberal opposition to draw debate where there is no debate.

We therefore oppose this motion today. The motion calls on the government to reaffirm that there is a not a death penalty in Canada. We have said before and we will say again, there is no death penalty in Canada. The Minister of Justice and other members of this government have clearly said that this government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty.

Since December 10, 1962 no one has been executed in Canada. That is over 45 years. On July 14, 1976 the death penalty was removed from the Criminal Code. The death penalty was then removed from the National Defence Act on December 10, 1998. Since that day there has been no death penalty in Canada in law as well as in fact.

In 1987 a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote sent a very strong signal that Canadians were in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty. As the Prime Minister has confirmed, this government is not going to reopen this debate in Canada.

The second part of the motion asks the government to reaffirm its policy to seek clemency on humanitarian grounds for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries. As we have said repeatedly, in cases where Canadians face the death penalty abroad the Government of Canada will continue to consider whether to seek clemency on a case-by-case basis based on what is in the best interest of Canada.

According to today's headlines, a majority of Canadians support our case-by-case approach and as we found out last fall, a majority of Canadians support our overall approach to justice, an approach that focuses on tackling violent crime and tackling crime in our communities.

It is an approach that puts victims first rather than the approach of the Liberals in the past, and what frankly continues to be their approach, of putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The protection of Canadians is a priority for this government. It is the priority of this government and if securing clemency is contingent on a murderer or a multiple murderer being repatriated to this country and let free to roam our streets, this is not a risk that our government is willing to take. Bringing back convicted killers sends the wrong message.

The third part of the motion before this House today calls on the government to continue its leadership role in promoting the abolition of the death penalty internationally. This government has been and will continue to be a leader in speaking up for a principled stand on human rights and the rule of law in all international forums.

For those states that legally retain the death penalty, the government will continue to advocate for full respect for international law including international legal obligations. I might add that it is standing up for humanitarian issues that is the reason why we have men and women from Canada across this world today who are fighting for those very freedoms and those human rights.

Many states do retain the death penalty. International law imposes restrictions on the use of the death penalty and imposes strict safeguards on its imposition. Canada's interventions with other states, whether made at a bilateral level or in a multilateral arena, are made in the context of supporting human rights within the framework of international law.

There has been no death penalty in Canada for 45 years. Our government has indicated that there is no intention to change that. We have also indicated that the decision as to whether or not we will seek clemency will be assessed on a case-by-case basis based on what is in the best interest of Canada.

I also find it very interesting. We are having this debate tonight on this issue and yet in the Senate sits stalled the tackling violent crime act. We have the leader of the official opposition who has absolutely refused to force Liberal senators in the Senate to pass the tackling violent crime act.

The tackling violent crime act would protect Canadians right here in Canada, would make our communities safer, would make our children safer, would take a tough approach on gun crimes, and would tackle the very serious issue of impaired driving.

Just today I got off the phone with a constituent who was concerned with the exploitation of young children by violent sexual offenders. We have in our legislation measures to protect young people, all of these stalled in the Liberal dominated Senate.

We have been calling on the leader of the official opposition for weeks to have the Liberal senators pass Bill C-2. This is legislation that provinces are calling for, parents are calling for and law-abiding citizens are calling for.

The only people I can imagine who would be against Bill C-2 would be criminals, and apparently the Liberal Party is also against passage of Bill C-2.

Everyone else I have talked to is in favour of getting tougher on crime. They are in favour of protecting children. They are in favour of making our streets and communities safer. They are in favour of tackling impaired driving. They are in favour of having an age of protection of 16 years rather than 14 years so that adult sexual predators cannot prey on Canadian young people. They are in favour of having laws that say if people commit a violent crime with a firearm, then they will do serious time for that crime.

That is what Canadians want. That is what our party wants. That is what this government wants. That is what we have introduced in the tackling violent crime act, and it is time for the Liberals to get the message.

If the Liberals want to stand with the criminal lobby that would prefer that we not pass this kind of legislation, they can continue to do so. We will stand on this side with law-abiding Canadians. We will continue to stand up for their rights. We will continue to make our streets and communities safer for all Canadians.

[Judges Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if we listen to the chief justices in the various provinces as we have done, there is a need. The hon. member knows, as she sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that there is a profound need for more family court and superior court judges to address family issues.

I mentioned in my speech the negative impact that can be had for justice delayed. A theme that we hear over and over from people who are involved in a dispute is that they want it resolved. They want the dispute resolved probably in a way that they would prefer, but all parties usually agree that they want it resolved as expeditiously as possible.

A backlog has existed for a long time in the system on family cases. In order to address that backlog, we need to create new positions. This bill does it in a comprehensive way, rather than a piecemeal way. It creates 20 new positions. It is going to go some way in addressing that backlog.

The hon. member mentioned the measures we are taking in the area of criminal justice. No one on this side and probably no one in the House wants to see our justice system clogged with cases, but when there is a crime committed, when there is a trial before a judge or before a judge and jury, we want to see that an appropriate sentence is available.

The legislation we have brought forward is to address the fact that the scales of justice have tilted too far away from the protection of the rights of society and the rights of an individual victim. We want to tip those scales back in a way that better protects society. That is why we have introduced a number of very positive criminal justice measures.

[Judges Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh for his question. Certainly it is good to see him back as we resume our work in this Parliament specifically on justice issues.

As I mentioned in my speech with respect to the positions that will be created when this piece of legislation passes, the allocation of these appointments will be done in consultation with the chief justice of each province as well as in consultation with the provinces.

We have all heard the stories of the need in various provinces to address the backlog in the family court system. I know that is of concern to the hon. member. We are taking those concerns seriously. We are endeavouring to fill the positions as quickly as possible.

Further, it has been impressed upon us by the chief justices of the various provinces that there is a need for more positions to be filled. That is why we need to create these new positions and fill them as quickly as possible to address the backlog.

[Judges Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak to the Judges Act amendment bill.

This bill has the appearance of being of minor importance, for it amends a single number in a single paragraph of the Judges Act; however, the significance of this amendment is indeed great.

It will create the authority to appoint 20 new judges to the provincial superior trial courts and it will allow the government to achieve two very important objectives: first, to provide increased support and access to justice for some of Canada's most vulnerable groups, including aboriginal communities, victims of domestic violence and children in need of protection; second, it will facilitate the timely resolution of specific claims.

Subparagraph 24(3)(b) of the Judges Act, which we refer to as the pool, creates the authority to appoint additional judges to the superior trial courts of any jurisdiction in Canada. The pool was created in the early 1970s because of the recognized difficulty in having to constantly amend the Judges Act when jurisdictions needed an additional judge or judges.

This section is intended to permit the government to respond quickly to substantiated pressures on provincial superior courts. This bill would increase by 20 the number of appointments authorized under this section for judges of the trial courts and thus permit the appointment of 20 new judges to these courts.

The need for additional judicial resources to respond to existing and increasingly urgent pressures in the provincial superior courts has been clearly demonstrated, especially in six jurisdictions across Canada. Those jurisdictions are Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nunavut.

In Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, the need for more judges arises in the existing family branches of the superior courts, and is largely the result of enhanced child protection laws and a growing population. Similarly, Quebec has witnessed mounting family and civil caseloads within its superior court.

Nunavut faces serious issues in terms of access to justice for its aboriginal communities. Complex criminal trials and increasing family law caseloads have clogged the system, and over the past year the senior judge of the Nunavut court has had to postpone several jury trials and court circuits due to a lack of judges.

Judges, lawyers, court administrators and other professionals are all struggling to meet those growing demands, and maintain an accessible and effective justice system for families and for children. Despite these efforts, court delays and backlogs have continued to increase and it has become clear that additional judges are required to be part of the answer to this situation.

Each of these jurisdictions have submitted detailed statistical data outlining case volumes, trends in court workload and backlogs. Based on the government's quantitative analysis of this information, these jurisdictions and their chief justices have objectively substantiated the need for at least 14 judges to respond to these existing pressures.

In addition, the government has introduced Bill C-30 creating the new specific claims tribunal. This tribunal will have the authority to make binding decisions where specific claims brought forward by first nations are rejected for negotiation, or when negotiations fail.

As the Prime Minister indicated in June, it is critical that the members of this tribunal have the necessary experience, capacity and credibility to examine historical facts and evidence. They must be able to address complex questions surrounding Canada's legal obligations and determine appropriate levels of compensation. For this reason, the proposed specific claims tribunal act provides that tribunal members must be superior court judges.

It is estimated that the tribunal will require the full time equivalent of six judges to handle its anticipated caseload of 40 claims per year. These claims are dispersed across the country with the greatest number arising in British Columbia, and some of the most complex cases originating in Ontario and Quebec.

All provincial superior courts are currently working at full capacity, with a number of them, as I have just described, experiencing significant backlogs and delays. As a result, authority for an additional six judges is being sought to provide the trial courts with the capacity to absorb the new work of the tribunal and to address these claims on a priority basis.

It is intended that through this infusion of new judicial resources, the courts will be able to allow a number of their experienced judges to be appointed to a tribunal roster of up to 18 judges. It is proposed that these judges would sit on the tribunal on a part time basis for a period of time equivalent to the number of additional judges provided to the court. The judges appointed to the roster would continue to sit for the balance of their time on cases assigned as usual by the chief justice of their own court.

Allocation of the 20 new judges to specific jurisdictions will take place following consultations with chief justices of the affected courts and the provincial and territorial governments. These consultations will begin immediately to allow the requesting jurisdictions to refresh the data upon which their original proposals for new judges was based.

It will also provide governments and courts the opportunity to discuss the workload and functioning of the new specific claims tribunal. The goal is to be in a position to appoint the new judges as soon as possible after the passage of this legislation.

We are extremely fortunate in Canada to have a judicial system that is independent and impartial. We take for granted that our judiciary will be fearlessly and fairly deciding on the basis of the facts and the law of each case, complicated issues that affect our children, our families, and our communities.

Our courts bear a tremendous responsibility. Each day they render decisions that have an impact on personal relationships, living arrangements and financial circumstances. These judges determine how parents will share responsibilities for their child, what level of support the child will receive, and sometimes whether a child can be safely left with parental care. At times the level of conflict between family members is extremely high, which increases the risk of negative repercussions for the children involved. There are few of us who do not experience a visceral reaction when we hear the facts of some of these cases.

Our judges cannot act upon these gut feelings. Throughout the process the court must be, and be perceived to be, completely unbiased and impartial. Public confidence in our judges and a decision they render demands no less. Maintaining an impartial and independent judiciary is thus the centrepiece of our justice system and we are rightly proud of the success we have achieved in this regard.

However, the protection of important principles such as independence and impartiality has little meaning to the average Canadian when the system is inaccessible to them. Average Canadians must have access to the court system for it to be properly functioning.

This government recognizes the social cost of maintaining a family justice system that is accessible and responsive to the needs of families in crisis. There is a social cost when the system is inaccessible. These costs include demands on the health care system and the criminal justice and youth justice systems that are incurred when family law issues are not dealt with in an effective and expedient manner. We have all witnessed as well the conflict and uncertainty that has arisen from past failures to establish a fair and impartial process for achieving binding resolutions on specific claims.

As members can see, this apparently minor amendment would have a significant impact on access to justice for a number of Canada's most vulnerable communities, including children in need of protection and aboriginal communities. It is also critical to the effective functioning of the new specific claims tribunal.

I am confident that all hon. members will recognize the true significance of this bill and will support its speedy passage.