House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 74% of the vote.
Criminal Code September 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House continue to respect the work of the ethics counsellor and the role of the ethics counsellor. We would hope that the member for Calgary Centre would understand that the ethics counsellor will embark on a thorough and exhaustive investigation and after due consideration, will present his conclusions.
We ask for the member's patience and to wait for the report of the ethics counsellor.
Criminal Code September 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, as stated, on September 23 the member for Calgary Centre posed two questions during question period concerning the recent divestment by the member for LaSalle—Émard of his interests in Canada Steamship Lines. We all know that the member for LaSalle—Émard served as minister of finance over many years and continues to serve this country with distinction.
The member for Calgary Centre claimed that in February 2002 the former minister of finance declared through Sheilamart Enterprises Inc. that he owned shares in Canada Steamship Lines and that the member for LaSalle—Émard's lawyers' letter to the ethics counsellor explaining the approach taken to divest his interest in CSL did not make any reference to these shares.
During the same question period the member for Calgary Centre also questioned the redemption value of certain preferred shares held by Passage Holdings Inc., the company that held the interests in CSL. The member for Calgary Centre then asked the government to seek a response to his questions from the ethics counsellor.
The acting prime minister suggested at that time that the member was free to raise the matter directly with the ethics counsellor. We know that the ethics counsellor has always been open to responding to members' requests for advice and answering questions on ethics issues, whether they were related to a member's own situation or regarding questions on other members of this House.
I understand that the member for Calgary Centre did take the advice of the acting Prime Minister and on September 26 had delivered a very detailed letter to the ethics counsellor raising a number of questions on this subject. I also understand that the ethics counsellor has the letter from the member for Calgary Centre under review and plans to respond to him as soon as possible.
My advice to the member for Calgary Centre is to let the ethics counsellor do the work he has requested and wait for the response.
Appointment of Judges September 26th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 288 introduced by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. The motion proposes that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study the process by which judges are appointed to Courts of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I think every hon. member in the House will agree that few institutions are more important to a healthy democracy than our courts. The importance of the judiciary comes from the grave responsibilities discharged by judges. Judges are entrusted with a difficult task. They determine a multitude of issues and are responsible for making decisions that can include something as serious as determining the liberty of Canadian citizens. The extremely important role exercised by judges in upholding the rule of law in our society is the very reason that it is crucial to have an independent judiciary.
The objective of an independent judiciary is to ensure the impartiality of judges. It is fundamental to the rule of law that the rights of persons appearing before the court are determined solely on the basis of the facts and the law. In Canada, the independence of the judiciary is given constitutional protection.
I do not think it would be an exaggeration to suggest to hon. members of the House that the quality of the Canadian legal system has been recognized and studied by many countries throughout the world.The esteem with which the Canadian legal system is held is evidenced by the fact that officials from all over the world have consulted with Canadian officials on Canadian courts, judges and legal processes.
Canadians have every right to be very proud of their legal system and of the judges who maintain the high level of integrity and professionalism while discharging their legal duties.
The motion before the House today refers to appointments both to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Court of Appeals of the various provinces. I would like to remind hon. members that the processes for appointments to these two levels of courts are very different.
The appointments to the various Courts of Appeal are subject to the federal judicial appointments process. This process establishes committees in every jurisdiction to ensure that all interested and qualified individuals are considered for appointment. The process has ensured that the Minister of Justice receives broadly based and objective advice about the qualifications of individuals applying for appointment to the bench.
As hon. members well know, the Supreme Court plays a fundamental role in our democratic society, particularly as the ultimate guardian of charter values. It is important that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada be jurists of great distinction and ability. For that reason, great care is taken to ensure that the best persons, by knowledge, experience and personal commitment to excellence, are chosen to fill vacancies on the court.
Among the qualities sought in potential candidates are outstanding intellectual capacity, superior ability in judgment writing, the capacity for innovative thinking on emerging legal issues and, of course, a pronounced sensitivity to the diverse values enshrined in our charter.
The member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier commented on the Supreme Court's appointment process in that it would be too subjective. In fact, the process by which the Supreme Court justices are appointed has proven successful in producing judges of the highest calibre for the court.
The recommendation of the Prime Minister, which is undertaken in consultation with the Minister of Justice, follows a lengthy consultation process with senior members of the Canadian judiciary, the Attorney General, presidents of law societies, distinguished members of the practising bar and other well-informed persons in the region from which a candidate is to be chosen.
It is also important to note that any member of the public can bring to the minister's attention the name of a candidate that he or she believes worthy of consideration.
In his comments in introducing the motion, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier pointed out that the politicization of the appointments process could “seriously jeopardize the public's confidence in the judiciary”. Further, he said, “we must avoid at all costs any association between the judiciary and the political arm”. I could not agree more. However, I would suggest that the current appointments process is already intended to accomplish just that goal.
I am also alarmed that in support of this motion some members referred to decisions of the court with which they do not agree. Reform of the current appointment process cannot be a veiled attempt to get judges on the bench who will support a particular ideology. Such an approach would be inconsistent with judicial independence and the rule of law. Any influence the courts may have on the shape of Canadian law must be in accordance with well established rules of constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Decisions are not reached on the basis of any personal bias on the part of judges. The nature of the judicial function does not permit a judge to represent the region from which he or she was appointed or to favour the arguments of persons or governments coming from that region. Similarly, even though the federal government appoints the judges, they do not represent a political party or a political philosophy. This is entirely inconsistent with the principle of judicial independence that has governed the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch of government since Canada's creation.
Reform of the current appointment process that is intended to influence the outcome of court decisions in a manner that is inconsistent with their constitutional principles is unacceptable. There have been a number of proposals to change the process for making appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, including in the context of two previous constitutional accords. While a number of academics and commentators have suggested reform, further careful analysis of the nature and scope of reform is needed.
There will be some fundamental issues which will need to be carefully examined. For example, the criteria against which particular candidates are considered would be a key issue. How will a candidate's professional qualifications or perhaps judicial style be assessed while avoiding inappropriate and irrelevant inquiry into the personal views or opinions of the candidates?
Careful consideration will also have to be given to the nature of the assessment of a candidate, whether it will be in camera, in confidential or a public process. Keep in mind that many of these candidates will be sitting judges. In my view we cannot have a process that undermines their integrity or credibility, especially given that the unsuccessful applicants will have to return to their duties in their own courts.
We must also be careful not to develop a process that scares away potential candidates. Canadians deserve the highest calibre of judges on our top court and this goal could be undermined if we are not careful.
If this motion succeeds, the challenge for the committee will be to consider reforms that are reasonable and fair, that safeguard the reputation and credibility of all candidates, that preserve judicial independent, that promote respect for the institution of the judiciary, that eliminate partisanship and at the same time improve transparency and accountability. Without those safeguards, we risk damaging the credibility of an important institution in this country.
This will not be an easy task, but in anticipation that the committee will strive to meet these challenges, I will be voting in support of this motion. I am thankful for everyone's attention and the opportunity to speak on this motion.
Questions on the Order Paper September 26th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Government Response to Petitions September 26th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both officials languages, the government's response to four petitions.
Petitions September 24th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by almost 200 members of my community of Bras d'Or—Cape Breton from the communities of Dominion and Gardiner Mines.
The petitioners call upon the government to defend the current definition of marriage in law in perpetuity.
Committees of the House September 23rd, 2003
Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 106(1), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be permitted to meet on Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 3:30 p.m. for the purposes of Standing Order 106(2).
Questions on the Order Paper September 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Committees of the House September 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 44th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Committees of the House September 19th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 44th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in both official languages, regarding the review of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of House committees. If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in the 44th report later this day.