Vic Toews

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the terrorists could in fact receive parole. The anti-terrorist legislation tabled by the justice minister yesterday provides parole for terrorists who commit mass murder. Under the bill a terrorist would be eligible for release after 25 years even if convicted of killing thousands of victims.

Why will the Liberal government not amend the law to ensure that terrorists who commit mass murder are never released from custody?

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I am pleased to take part in the debate today regarding the long anticipated anti-terrorism legislation. I am pleased to see the new found enthusiasm of members on the Liberal benches to fight terrorism. After years of inaction and denial the light finally went on over there, especially in view of the circumstances of September 11.

The bill being tabled today is an important step forward and reflects many of the issues the Canadian Alliance has been raising over the past years. The bill echoes many recommendations made by Canadian Alliance members of parliament, including the identification of terrorist organizations, the ratification of international obligations to suppress terrorist bombings, and banning fundraising activities that support terrorism.

As recently as September 18 our party introduced a supply motion putting forth a number of the same elements Bill C-36 introduces. The motion unfortunately was voted down as the government accused the Canadian Alliance of playing politics or trying to score political points.

It is disappointing that the government has chosen to disparage the opposition for raising legitimate security concerns, not only in the past month but over the past number of years. It is even more disappointing that the government has forced Canadians to wait so long before finally introducing the same measures it previously disparaged.

The United Kingdom has had strict laws banning terrorist fundraising and other terrorist activity for a year and a half, and the United States has had such laws in place for a number of years. However Canada has not taken any legislative action in this area until now. It appears that government members have finally acknowledged the gravity of the situation now that the tragedy of September 11 has forced them into action.

Although some positive and necessary measures are being announced in the proposed legislation, in the days and weeks to come members of the Canadian Alliance will be urging the minister to take further steps to improve the provisions of the bill.

One issue that needs to be raised and debated is the failure of the government to ban membership in organizations that are clearly identified as terrorist organizations. If the purpose of an organization is to engage in terrorist activities, what possible justification can there be for permitting individuals to continue to belong to the organization?

The Liberal government has argued in the past that such a provision might be considered unconstitutional. However, making it illegal to participate in a group proven to be a terrorist organization is a reasonable limit on freedom of association and other freedoms in the charter.

When the primary, if not the sole, purpose of such an association is to commit illegal terrorist acts, the safety and security of all citizens may reasonably supersede the individual rights of the persons participating in the organizations or conspiring to commit the acts. If the courts do not believe our citizens are deserving of this protection they should tell us so, but the government should have the courage to include that in the bill.

Contrary to the suggestions found in justice department publications, the provision would not make participation in a terrorist organization illegal unless it could be proven that a person had the intention to facilitate illegal actions for the organization. This is the same misleading characterization that was in the government's previous organized crime legislation. People need to understand that the provisions make clear the additional responsibilities a prosecutor would need to demonstrate in a court of law.

Another concern is that the bill does nothing to address Canada's new status as a haven for terrorists seeking to flee the consequences of their crimes in other countries. The Canadian Alliance has called on the government to put in place laws to ensure terrorists are extradited promptly and without reservation to countries that respect the rule of law. However the bill fails to address this serious concern.

The Supreme Court of Canada's United States v Burns decision of February 15, 2001, created a safe haven in Canada for violent criminals, including international terrorists, regardless of nationality, who come to Canada to escape lawful punishment in the United States or any other democratic country.

The anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996, passed by the United States congress, makes terrorism a federal crime punishable by death. Any suspected terrorist who travels from the United States to Canada to escape prosecution may therefore not be extradited unless assurances are given by the U.S. that the person would not face the death penalty.

It is troubling that if the criminals involved in the New York City or Washington attacks made their way to Canada to avoid prosecution the Canadian government would be prohibited from extraditing them pursuant to United States v Burns unless there were undefined exceptional circumstances. These circumstances are required by the court, so the law becomes the policy playground of unelected judges who define such circumstances on a case by case basis.

These are not simply the comments of members of Canadian Alliance or opposition members. In a related case last February, the day after I stood in the House and said the United States v Burns case was creating a safe haven for terrorists in Canada and the Minister of Justice stood and denied it, her own lawyers on behalf of herself and the Minister of Immigration expressed their concern to the supreme court in precisely the same words. They said its decision could create a safe haven for terrorists.

They cited the case of Suresh and Ahani, suspected terrorists from Sri Lanka and Iran respectively who have claimed refugee status in Canada and are using charter rights to appeal against deportation. Canadian Alliance members have asked the minister to reopen the Suresh arguments. The Supreme Court of Canada has not yet delivered its judgment but the minister is entitled in exceptional circumstances to request that the case be opened.

Given the events of September 11, these are clearly exceptional circumstances. The Minister of Justice has refused to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to reopen the Suresh case. Accordingly it is unlikely that she will be able to extradite foreign terrorists after the court makes its ruling.

In extradition and deportation cases Canadian laws must ensure that terrorists are expelled from Canada promptly and without reservation to face the consequences of their acts. I would ask the minister to reconsider adding such provisions to the legislation. Canadians require legal certainty, not vague assurances by the minister or unelected judges. The security of Canadians is too important to be the policy plaything of unelected judges.

Another worrisome issue is that the bill fails to deny parole to terrorists convicted of multiple murders. Under the anti-terrorism bill sentences would be served consecutively for a number of offences. However sentences of life imprisonment are excluded. In other words, if a terrorist commits murder he or she would be eligible for parole yet for lesser offences the sentences must be served consecutively.

In light of the fact that terrorists attempt to indiscriminately kill and take as many lives as possible, it is self-evident that those who kill in this fashion should never be released from custody. A second opportunity to participate in a mass murder should never be provided, and certainly not provided by the House.

Another concern I draw to the attention of the minister is the joint prosecutorial authority afforded by the legislation. It is clear that both the provincial attorney general and the federal attorney general may initiate prosecutions under the legislation. However I submit that in view of the international scope of terrorism prosecutions should remain in the hands of the federal attorney general.

I agree there should be co-operation with the provincial attorneys general, but the scope of these investigations and the involvement of CSIS and the RCMP require federal direction.

My real fear is that this provision was included simply to download financial responsibility to the provinces and to allow the federal minister of justice to escape political heat whenever she or he did not want to take authority for a prosecution.

We have seen before where the federal government downloads responsibilities after passing a law. The burden of the prosecution and the financial cost associated with those laws then remain on the province. This legislation is a matter of national security. It should be dealt with by the federal attorney general and resourced through parliament.

Many Canadians have serious and legitimate concerns that civil liberties may be sacrificed in the government's attempt to quash terrorist activity. Regardless of the gravity of the security threats facing our country all citizens must be assured of legal protection from the arbitrary exercise of state power. That is why it is so important that the legislation clearly spells out the rights of police and security agencies. We want to provide police and security agents with this authority but not on any terms. The terms must be carefully and clearly delineated in the legislation.

Canadians want to see evidence that the federal government is taking strong and effective legislative measures to improve national security. I do not think these measures need be at the expense of personal freedoms.

The legislation is raising and will continue to raise civil liberty concerns in the course of this debate and beyond. The preventive arrest and the investigative hearings provisions of the bill will surely come under charter scrutiny. The new power of preventive arrest would allow a peace officer to arrest a suspected terrorist if there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the person was about to commit a terrorist activity. The section on investigative hearings would compel material witnesses to disclose information relating to terrorism to a judge even without a formal trial.

It appears that both these measures are reasonable, especially in the context of the investigative hearings where there is protection from self-incrimination. However, the due process that is imported into the investigative hearings may in fact prevent the timely disclosure of information necessary for action against pending or imminent terror activity.

We have to balance those due process concerns with the ability of our authorities to get timely information. In view of the fact that there are no penal consequences as a result of the investigative hearing both processes could be sped up because there are no criminal consequences to that and we need to bear that in mind.

Some of the amendments to the criminal code regarding hate crimes are also of concern. For example, under the bill courts may order an Internet provider to delete an item from the computer system if it were deemed hate propaganda. The courts may also order the custodian of the computer system to provide any information relating to the whereabouts of the person who created the hate propaganda.

The increased abilities of our police and security agencies also need to be carefully considered. It is important to remember that our laws dealing with national security have not kept up with advances in technology in terms of proposed changes to laws governing wiretapping procedures. Criteria for obtaining warrants and electronic surveillance orders to monitor terrorist activity should have been streamlined and modernized years ago. Our frontline workers need to be able to respond to the virtually unlimited resources, funds and technology of terrorist organizations.

The analogy can be made in the context of organized crime. It seems that terrorist organizations and organized crime have unlimited funds. Our police and other security agencies do not. As my colleague pointed out yesterday in question period, the government seems to put its priority on registering the shotguns of duck hunters rather than providing our security services with those resources. Spending $100 million a year on registering the shotguns of duck hunters for no bona fide criminal activity is an absolute disgrace. If the government wants to find money to prevent crime, let it do so by abolishing this very ill conceived national long gun registry.

Another concern is the very close bureaucratic relationship between our federal police, the RCMP, and the solicitor general. If we are giving police this broad power and if it is justified under the charter in order to accomplish these security needs, then we have to take steps to divide that close relationship between the solicitor general and the commissioner of the RCMP.

The commissioner of the RCMP is a deputy minister in his own department. It is wrong for a national police force to have that kind of relationship with the minister. There needs to be protection so that the police work is separate from the political work or the possibility of political interference in that police work.

My colleagues in the NDP have raised the issue that the legislation may suppress bona fide political dissent. That too is a legitimate concern. One of the ways to address that issue is not by diluting the legislation, but by putting a proper reporting system in place so that the heads of the RCMP or other security agencies do not report to the solicitor general but to an independent committee of the House made up of non-partisan members of the House or members from both sides of the House. This is a very important step that we can take in order to ensure that police powers are properly used.

The unprecedented terrorist attacks of September 11 will certainly influence the courts' rulings on security matters. We must allow the courts to do their work after we have considered and passed this legislation.

As the Minister of Justice said, the courts read newspapers, so they know what is going on. It is too bad the minister could not have supplemented that knowledge by expanding the arguments against Suresh. The minister missed a golden opportunity in these exceptional circumstances to make a clear stand against terrorism by indicating very clearly the arguments that need to be made to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Over the course of the past month the Canadian Alliance has drawn attention to the fact that although Canada signed the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism almost two years ago, it has not ratified the convention because the federal government failed to put into place the necessary legislation to stop terrorist fundraising.

Now that the legislation has been introduced, it appears that the justice minister was less than frank with the House and Canadians when she implied in the House in response to questioning that she could seize money under subsection 3(2) of the United Nations Act. This section has been amended by new legislation on goods, wares or merchandise; in the very section that she said would allow her to seize those assets, including money, those words have been deleted and replaced with the word property.

Although the minister implied that this section, as it was then, gave her the authority to seize assets, the Canadian Alliance consistently said that the government did not have the legislative authority to do so. It is now clear that this is in fact the case.

It is unfortunate that ministers of the crown would spend their time in question period being vague and less than frank in order to make up for legislative and policy failures, however, I welcome the new provisions that would allow the government to ratify the UN convention and to take this long needed action to suppress the essential financial resources needed by terrorist organizations.

There are a number of amendments to other acts in the bill, including the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, the National Defence Act and many others. We must be diligent in ensuring that all amendments to these acts strike the appropriate balance between national security and the right of the public to be informed of government business. The leader of the PC/DR coalition has been especially vigilant in respect of this disclosure. He has mentioned it in various questions and other statements, as have other members of the House.

Some of the amendments to the Access to Information Act are troubling. For example, the bill would allow the attorney general to prohibit the disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting international relations, national security or defence. This sweeping provision could potentially restrict the information available to Canadians to a great extent. Information about the deficiencies of the Sea King helicopters may not have been revealed if the attorney general could have used the blanket prohibition of protecting national security to prevent such information from being released.

The bill should not be a cover to allow the government to continue to evade its security responsibilities as it has done over the last number of years. These types of amendments to the Access to Information Act need to be very carefully considered.

The government also claims that the bill clarifies the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment. Currently the CSE is a government agency that provides guidance in the area of information technology. However the mandate extended to the CSE in the bill gives considerable legal authority to the agency. For example clause 102 of the bill allows the Minister of National Defence to authorize the CSE to intercept private communications for the sole purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence. This amendment to the National Defence Act is a major shift of the responsibilities of the CSE and should not pass through the House without due consideration of its implications.

Along the same lines I also have concerns about amendments to the Official Secrets Act. Secrecy legislation is primarily designed to protect the security of the state from espionage. However, the broad wording of Canada's Official Secrets Act means that it may be used to sanction the unauthorized release of almost any information held by government.

We must be mindful of this when considering any amendments to the act. In view of the answers we have heard provided to the House by ministers of the crown, for example the solicitor general, matters that routinely are given to members of the press in the United States by the American government are denied access here in the House. The minister simply stands and says that it is a matter of national security and cannot be disclosed. If the minister is taking that position on the basis of the existing act, we can imagine what the minister would do with enhanced powers. We need to clarify the powers that the ministers may have in denying Canadians the right to information that does not undermine national security.

The last but perhaps most important concern I would like to raise today is the matter of resources. The legislation, as good as it is in its various aspects, will be of little value if the Liberal government does not provide adequate resources to our frontline forces in the fight against terrorism. The government consistently says it gives a certain amount of money over a number of years, but when we divide that money over those number of years and subtract the money that has been taken out of the security budget and look at what actual money is going to frontline police and security services, we realize that the money certainly is less than adequate. Again I only need make reference to the kinds of boondoggles into which the government has been willing to put money, like registering the shotguns of duck hunters.

The United States passed legislation in 1996 that requires the government to commit resources to support a wide range of security measures. The Canadian bill has no such requirement. It is the responsibility of the government to provide adequate resources to our frontline police and security agencies in the fight against terrorism. Without this support Canadian security cannot be assured.

The government has taken some important steps. Although we will be considering the provisions of the bill very carefully, it is imperative that the legislation move forward as quickly as possible. I therefore thank members of the House for the increase in the number of hours for debate to raise concerns and move the matter along.

All Canadians are entitled to live in peace and security. While the government has finally moved to respond in a meaningful way to the threat of worldwide terrorism, much remains to be done. Members of the Canadian Alliance, the opposition, are committed to working with the government to ensure that the steps necessary to achieve peace and security in Canada are accomplished.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, terrorist organizations act through their members. Membership should be banned.

The new terrorism bill also appears to allow a terrorist to commit multiple murders and still be eligible for parole after serving a sentence. In light of the fact that terrorists often try to take as many lives as possible, can the minister assure us that there will be no parole for multiple murderers? There should be no free murders given to terrorists.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorist legislation introduced today is a step in the right direction. It provides for the public naming of terrorist organizations operating in Canada, yet membership in these organizations is not prohibited. Why another half measure? Why has the government failed to do what is needed and indeed ban membership in terrorist organizations?

[Fight Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments on the record at this time. I certainly echo the remarks of my leader earlier in stating that our party and members stand with the Prime Minister in fighting terrorism and ensuring that Canadians are secure. I also echo many of the statements that the minister made with respect to the fact that people everywhere were entitled to live their lives in peace and security and that it was the responsibility of government to ensure that peaceful existence.

The bill that has been tabled today is an important step forward and reflects many of the issues that the Canadian Alliance Party has been raising in the House, unfortunately to little avail until the very tragic events of September 11. We even moved a motion in the House that asked the government very recently to take steps to name all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada and to not only take away the charitable status of these terrorist organizations but also to have a complete ban on fundraising for activities in support of terrorism and provisions for the seizure of assets.

We wanted immediate ratification of the suppression of financing of terrorism. We asked for the suppression of terrorist bombing, two very important conventions that the government neglected to put into place to the detriment of the security of the people of Canada.

We raised concerns about the abuse of our immigration and refugee systems. We are all very mindful of the important role that immigrants and refugees play in Canada, yet we are also very mindful of the concerns that criminals abuse those systems.

Every time we raised these issues we were called racist and worse. That was very disturbing, especially when it came from ministers of the crown. We were concerned about the very issues that the minister has now raised, but the government voted against the motion we brought to the House. Now, having woken up, it realizes the very grave situation. Hopefully the government has got past name calling.

It was very difficult to stand and express concerns about issues and then be called racists for our efforts. The intentions of members on this side certainly were honourable, yet that was the standard defence of government. It was unfortunate that we could not have moved much quicker in dealing with these issues.

We let down our American allies who suffered a terrible tragedy in New York City. It is one thing to say now that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, which we do, but it is quite another thing to not have come to that realization that it was our obligation to do that prior to the horrific events of September 11.

The bill is a complicated one. The National Post tells us it is approximately 150 pages long. We look forward to reviewing that in the House and in committee. I would urge all members to ensure that we move quickly and work overtime in the House to get this matter to committee, hopefully by Thursday.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the concept of the prodigal laws where cases and time expand dependent upon the amount of money available to serve the cases, that is clearly true. Litigation is a very expensive business. One has to have the money in order to fuel that fire. Depending upon the goodwill or indeed the lack of goodwill of some litigants, we can see time being eaten away by the courts.

In all fairness, many trial judges that I appeared in front of recognized the problem. They tried to do things about it. They did not like abuse of the court system. They did not like counsel wasting time. However, there was always a fear by the trial judges that, if they cut short frivolous arguments they would be overturned on appeal because they did not give the lawyer or individual a fair hearing.

I have found that judges have been more than tolerant of the comments, the length of comments and the time they take, not because they do not recognize the problem at the trial level but because of their fear of being overturned by a court of appeal which may not have that hands-on day to day experience and not see the problem creeping up. It is a serious problem.

When I was serving as a provincial justice minister, we tried to do a number of things to increase the efficiency and the use of the courts. It was extremely difficult to get the facts and the figures. The clerks who answered to a deputy minister and who answered to me kept all the records of the use of the courts but were prohibited by the judges from providing that information to me. Eventually after a long protracted battle I got some of it.

It essentially demonstrated that even in our provincial judges' courts, which are considered the workhorses of the court system, the day to day courts where 90% of the cases are heard, that three to three and a half hours a day was the average. That indicated to me that there was something wrong but I could not quite put my finger on it.

I have a tremendous concern that as we move toward the independence of the administrators of the court the very small ability that elected officials now have to demand some type of accountability will disappear completely. That is my concern.

I share some of his concerns but I would not necessarily fault trial court judges in that respect. Generally speaking they do a very good job of trying to move matters ahead.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by the member of the coalition. I am pleased to participate in the discussion regarding Bill C-30, the courts administration service act.

The bill would consolidate the administrative services of the Federal Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada into a single courts administration service. It would create the position of chief administrator of the courts administrative service. The bill would also create a separate federal court of appeal and change the status of the tax court to that of a superior court.

Bill C-30 is the government's response to the 1997 report of the auditor general entitled “Report on the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada”. The report reviewed the possible regionalization and or merger of the Federal Court's trial division and the Tax Court of Canada as well as the consolidation of their administrative support services. The report also presented the results of an audit of the registry services of the two courts.

The member for Winnipeg--Transcona indicated that he had some concerns about the auditor general moving into what he classified as a policy initiative. I welcome that kind of initiative by a public servant. It gives members of the House a clearly laid out plan and suggestion. Ultimately it would always be up to members of the House to determine whether or not we would accept that policy recommendation.

Bill C-30 enacts only the report's recommendation to consolidate the administrative services of the two courts, although it may be viewed by some as a first step toward an eventual total merger.

The arguments in favour of the proposed consolidation of the administrative services in Bill C-30 appear to be reasonable and sound calculations. The main concern articulated by the auditor general was that significant improvements were needed in the area of court registry cost effectiveness.

Among the existing problems cited were poor planning of facilities, lack of information technology and the fact that the supply of courtrooms exceeded the combined needs of both the federal court and the tax court.

With respect to the excess of courtrooms available, the auditor general simply noted what most members of the bar have been stating for years. His affirmation of this in the report was an important step which we can now use to proceed.

The report examined the physical facilities of both courts to determine whether they were being planned or used in an effective manner. The conclusion of the auditor general was that the two courts had an oversupply of courtrooms and that the actual use of courtrooms was low. The Federal Court's rate of use of its own courtrooms was about 21% based on data from 1993 to 1995.

Other users account for about 16% of overall use and total use amounts to only 36% of total availability. The tax court's use of its own courtrooms is slightly higher at 35% to 38% and total use ranges between 37% and 41%.

If we were any kind of a private business that needed to account to shareholders for efficiencies, our shareholders would have this board of directors out on its ears. We are in fact accountable but not just to shareholders. We are accountable to the voters of Canada. This kind of glaring problem staring us in the face demands action.

Again it illustrates the concern that I voiced earlier. I have no problem with the consolidation of courtrooms and administrators and the like to improve efficiencies. My concern, which I see as an apparently inevitable road that we will go down, arises as we move toward the independent administration of the courts by judges. As the members responsible for taxpayer dollars, how do we ask judges to account if we turn this over to them?

Looking at the rate of use now, I think most judges would say we would not have much trouble trying to beat that record. Therefore, we as parliamentarians, and specifically the Liberal government, have done nothing to encourage efficiency in that respect. That may be a good reason for saying that the government has done nothing to encourage efficiency and that the courts should do it. I have a better plan which involves this side of the House sitting in the government benches, but that will have to wait for a number of years.

The auditor general's report claims that consolidation of courtrooms and registry offices could yield major savings, perhaps $1 million just in leasing expenses. The auditor general further estimates that millions of dollars of possible savings could be gained if all recommended changes within the report were implemented.

Let us take a brief look at the report's specific recommendations to consolidate the administrative services to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division and the Tax Court of Canada.

The report recommends the consolidation of corporate services for the court registries, estimating the savings at $600,000 per year. The report states that consolidation could greatly facilitate improved planning and use of resources, as well as increase the opportunity to plan for federal judicial centres that would meet the needs of the courts, federal boards and tribunals.

Of course many of the issues reviewed in the auditor general's report are not new to the two courts being considered. Many of the recommendations of the auditor general have been previously endorsed by the courts.

As part of a government wide series of program reviews in 1994, the Federal Court undertook a review of its activities. The Federal Court's program review recommended that the government consider consolidation of judicial responsibilities presently held by different courts and different tribunals.

The Federal Court's program review suggested that the government also explore amalgamation of the Federal Court with the tax court and opportunities where by responsibilities of boards and commissions could be dealt with more appropriately, by a trial court for example.

The tax court also recommended to the government a possible consolidation of corporate services among the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada, as well as quasi-judicial commissions, boards and tribunals.

They believe a consolidation could eliminate duplication of work and harmonize policies and procedures in areas such as personnel, finance, security, administration and information technology.

Although the bill only proposes to consolidate the administrative services of the two courts, a move which would not face much opposition from each court, I would suggest, as I stated earlier, it may be viewed by some as the first step toward a total merger of the courts.

While consolidation of the administrative services of the courts as outlined in the bill is a reasonable solution to the many problems articulated by the auditor general, a total merger of the courts is a far more contentious issue. The tax court and legal counsel appearing before that court are known to be strongly opposed to a merger. Those employed by the tax court believe that the efficiency of the court would be lost in a merger and maintain that the hearing of tax cases requires a specialized court.

The tax court indeed has highly specialized judges and it is seen as efficient and effective by the lawyers who appear before it.

The tax court also maintains that most of the significant problems in registry services are related to the Federal Court and not the tax court. It argues that there would be increased delays in hearing tax cases if the tax court merged with the Federal Court. Furthermore, the judges of the tax court joined the court with the understanding that they would deal primarily with tax matters. They may view a merger that requires them to deal with other matters as a breach of that understanding.

Tax counsel have stated that at a minimum judges experienced in tax law are needed to hear cases and that if the courts are merged a separate tax division should be established. I do not think that is a radical suggestion. We have done that with other superior courts in the area of provincial superior courts. For example, we would have a general court of justice and then a specialized family law division. I do not see as being a negative thing. Indeed, I think we could respect that specialization and yet still have the flexibility of ensuring that the courts and the courtrooms are used more effectively.

However, many of the counsel also maintain that tax court judges are already working at full capacity, so in their case they argue productivity is not an issue as has been suggested by some may be the case in the Federal Court.

Currently the administrative services of the various courts are independent of each other. The bill creates the position of a chief administrator who would have the rank and status of a deputy head of a department, creating another layer of government, and that is a concern.

Furthermore, the chief justice of the tax court, when he reviewed the auditor general's report, did not agree with all of the calculations that indicated the need for increased cost effectiveness of the court nor with the methods used to determine possible advantages of a merger.

Those are my comments. I am prepared to move ahead on the bill, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I noted the comments of the member for Winnipeg--Transcona in reference to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Valente v The Queen and, of course, the more recent decision that some of my constituents referred to, when I was in provincial politics,as the case of the judges paying the judges, that is,the establishment of an independent constitutional authority that would require not simply government, be it order in council or parliament, paying judges but actually judges making sure that judges get paid. That was the classification that my constituents put that case into. That case as well talked about institutional independence of the courts.

While I generally support the bill, my concern is that as we move to the institutional independence of the courts, including administrative independence, how do we ensure accountability? We, as members of parliament, and the Minister of Finance are accountable to the taxpayers for the decisions that we make in respect of the running of a department. Whether there are defence issues or health issues, ultimately we are accountable.

My concern is if we simply hand over administrative independence to the courts. I realize the bill does not quite go that far but we are clearly going down that road and we have to tackle the issue. Who will then call the courts to account for misspent money or inefficiencies?

We read in the auditor general's report that there are many unused courts now. The reference was that in the federal court system around 35% to 40% of the courts are being used. Therefore on any given day over 60% of our courtrooms are unused. One can only think of all the expenses involved in unused courtrooms.

I know, for example, from my provincial experience and my involvement in the justice system, that courts were open one hour a day and then shut and the judge gone; then other courts were backed up because that court had too many cases.

The real issue is not that we do not want independence for the court so that justice is done in particular cases, but if we simply hand over money to the courts to run the courts, how do we ensure that accountability?

I wonder whether the member has any issues or comments that he could make in that respect.

[Multiculturalism, October 3rd, 2001]

But we don't have to pay for them.

[Terrorism, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, instead of showing leadership in the supreme court, our justice minister simply asked the court to read the newspapers in order to make its decisions on terrorism.

Since the minister is not willing to voice the security concerns of Canadians to the supreme court, could the minister at least advise the House where she stands on the extradition of terrorists who commit murder?