GOVERNMENT ORDERS

LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA ACT

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Goodale (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-9, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada.

I would first like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for their work in reviewing and amending the bill in the previous session. The amendments adopted by the committee, incorporated in Bill C-9, will contribute positively to the implementation of the legislation.

The passage of the legislation fulfils an important commitment made by the government in the red book that we would restore at the national level an independent capacity for law reform.

Bill C-9 will achieve that goal and it will do it in keeping with the government policy of ensuring that advisory organizations provide essential services that are cost effective and efficient. It is part of a broader effort to establish a more efficient and effective legal system.

We have made every attempt to reflect the results of our nationwide consultations in the legislation before members today. The legislation proposes a lean commission, flexible in form, multidisciplinary and inclusive in function with an emphasis on streamlining the legal system.

The preamble provides a guiding framework, a philosophy by which the new commission would be governed. This framework takes the form of specific principles identified in the consultations including openness, inclusiveness, responsiveness, a multidisciplinary approach, innovation and cost effectiveness. The law commission visualized in Bill C-9 will be different from that of the

former commission in its attention to the process of reform and the stakeholders involved.

(1525)

The commission's mandate will be to study and to keep under systematic review in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the common law and the civil law systems the law of Canada and its effect with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform that will ensure a just legal system that meets the changing needs of Canadian society and of individuals in that society.

In exercising its mandate the commission will provide advice on the development of new approaches to the law; measures to make the legal system more efficient, economical and accessible; partnerships and co-operative arrangements with other communities in Canada to stimulate critical debate; the elimination of obsolete laws an anomalies in the law.

An important consideration underlying this legislation is the particular balance struck between the independence of the commission and the need for accountability.

The commission will be an independent arm's length body reporting through the Minister of Justice to Parliament and will set its own agenda. This independence would be balanced by a requirement in the legislation ensuring that the minister be consulted before the agenda is set.

The legislation provides for a ministerial reference power but also requires that the minister consult with the commission before making such a reference.

The commission, through the minister, would table study reports, agendas and annual reports before Parliament. Similarly, the minister would be required to respond to any report received from the commission.

The commission will consist of five commissioners, a small permanent secretariat, a volunteer advisory council and volunteer subject panels. The president will be full time while the other four commissioners will serve part time. Instead of retaining a large in house staff to conduct studies, the commission will contract for research from outside sources or enter into joint arrangements with existing institutions and agencies.

To provide the commission with the capacity to examine the law of Canada in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the two juridical systems in Canada, common law and civil law, an amendment was introduced by the committee to require that members of the commission be chosen, taking into specific consideration the need for commissioners as a group to have knowledge of the two legal systems.

As an indication of the desire for the new commission to conduct business in an open and inclusive fashion, the advisory council will be established in legislation to provide advice on the strategic direction of the commission and to review its performance.

To further ensure that the commission will be provided with advice reflecting the principles enunciated in the legislation's preamble, the committee proposed that the same factors be taken into consideration when appointing members to the advisory council, as in appointing the commissioners.

Therefore although membership is not limited to the legal community, members should be broadly representative of the socioeconomic and cultural diversity of Canada, represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of common and civil law systems. I believe this amendment enhances the legislation and the ability of the commission to fulfil its mandate.

I mention the amendment made to the mandate of the advisory council, clause 19. Rather than operating at the request of the commission, the advisory council will have an obligation to advise the commission in matters related to its strategic direction, program of studies and performance.

In other matters related to the purpose of the commission the advisory council will have discretion in exercising its advisory function. This amendment, introduced in committee, is critical to ensuring a transparent and inclusive process intended to be open and responsive to Canadian society. I strongly support this amendment.

The existence of the advisory council and the ability to create subject panels will be a significant departure from the structure of the former Law Commission of Canada. It is through these bodies that consultations will be institutionalized.

(1530)

In addition, the commission will be designated a departmental corporation to enable it to receive funds from outside sources, from private and voluntary sectors and to generate revenues through the sale of annual reports and other publications.

In conclusion, the commission envisioned by the legislation represents and number of significant differences from the former Law Reform Commission of Canada. Its broadened approach to the process of law reform is to be inclusive, multi-disciplinary and open to all sectors of Canadian society. There will be greater emphasis on the efficiency and economy of the legal system. It will have a leaner budget and a structure employing part time commissioners, a small secretariat and the use of outside researchers optimizing joint arrangements, collaboration and partnerships, notably with the academic community. It will have a more inclusive manner of operating, using an advisory council and subject panels. Innovative approaches, including new information technol-

ogies, will support a commission which will approach its task with more vigilant attention to cost.

The purpose of the bill is to bring a wide ranging, integrated approach to the improvement, modernization and the reform of the law of Canada. The law is the infrastructure of our social and economic life and in this context, law reform is an essential ingredient to nation building.

I am confident that the Law Commission of Canada as proposed in Bill C-9 will make an important contribution to this vital enterprise. I urge the House to pass this bill.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker, here we are at third reading of Bill C-9, which provides for the creation or rather the exhumation of the Law Commission of Canada. Whatever the case may be, the Minister of Justice today wants to revive this useless body, which cost taxpayers $105 million over its 20 years of existence and which made few recommendations that Parliament actually used.

The Law Reform Commission was established in 1971 under the Law Reform Commission Act. Its role was to systematically study and review Canada's laws. It did three main types of research: substantive criminal law, criminal proceedings and administrative law.

In its last year of existence, the commission had a budget of $5 million. In addition to the commissioners and employees, the commission hired a number of consultants on contract. More than 82 per cent of the commission's expenditures went to salaries and special professional services-primarily university researchers and lawyers hired as consultants for short periods. In this area, the accent is on research and not on practical management.

Unrealistic research programs and astronomical costs were the two main reasons the government of the day chose to abolish the commission.

When the commission was dismantled, the Department of Justice received interim credits so that the work that was furthest along could be completed, particularly the work in the multiculturalism and justice project, undertaken at the request of the minister.

In addition, in June 1993, Treasury Board gave final approval to the funding needed for the Department of Justice to set up and implement a long term law reform strategy. One of the aims of the program was to provide the department with the resources it needed to study more law reform issues internally, for example, by paying experts on a contract basis in the areas under study; to work with other organizations such as the Quebec law reform institute and other major institutions in the field of justice.

The annual budget for projects in the law reform division ranges from $500,000 to $600,000. The studies funded by the division dealt not only with multiculturalism and justice but also with a whole range of problems related to law reform such as human rights, euthanasia, changes to the preliminary investigation procedure, jury selection and many others.

(1535)

The division now includes three full time and one part time employees. The minister wants to set up a new commission when there is already a competent staff ready to respond to the government's requests.

The division is doing a very good job. The minister could very well entrust this law reform division with all the work needed to direct and reform Canadian law and to find innovative solutions to endemic problems. When I think about how this government is slashing the budgets of the NFB, Telefilm Canada and the CBC, I feel like hitting someone.

The Canadian government would rather waste $3 million a year on a commission that will carry out consultations. The Minister of Justice finds it desirable to appoint 29 federalist friends to this commission. The minister of consultation may not like it, but Bloc members will not be fooled. Ironically, it is the law reform division that, in May 1994, distributed a consultation paper and questionnaire on the creation of a new law reform commission to 884 individuals and organizations.

Of the 884 questionnaires that were mailed out, 126 were returned to the department. These are the extensive consultations referred to in the bill's preamble. Former members and researchers of the old commission were undoubtedly consulted. However, it is not so clear that consultations were held outside that community. But the consultation paper and questionnaire were distributed to all senators and members of the House of Commons.

One thing is clear: the provinces as legal entities were overlooked. The desire to seek out people's views is expressed several times in Bill C-9 but nowhere in the text could I find some concern about consulting the provinces as major stakeholders in Canada's legal community. According to the constitutional distribution of legislative powers, the federal government must legislate in its areas of jurisdiction. By creating a new commission, the federal government may well overstep its jurisdiction.

What concerns me the most is that the new commission's mandate is, and I quote: ``to study and keep under systematic review, in a manner that reflects the concepts and institutions of the common law and civil law systems, the law of Canada and its

effects with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform that- meets the changing needs of Canadian society and of individuals in that society''.

In light of this statement of principle, we must conclude once again that the federal government is seeking to centralize reforms and to standardize legislation across the country without taking regional disparities into consideration and above all without considering Quebec in its study and review of both legal systems in Canada. It is outrageous on the federal government's part to claim to be reforming and reviewing ing Quebec's civil law, since it has absolutely no jurisdiction.

The Minister of Justice should reread carefully section 92 of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is very upsetting to see him condone such inappropriate legislation. What are the real motives and goals of federal authorities concerning the new commission's role? Will the commission be yet another centralizing instrument? Is this not an indirect way of doing what is prohibited by the Constitution? The federal government's intentions are clear: It wants to standardize the law, whether civil or criminal, across the country.

The unavowed dream of federal authorities is to move into various areas of provincial law under the cover of direct consultations with the public, while ignoring the provinces. They want a single federal law from coast to coast.

(1540)

This emphasis on the consultation by the commission can only be done at the expense of the research component, particularly if its budget is two million dollars less than that of the former commission, even with the use of new communication technologies. Indeed, these technologies involve costs which will probably be as high as the travel expenses incurred by the former commission, if not higher.

One has to wonder how an agency such as this one, with an annual budget of $3 million, can truly conduct or commission research and develop various programs to that end, while also holding major public consultations.

Bill C-9 provides that the research and analysis responsibilities that are incumbent on a reform commission will be assumed primarily by various social bodies independent from the commission itself. This is how the federal government will ensure the financing of its initiative.

Indeed, the Minister of Justice seeks to have the provinces indirectly finance research activities relating to law reform by having such activities conducted by university research centres, and even the Institut québécois de réforme du droit.

Under cover of a partnership and a streamlining of resources, the federal government is once again showing us that we have to keep a close eye on it. The cost of the research conducted by the commission will be borne by the provinces.

The mandarins in Ottawa, led by the Minister of Justice, view the provinces, and Quebec in particular, as nothing more than pressure groups, on the same footing as a gun manufacturers association, a seniors club or a chamber of commerce.

The bottom line is that the field of action of the new commission will not be limited to federal law. On the contrary, it appears from the policy statement and the preamble that the federal government will not make any bones about stepping into the provinces' fields of jurisdiction. The consultation paper published May 16, 1994 was already ominous. It says, and I quote: ``-the need for law reform stems from the inability of existing laws to deal effectively with problems, and the root causes of those problems often involve the complex interaction of social, economic, health, education, and other factors''.

What is the most worrying is that, with Bill C-9, Quebec loses its guarantee of representation on the commission. In effect, subsection 4(3) of the old Law Reform Commission Act guaranteed that two of the five commissioners came from Quebec. Not only is the federal government not consulting Quebec in the areas that concern it, but it is also excluding it outright by not having a representative from our province.

In addition to the absence on the commission of Civil Code experts from Quebec, the skills and abilities of the commissioners are extremely vague. I note in passing that the government has completely ignored the recommendation by the Canadian Bar Association that women be represented equally in the composition of the commission.

If we look at clause 7 of Bill C-106, before it went to committee, all we find is the following passage, and I quote:

7. As a group, the Commissioners should be broadly representative of the socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canada and represent various disciplines.

7.(3) As a group, the Commissioners should be broadly representative of the socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canada, represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of the common law and civil law systems.

This means that, if the commissioners have a knowledge of the civil law, they do not have to come from Quebec. What explanation can there be for this lack of logic? What explanation can there be

for the only province in Canada with civil law and which comprises one quarter of the Canadian population not being represented on the commission?

The federal government's intention to shove Quebec aside is still more obvious in the English version of Bill C-9. It states, and I quote, that the commissioners ``represent various disciplines and reflect knowledge of the Common law and Civil law systems''. In the English version, then, they need only reflect a degree of knowledge of the Quebec system and can, just as easily as not, come from British Columbia or the Yukon. This is shameful.

Not only does the federal government wish to interfere with areas that are not within its jurisdiction, but it has the audacity to do so in a cavalier fashion. This is a situation in which incompetence comes very close to deception.

The composition of the Supreme Court ought to have been the exampled followed. The Supreme Court Act calls for at least three of the nine judges to be from Quebec. It is totally logical for the highest court in Canada to reflect the two legal systems in the country. Why did the Minister of Justice not subscribe to the same logic?

A final consequence of the federal approach is that, by allowing the future commission to address provincial law, the provinces face the risk of bowing to pressure for uniformization. This will be even stronger, to the point of being unbearable, if the provinces do not have a hand in determining the composition of the commission and its mandate, and in approving that mandate. For this reason alone, Bill C-9 is unacceptable.

This is not all. Unlike the former Law Reform Commission Act, clause 4 of the bill accords less importance to the new commission's research role and focusses more on lucrative and other organizational and promotional activities. This contradiction is striking, to say the least.

These new requirements are indeed surprising and a long way from the role that should be played by a commission responsible for reforming the law and carrying out the mission set out in clause 3 of the bill. The reason is simple. The Minister of Justice wants to make his commission into a propaganda tool through a basic shift in its mandate.

Not only is he broadening the scope of the commission in order to encroach in areas of provincial jurisdiction, not only is he dropping Quebec's representation on this commission, but he has the gall to use his new commission as a marketing tool to promote federal interests.

How do you expect the Bloc to support such a bill? The minister wants us to believe that his commission will be independent. In clause 3, the bill clearly provides, and I quote, that:

The purpose of the Commission is to study-the concepts-of the common law and civil law systems-with a view to providing independent advice on improvements, modernization and reform-

Following their appointment, the commissioners then appoint the members of the advisory council. There will be 24 of them. They too are appointed during pleasure. They are not paid for what they do, but do receive travel and living expenses. These 29 people will make up the Law Commission of Canada. With 29 partisan appointments, the Minister of Justice is creating his own fan club of intellectuals, who will philosophize over the ins and outs of the law.

They will be so far removed from reality, that the Minister of Justice will soon realize his error and put an end to this commission.

(1550)

In a different but equally important connection, any reform agency has problems inherent to its nature and mandate. The former commission never overcame the intrinsic problem of time. The more complex and lengthy the bill, the longer its consideration takes and, consequently, the higher the chances that the sociopolitical context has changed drastically between the time when the commission started studying the bill and the time when it finished, which makes it more difficult to adopt reform proposals as submitted.

The former commission was severely criticized in this respect by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada in the House of Commons. In 1985, the auditor general's office conducted an in-depth audit of the operation and management of the former commission. In his report, the auditor did not mince his words about the project management approach of the commission.

One excerpt speaks volumes; it says, in essence, the following: ``Since 1972, the commission has neither reviewed its initial research program nor submitted a further program, in spite of the fact that its work has changed considerably. There were also major delays in the implementation of its research program and major cost overruns compared to 1972 cost estimates. For example, not one of the completion deadlines were met, and in many cases, projects have yet to be completed 10 years after the original completion date''.

In paragraph 10.30 of his report, the auditor general points out that the absence of written guidelines and procedures has caused deficiencies in the commission's contracting process. The report cites among other examples the fact that the basis for selecting

various consultants or researchers were not put in writing. The report concludes that, unless it goes to tender, the commission should justify its choices in writing to ensure that any given choice was reasonably motivated.

Bill C-9 does not act on the auditor general's recommendations. A follow-up audit conducted by his office in 1998 showed that, three years after it was initially recommended that it do so, the former commission still had not undertaken a comprehensive review of its program effectiveness.

If I interpret the commissioners' complaints correctly, the former commission was in greater need of direction and control than of an arm's length situation and mandates as broad as they are ill-defined. The justice department never assumed its responsibility as a regulatory body. The situation had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where the government did not have a choice any more. It had to get rid of the commission and integrate some of its resources into the Department of Justice, hence the establishment of the law reform division.

I would like to say that the justice minister cannot be serious when he describes the future commission as a streamlined law reform commission of Canada. If he was serious about streamlining, he would let it be. A streamlined commission already exists within his department.

The Minister of Justice did not learn from the mistakes of the former commission. He chose to ignore the report in which the auditor general severely criticized the former commission. It has not gotten through to him yet that there is already, within his own department, a division whose sold purpose is to reform Canadian law. By failing to learn from past mistakes, he runs the risk of making the same mistakes.

Moreover, and the minister will not be warned again, Quebec will not be fooled by this cheap trick aimed at invading its areas of jurisdiction, spending public money needlessly in the process. The Bloc Quebecois cannot condone this kind of manoeuvring.

(1555)

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, for the information of Canadians watching this debate, we are debating Bill C-9, formerly introduced in the last sitting of the House as Bill C-106. Essentially it sets up a law reform commission. The purpose of the commission is to advise government on needed changes and modernizations to the existing laws of Canada.

We opposed this bill when it was introduced to the House at second reading and we oppose it now at third reading. I hesitate to take the House's time by reiterating the same concerns and arguments that were made in the debate on October 19, but there are a couple of new developments which need to be discussed and which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. There have been a couple of amendments suggested to the bill and those should be dealt with.

The commission is being set up as a ``departmental corporation''. This is to be in aid of increasing or underlining the independence of the commission from government and also to allow it to generate revenues which is an acknowledgement of the concern that has been raised about the cost of this ever increasing circle of commissions and other groups which keep being created.

I would hesitate to predict what a departmental corporation could bring in or recover from the sale of its reports. I suggest it would certainly not be a very considerable amount. Even Parliament itself seems very uninterested in many of these reports. They gather dust on shelves. I would be extremely surprised if members of the public laid out cold hard cash just for the pleasure of reading them. I would also point out that the research work done to generate these reports in the first instance is funded solely from taxpayers' dollars. For taxpayers to have to pay additional money to look at the reports they paid to have generated in the first place does seem to be a bit much to ask of any member of the public.

The Reform Party suggested two amendments to this bill at committee stage. The first one was to correct what we felt was an unjustified inclusion in the bill of the words ``after extensive consultation''. We feel that the legislation which is put before Parliament should be defensible and should be accurate in the way it is framed. We really felt that extensive consultation was a misnomer for the process that had taken place in bringing back this idea of a law reform commission.

The consultation in fact consisted of 844 questionnaires of which only 126 were returned, a less than 15 per cent return rate. The 844 questionnaires went out to, among other people, every MP and every senator. About half of all these questionnaires went to members of Parliament who have to vote on whether or not this whole thing goes ahead. It seems redundant to preview the opinions of members of the Canadian Parliament and then call this consultation. When we use the word consultation the public thinks of it as we are consulting members of the public at large, or extensively some other interests besides the law makers and the decision makers in Parliament, but that was not the case.

We felt for the integrity of the legislation and the plain speaking that would be required of legislation that the reference to extensive consultation should be deleted. However, it is still in there. Canadians are being given to understand that there was extensive consultation and extensive discussion across the country about

bringing back the commission and it should be put on the record that this was definitely not the case.

(1600)

The other amendment which we proposed would increase the role of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the appointment of the commissioners and the advisory body to the commission.

When I criticized the Minister of Justice for this at second reading he rose in the House and said that this body was going to be both independent and accountable. It would be independent of the minister and it would be accountable to the House through the minister. At that time I asked, and I still have not received a satisfactory answer to this difficulty, how a body could be independent of a minister when it is accountable to the House through that minister.

There are so many areas in the legislation where not only is the commission accountable through the minister, it is directly a creature of the minister. The minister, for example, appoints the five commissioners. How can a body which is appointed by a minister, through his recommendations to council, be even remotely considered to be independent of that minister?

The commission must consult with the minister before setting its agenda. The commission must carry out studies or prepare reports at the request of the minister. The response to the recommendations of the commission is at the minister's discretion. The minister could simply ignore or neglect to do anything about the recommendations of the commission.

There is so much leeway and control over the process by the minister that to say it is independent of him or her is simply incorrect. There is absolutely no basis on which to make that argument.

To say that the commission is accountable is again a notion which cannot be supported by the facts. For example, the commission will be given $3 million a year on which to operate. However, it will be set up as a departmental corporation. Supposedly, it is like another crown corporation which is at arm's length from government, therefore, not only can government not tell it what to do unless it wants to do that, members of Parliament cannot obtain information from it through the Access to Information Act.

The departmental corporations are totally independent bodies. They are corporations in the private sector. As members of Parliament, even though these bodies are totally funded by taxpayers, we have no right to obtain information from them.

The grain commission is a good example of this. The commissioners on the grain commission set their own remuneration. They set their own terms of reference. They set their own pensions. The people served, the taxpayers of Canada, and even members of Parliament, cannot obtain information from it because the commission is at arm's length and has such a level of independence that it is accountable to no one.

This commission has been set up in the same way and yet the minister tells us that it will be accountable. However, in the way it has been set up, the accountability is once again shielded behind all of these arm's length mechanisms. We are going to have the same situation as we have with the other bodies.

For example, ACOA was asked by the taxpayers how many jobs it had created with the millions and millions of dollars the taxpayers had given to it in order to create economic activity in Atlantic Canada. However, they cannot obtain an answer. ACOA is not required to give that information to the people who are giving it money.

To set up another body like this is a slap in the face to taxpayers. Members have to realize that taxpayers work very hard for the money they give to bureaucrats and politicians.

(1605 )

They should have some means of ascertaining that they are getting bang for their buck. However, we have no certainty of that in this legislation. Another $3 million is floating around the countryside with the accountability mechanism very uncertain and loose. We should object to that very strongly.

For example, we have so many services which taxpayers desperately need in order to take advantage of economic opportunities, to get health services and the education of our young people and our workforce. The $3 million is being cut from the kinds of services that Canadians are demanding. Here is money being used to set up a commission that Canadians are not demanding but which they pay members of Parliament to carry out.

The whole job of members of Parliament is to recommend and put forward legislative measures that are needed to deal with issues facing the country. The whole point of having members of Parliament is to update and modernize the laws so they meet the changing needs of Canadians.

Why on earth are millions of dollars being spent on members of Parliament who come with all different perspectives, meeting in committees, studying issues, travelling the country, debating in the House of Commons and analysing bills and then all of a sudden another $3 million is being thrown into the hat to have another commission of buddies of the justice minister, whomever he decides to appoint, to do the very same work that members of Parliament are elected and paid to do?

In my speech on this matter on October 19, I made an offer to the justice minister. I said: ``If you are really so desperately in need of a law commission, then we as Reform Party members in the House of Commons will gladly do that job for nothing. We will study these issues and give you recommendations. We will certainly be

truly independent. We will not cost you a nickel. We will do the kind of research and advising that you say you need''.

Many resources are open to members of Parliament and certainly to the justice minister. There are professors in universities in the area of law and law reform whose mandate is to do independent research. They would be delighted to share the fruits of their labours with lawmakers. However, all of a sudden even more researchers will be hired to do even more research when there is plenty being done.

This bill is not needed. It does not do the work that it is supposed to do. It sets up yet another bunch of appointed people to be used by the minister to validate what he wants to do anyway. This is a very bad piece of legislation, especially at a time when the country is going deeper into debt by millions of dollars every day.

I would urge the House to reject the setting up of yet another body and yet another commission, that we get on with the job of doing this work with the elected people who we are already paying and that we forget and scrap these kinds of measures. They are not needed and they will not do a better job for Canadians than is already being done.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in looking at this bill, I have been trying to figure out what it is that the Liberals are attempting to accomplish. The thesis of my speech today is Liberal patronage.

The question has to be asked: Where is the money coming from that will create the new agency whose work is already being done by the justice department? When the law reform commission was abolished some of the funding was redirected to the justice department. Is the $3 million for this new commission coming from the justice department which is already doing that type of work? Will there be a cut in the department's budget to make way for the new commission?

(1610 )

It is rather instructive to look at what was said by the previous government when it cut the law commission. The Hon. Gilles Loiselle, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State for Finance on April 30, 1992 said:

The Law Reform Commission was created in 1971. It has played a useful role in conducting an ongoing review of the statutes of Canada, in co-ordinating non-governmental research on legal issues, and in providing independent advice to the Minister of Justice.

The government has concluded, however, that these functions can be fulfilled without maintaining a separate organization. Responsibility for commissioning outside research will be assigned to the Department of Justice, with the minister and the department seeking the views of researchers and practitioners in universities and elsewhere. The Law Reform Commission will accordingly be wound up and any necessary continuing resources transferred to the Department of Justice.

By eliminating the law reform commission in 1992 the government of the day was moving toward eliminating duplication. My Liberal friends of today do not necessarily understand the concept of eliminating duplication, particularly if they can be setting up more boards to employ more Liberals.

The government wants to bring the law commission back. Much of the work can be done by the justice department which has far greater resources. I refer to comments by Peter McCreath who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization) on April 30, 1992. He said:

It is not as if the kind of work that has been done by the Law Reform Commission of Canada will cease if the law reform commission ceases to exist. It is very important that kind of research continues to take place-

Law reform is possible in Canada even without the Law Reform Commission.

I am trying to drive home the reason why the Liberals of today are trying to bring this back for their Liberal lawyer friends. The members of this new commission will be order in council appointees. It may be another chance to let the few remaining Liberal supporters in this country who do not have government jobs get on the government payroll. In short, the commission has the opportunity to be a haven for political appointees.

I would like the member for Kingston and the Islands, who loves to kibitz on this, to directly refute that this commission will not be a place to put the wonderful Liberal lawyer friends of this government today. In fact that is the reason why this is being redone.

Mr. Milliken: I hope it is.

Mr. Morrison: But he is a lawyer.

Mr. Abbott: Is he a lawyer?

Mr. Morrison: Of course he is a lawyer.

Mr. Abbott: Is he a lawyer? We listen to him talk and talk and talk so he must be a lawyer.

We have seen the Minister of Justice begin politicizing our courts by several of his recent appointments of defeated Liberal candidates and Liberal riding presidents to the benches.

I am going to deal with the issue of patronage in detail at the conclusion of my speech but I am still working to develop this case. Actually I do not have to work to develop this case. It is so obvious.

The Minister of Justice will have to be consulted before the agenda of the commission is set. As was pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, this is very clearly not an arm's length organization. Is it not really just Liberal logic to say that these people are independent-

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Is there such a thing?

Mr. Abbott: Is there such a thing as Liberal logic? Well, these things do happen.

The minister states that the commission will operate at arm's length. That is really magic because there is a little discrepancy here. He wants it to be independent, but he wants it to do what he wants it to do.

(1615)

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Selfish.

Mr. Abbott: I do not know about selfish, but it certainly defies the whole idea of-

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Liberal logic.

Mr. Abbott: -Liberal logic. You got it.

The minister also gets a say in the appointment of council members. In short, it appears that the new law commission will be an extension of the minister's and the department's staff. If it is simply an extension of the minister's and department's staff, why are we setting it up? Why not just give the justice department another $3 million and say to get on with the job? If that is what this whole process is all about, there certainly would have been a less expensive way than going through the whole business of coming up with this legislation. Why did he not ask for an extra $3 million from the Minister of Finance?

It is interesting that the former member for Edmonton-Strathcona on November 25, 1992 in talking about the old Law Reform Commission said: ``It costs $4.9 million each year''. I should point out that the Liberals always start low and aim high. They are only starting at $3 million right now. Who is to know where the cost of this commission is going to go? I come back to the member's comments: ``It costs $4.9 million each year. It has five full time commissioners and''-believe it or not-``a staff of 36. That is a lot of staff and a lot of commissioners, and it costs a lot of money. It is my belief that in Canada we have created too many commissions, too many boards and in a certain way we have devalued Parliament''.

What is really scary is that the situation of creating too many commissions and getting things out of the control of parliamentarians was started by the Liberals and the Conservatives attempted to terminate it in their feeble little way. Now that the Liberals are back, guess what? We have the re-creation of yet another commission. Terrific.

``I would rather see'', the member said, and this reflects the comments of the member for Calgary North, ``work of this nature done by parliamentary committees-. I say to my colleagues in response, we have had an independent agency that has done a lot of good work but it is time we ourselves did this work and brought some prestige back to Parliament. Let us not devalue Parliament by giving its role to outsiders''.

Reflecting on the most recent legislation by this Liberal government, it does devalue the whole role of Parliament and parliamentarians. It just treats this place like a rubber stamp. When the Liberals are not getting their own way they simply bring in the pile driver of closure to make sure that it gets through, as witness the reintroduction of this piece of legislation.

The member said: ``We can do that independent work. There is also a fiscal argument here. It is an expenditure of $5 million a year. We have had a deficit over the past years of roughly $30 billion a year,''-and of course it has gone up since then-``now $34.6 billion has to be borrowed. We have to borrow that money each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on that money each year''.

In parenthesis I point out to all the Liberals present that their government, in the life of this government, will increase the annual interest charge on the debt that they have accumulated by $11 billion a year. It is an increase. That is only the difference between what the interest charge was when this government came in. When these people are kicked out of office in 1997, they will have added an annual interest charge of $11 billion a year to service the debt, yet they are perfectly prepared to spend another $3 million a year.

The member went on: ``We have to borrow that money each year and then we have to borrow money to cover the interest on the money each year. It is a vicious cycle. The government has to take a hard look at where we spend our money. Some of this work will be contracted out but there will be a net saving''.

The point of my speech today very simply is that this government did not learn anything. The Liberals were booted out for a nine year period when there were people here who tinkered around the edges. They really did not get anything done but at least they understood that we cannot spend money we do not have. Those

people on the other side of the House to this day still do not understand that basic concept.

There was an interesting article in the November 21, 1995 Financial Post in which Deborah McCorkell-Hoy, director of the law reform division of the Department of Justice had some really interesting comments. I quote from the article:

When the commission was set up, McCorkell-Hoy said, everyone agreed that it should be as independent as possible, but it ``needs to be tied to the needs of Canadians''.

To put that into effect, the bill creates a 25 member advisory council ``to advise on the strategic direction of the commission and review its performance''.

As well, specific reform projects will be monitored and advised by panels of expert specialists.

McCorkell-Hoy points out several areas that could attract business partners and funding:

Intellectual property and its relationship to new information technologies.

Biotechnology, a subject in which law reform ``has tremendous implications for the economy of the country, and yet the law is unknown''.

Well, of course, we are dealing with the Liberal government.

Federal financial regulatory mechanisms, especially in international commercial law.

Since the bill gives the commission a wide mandate to develop ``new approaches to, and new concepts of, law'', it's not inconceivable that other federal areas such as taxation, corporate law, labour law, unemployment insurance or immigration could be research targets.

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Patronage.

Mr. Abbott: Well, was it not a minister who said that we should have more transparent patronage? Is that not what he said in the House the other day? Only the Liberals would say that.

The point I am trying to drive home and for the people of Canada to understand, is that when the Liberals run out of work they can give to their friends, they come up with some kind of a make work project like this one. What do we have in Canada as a result of the charter of rights and freedoms but a charter industry populated by high priced lawyers who go around trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is only in the wonderful world of the Liberals.

We have stated, since its inception, that the country needs less government, not more. Canada has no lack of agencies, boards or commissions. Creating another agency when the work proposed is already being done makes absolutely no sense, which is the thesis of my speech.

It is not a matter of privatizing law reform. There is no mention of making cuts within the justice department when its work will be done by the commission. This is a make work project for the government's Liberal lawyer friends. That is it, plain and simple. This is a Liberal patronage bill.

Look at the fact that the Prime Minister is not satisfied to just appoint Liberal bagmen to the other place. People go there and travel at taxpayers' expense going around and collecting funds for the Liberal government for the upcoming election. He is not satisfied with that.

As a matter of fact, Senator Taylor, the most recent appointment to the other place, was very open, honest, candid and frank when he said: ``This is a patronage appointment. I have been a Liberal all of my life and this is what I get for it''. He got appointed to the other place so that he can travel around and pick up money for those people. It is absolutely shameful.

If we value the work of an independent commission, why is the justice minister so closely involved in the process? Because this is not an independent commission. That is why. This is a process of making work for Liberal lawyer friends.

The justice minister picks appointees, he has a say on the agenda and will have flexibility in response to the commission's recommendations. Even after these lawyers get paid all of this money, the justice minister will have flexibility. If we were to translate that, the justice minister can ignore the recommendations. These recommendations have the potential of being of absolutely no value except the value that has been siphoned out of the pockets of tax paying Canadians.

If we are truly interested in the modernization and reform of Canadian law, why would we not have a completely independent body without such a large role for the Minister of Justice?

I rest my case. The plain fact of the matter is that because of the very, very close tie-in, the connections, the absolute control by the minister of justice, this law does nothing except make work for Liberal lawyer friends.

(1625 )

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on a very logical, well put together and erudite examination of Bill C-9.

There are huge problems today in the justice department and in the ability of our men and women in uniform who go out on the streets every day to defend the rights of innocent civilians. They put their lives on the line every day. If we speak to them we will

find they are incredibly dissatisfied with the justice department and the laws and regulations it has put forth over the last 20 years which have significantly hampered their honourable goals for Canadian society.

What constructive suggestions does the hon. member feel we could put forth, such as victims rights, repealing section 745 and such? I would like to hear his views on these very important issues.

Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, there are many issues the justice minister is absolutely ignoring and I might suggest at his peril and the peril of the Liberal Party. They are issues like section 745 which has the absolute backing of the majority of the members of this House and the majority of people in Canada. It also has the backing particularly of the victims of the people who are currently incarcerated who may become eligible under section 745. There are many, many bills like that.

It is so obvious and seems quite clear to me, to return to my original thesis, that this bill is simply a make work project. The justice minister is not listening. We could not only save the time of this House and the cost of putting this bill through, but we could also save the $3 million a year that will be forked out to the Liberal lawyer friends.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I understand the member has a substantial interest in law and order issues. The speech he has just given indicates that this bill in particular is of great interest to him. Perhaps the member for Kootenay East could explain to the House and to his constituents why he never turned up in committee to discuss the bill.

Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, as you would be aware and I know the member is aware, a member of Parliament has many responsibilities be they in revenue, in heritage, whatever the case may be.

This issue is of tremendous importance to people in my constituency. As a matter of fact, I devoted my most recent householder entirely to the issue of crime and what the ordinary citizen could be doing about crime even under the meagre, pitiful laws the Liberals are presently toying with.

As we have been given the opportunity today, when I do have some time available to speak to this issue, I speak on behalf of the people of Kootenay East. They say to this government to get on with the job, change the justice system and do not tinker and play with it with these silly make work projects.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member for Kootenay East was able to clarify why at the beginning of speech he was asking all those questions about the bill. He wanted to know various details about the bill, why the minister was not doing this, why the minister was not doing that, why the bill did not do this, why the bill did not do that. We all know why he does not know the answers. He did not attend the committee meetings.

I am astounded the hon. member would say in justification for his failure to show up to discuss the bill in committee that what he did was put out a householder to his constituents about law and order issues. Why did he not put out one on his attendance?

(1630)

I suggest that had he put out one explaining where he was when he was not at the justice committee discussing what he says is a very important bill, perhaps his constituents would have understood a bit more about his views on justice matters.

Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, of course we are talking to the now defunct, failed, fired parliamentary secretary who used to spend all of his time in the House.

Maybe I could ask him the same question. Did he attend the justice committee? Did he attend the finance committee? Did he attend the heritage committee? Did he attend the natural resources committee? Did he attend the environment committee? What was he doing wasting his time here in the House, running around like he did before, making all sorts of these little yattering noises?

We all know very well that what really goes on is when a member of Parliament comes to Ottawa, unfortunately even if he is six foot five and 250 pounds, he cannot be dissected and sent to this committee, that committee and also be in the House to answer the inanities of the former parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay East managed to get through that particular matter without answering the question as to why he was not in committee. He has made comments about the member for Kingston and the Islands who was fulfilling his duties in the House, quite different from some of the members opposite. Again, he has not mentioned why he was not in committee.

I am sure he cannot make that comment about me in the justice committee because I was in that committee all the time, even on this bill. I never saw him once. Perhaps he can now take this opportunity to answer why he was not at any time at any of those committee meetings dealing with this bill.

Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member speaks about fulfilling his duties. I wonder if the member would care to stand up perhaps in the next segment in debate when he can answer the question of how he fulfilled his duty in that committee on Bill C-68 when the people in his constituency clearly and demonstrably gave him direction that he was to vote against Bill C-68.

I suggest the reason he did not fulfil his responsibility to his people in his constituency was that he knew if he kept quiet on Bill C-68 he just might have a chance of being appointed the chair of that committee.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, today we are speaking about Bill C-9, an act to create the Law Commission of Canada.

This commission was set up to do some relatively general things. It was set up to study, analyse and give advice on measures to improve our justice system.

This is another sad day in Parliament. This is another example of what I call studyitis. When we have problems in this country do we address those problems? Do we bring forth constructive solutions to impact on those problems in an effective way? No. What do we do? We study them. We analyse them. Perhaps we give advice on them.

There have been thousands of studies on ways to improve justice in Canada. All we need to do is come together to look at those solutions, take the best solutions out of those suggestions and impart those to the Canadian justice system for all Canadians.

As we speak people are being raped, murdered, assaulted, robbed, all manner of terrible things are happening to them, and the justice department has been largely ineffective, particularly in the last 10 years, in dealing with these problems.

We have another Pavlovian response by the government to some very serious problems that exist in Canada today. It is not benign. It will cost taxpayers $3 million to bring the commission together. Again we have to ask why. Why are we doing this when constructive solutions already exist?

(1635)

I do not agree with the commission. I challenge the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general to work together with our party, which has put together many constructive improvements for the justice system, to enact those improvements. I send that challenge out to them and I hope they respond.

I would like to introduce constructive solutions on which we can work to improve the justice system.

First, we have a problem with the time it takes an individual who is arrested to be tried and convicted. Today we have a very onerous system. It takes a great deal of time before the person who is charged is brought to justice. One of the things we could do to expedite the time involved would be to eliminate preliminary hearings. They are expensive, time consuming and they delay justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Second, we could limit the number of appeals available to convicted persons. Appeals must happen. It is the only fair way to have a balance and a check in the existing system. However, to allow individuals to continually appeal is wrong. It is a waste of taxpayer money.

Third, we could limit the number of adjournments which lawyers can introduce during the course of a trial. Currently lawyers can introduce umpteen adjournments. They cause an incredible backlog in the courts. There must be a fair number of adjournments to ensure that due process takes place. However, if we limit their number we could expedite the process while ensuring the accused receives a fair trial.

Fourth, the Minister of Justice could introduce a DNA data bank. This would enable police officers across Canada to take DNA samples from accused individuals and place them into the data bank. It would help police officers to speed up their analysis of criminals. If a person is innocent they have nothing to fear. Is this an abrogation of an individual's rights? Absolutely not. It is something we could introduce today for the collective good of all Canadians. A DNA data bank would expedite a person's guilt or innocence.

Fifth, it is very important that we repeal section 745. I have heard the intervention by the Minister of Justice. He said there are many exceptions to this rule. However, we have to understand that section 745 applies to individuals convicted of first degree murder. It is very difficult to convict a person of first degree murder. Those who are convicted are guilty of heinous crimes, including the murder of a police officer. The number of individuals convicted of these crimes and who were released after 15 years is shocking. It sends a very bad message to those contemplating vicious crimes.

Consider the juvenile system. Juvenile violent crime is on the increase. It is the fastest growing aspect of crime in the country. Something must be done about it. Unfortunately the solutions attempted by the government have been wholly inadequate. It is high time the government began to implement constructive solutions for youth. Youth crime is a tragedy.

(1640 )

What we should do is name youths convicted of a crime. This would show them they cannot hide behind anonymity when committing a heinous crime. We have to speed the process from apprehension to trial, as I mentioned before. We need to have constructive solutions to address the precursors to those children who lead a life of crime.

This comes down to some of the determinates of health which have not been widely looked at. Many of these juveniles go on to live a life of crime. I have worked in adult and juvenile jails both as a doctor and as a correctional officer. Many of these individuals have had tragic family histories. They live in a family milieu which breeds a psychology that can lead to conduct disorders and then to crime.

When we identify these family circumstances, we need to bring to bear the full resources we have to try to ameliorate these circumstances. Sometimes this cannot be done. Unfortunately the system we have today ensures that those children continue to remain in the tragic, harmful, often violent and always repressive situation. Sexual violence often exists within the family and if not that, physical violence and an enormous amount of neglect.

The mindset we have today within our social programs and the justice department is to keep these children basically where they are. This is a mistake. A child cannot change his or her pattern of behaviour if they are living under these very tragic family circumstances. It is imperative that these children be removed from the home for as long as it takes for the family situation to become sufficiently better so that the child's basic needs are met and their personal safety is ensured.

Work and skills training should be made obligatory not only for adults but for juveniles. This will be imperative if they are to become a functional member of society when released from jail.

Many individuals, particularly in adult institutions, have problems with substance abuse. Jails do try to some extent to address the problem but the way they do it is wholly inadequate. Conditional on their release, if substance abuse is identified as a contributing factor to their criminal behaviour, they should take part in effective substance abuse programs in the judicial system.

We must also look at the rights of the victims, something we have not heard much about in the House. This is absolutely imperative. We have to hold the rights of victims as the pre-eminent issue in justice. We must protect the rights of innocent civilians above those of criminals, period. That is the primary role of justice. Right now that is not what we are seeing.

My colleague earlier today in question period, when asking a question to the Minister of Justice, gave a profoundly tragic example of a woman who was murdered because she could not get the information needed from the judicial system that the individual she was with was violent and that her life was at risk. Who are we trying to protect, the criminals or the victim? We must protect the victim. I do not care about these spurious arguments put forth about protecting the human rights of an individual. The person whose human rights must be protected first and foremost is the victim. Therefore our party has put forth many constructive solutions, including making obligatory victim impact statements, appropriate restitution to the victim and counselling.

(1645)

I will give a really sad example that happened in my constituency. A lady came to my office. Her 13-year old son, an invalid, was sexually abused by an older boy, a 17-year-old. When they went to court and the older boy was convicted of sexually abusing the handicapped 13-year-old, the 17-year-old said he was a victim.

The 17-year-old got more counselling, money from this institution, from the justice department, than the victim, much more. That is not justice at all. Who are we trying to protect?

We need balance. The accused and the convicted must be treated too. To ignore them is to ignore society at our peril. We must also first and foremost be able to protect, treat and deal with the victims of some terrible crimes that exist in society.

We see little justice in the justice system. We see a crisis of conscience within those men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect us.

I spoke with some members of a police force yesterday. They echo what is said by police officers in my riding, that the system we have today simply does not work. We cannot merely tinker around the edges. We have to impact some good, strong, effective solutions and we need to do it now. If we do not do it now, more innocent civilians will be unnecessarily hurt.

We can address the precursors to the individuals who commit these crimes. By doing that, we will be saving ourselves not only money but a lot of grief and individuals who need not be hurt in the future.

It is up to us in the House to look at these effective solutions today and enact them. It is not up to us to enact another bill, to develop another commission to do more studying, to give more advice, to do more analysis to enact solutions that are already on the books.

The solutions are there and I challenge the government once again to look at those solutions and bring them to the floor of the House. Let us have a vigorous debate and pick the best ones. There are many that were done by learned individuals.

I hope hon. members opposite will take it upon themselves to bring forth some effective solution for all Canadians to protect them and to prevent further crimes. It must be done today.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Before we proceed with questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, health.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was really interested in the comments by my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. One of the thoughts that crossed my mind was a term I was trying to think of earlier in the most recent exchange. What we are looking for here is Liberal logic. Basically he has asked them to take a look at some very logical, rational ideas that would put the rights of the victim first.

Would he agree with me that the term Liberal logic is the ultimate oxymoron?

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the question. It never ceases to amaze me why, with all the resources we have, with all the intelligent people who sit in the House today, we do not enact these solutions. The power to do this lies with the government. Liberal logic is indeed an oxymoron. Here the Liberals have the opportunity for a solution and they play politics with it and fritter it away. Why? The goal of the House is not to enact solutions, the goal is not to bring forth good solutions to the Canadian public. The goal is the maintenance of power. The problems of the country become secondary to effective solutions to address the problems of the country. The problems become secondary to the acquisition and maintenance of power. That is a huge disservice to the Canadian people.

(1650)

If the Canadian public only knew what went on in the House and how we are living in a very pyramidal system where the important decisions of the country are made by approximately 12 elected officials and a number of non-elected and unaccountable officials, it would be shocked.

All is not lost, however. If the government would remove itself from its profound and primary desire to maintain power and looked beyond that to build a better House of Commons which gives the ability to individual members of Parliament, across party lines, to represent their constituents effectively and to put forth effective solutions, which gives the power to committees to bring forth solutions and legislative initiatives to the House, there would be a much more democratic situation in the country. By doing so we would build a stronger Canada.

Instead we have a situation in which the frontbenches and the whip structures cower members in the back to do exactly what their leader tells them to do.

That does their constituents a disservice because there are numerous good solutions that the backbenchers have which I have spoken to many times. There is no reason why those solutions cannot be brought forth for the public to digest, debate and for us to debate in the House.

If we accept the current so-called democratic situation we have here today, we should be ashamed of ourselves. The House is far from being a democracy.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[Translation]

And the division bells having rung:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to Standing Order 35(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

* * *

AGREEMENT 20 ON INTERNAL TRADE IMPLEMENTATION ACT

(1655 )

SPEAKER'S RULING

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-19.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

[Translation]

Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.

I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-19, in Clause 9, be amended

(a) by replacing line 5, on page 3, with the following:

``nor in Council may, by order, subject to subsection (1), do any one or''; and

(b) by adding after line 13, on page 3, the following:

``(2) Any order made under subsection (1) is subject to the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution explaining the measures contemplated by the order, which shall have been debated for two days before being put to a vote.''

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.) moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-19, in Clause 14, be amended

(a) by replacing line 6, on page 4, with the following:

``14. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by''; and

(b) by replacing line 10, on page 4, with the following:

``ing out the purposes of the Agreement only after scrutiny and approval by the appropriate committee of the House of Commons''.

``(2) Any order made under subsection (1) is subject to the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution explaining the measures contemplated by the order, which shall have been debated for two days before being put to a vote.''

We must deregulate so as to not impede free competition or the movement of goods, services and people. During the last referendum campaign, we Quebec sovereignists spoke at length of an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. This measure is a step forward that will allow for the free competition and the partnership that we sought to have with the other Canadian provinces.

(1700)

As I said a moment ago, we have always been very favourable to free trade and, I repeat, we would like to see a very open economic partnership among the provinces so that we can work much more freely with the other provinces in Canada and, naturally, at least have the possibility of conducting trade as easily between provinces as with the United States.

That is what we are proposing in this motion, and particularly with respect to disputes, the committee which will settle disputes between provinces. We have a committee that settles disputes between Canada and the United States, but the bill that deals with an internal trade agreement sets up a committee to settle disputes that will arise over time.

This is where we have a problem. The process is rather complex. We are told there will be a complaints secretariat; if a complaint cannot be settled internally by officers of the permanent secretariat, there will be three other possibilities. First of all, there is the possibility of consultation, at the request of the secretariat. We will also have an internal trade committee. This committee will be a permanent one, with representatives from all the provinces, appointed by the provinces through a rather special procedure, with which we are also in agreement.

It will also be possible to form a special group, a sort of arbitrator for very serious conflicts between certain businesses that are not adhering to the rules of the agreement. If the working group decides on a course of action that is not sufficiently stringent or accepted, then the next step will be trade action taken by the government.

This is where we have a problem. Trade action can be implemented by order of the governor in council, in other words, by cabinet. That is why I am tabling this motion. We do not agree that the government should be allowed to decide by order to act, because I feel that the governor in council could decide, almost in secrecy, to act.

This is where the problem lies. There could be conflicts between economic sectors of activity or conflicts between certain businesses or ways of doing business. There will be some economic sectors in conflict with others, with the bulk of a given economic sector under the control of one or a few provinces, to the detriment of another.

This goes beyond trade and might affect the economy of a province, any province. That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois propose in this motion that there be a debate of at least two days in the House of Commons before the order takes effect. We feel that this is very important because it could affect a province.

This is not only a matter of trade. In some cases it may lead to confrontation between certain provinces.

(1705)

This is the reason we believe there must be more transparency and a public debate, before the government acts. I have referred to the entire process, an excellent one, for settling differences. It is very well organized, very safe and complex and will, I think, be able to play an effective role. But, if the process cannot work, I envisage serious repercussions which must be revealed publicly and debated publicly.

For this reason, I find this is a bit risky. Some provinces, in any case, might be affected on the economic level. This is why we feel there must be debate for two days before we go ahead with a ministerial order.

These are the main reasons. We in Quebec are also somewhat concerned to see the federal government taking this decision via an order. We see this as just one more power the federal government is giving itself. It is another example of the federal's centralization. Since this is an agreement between the provinces why, in the long run, is it the federal government which will settle the matter by an order. This strikes us as somewhat dangerous. The federal govern-

ment might favour one province over another because of the power it has given itself to settle certain problems relating to internal trade.

Overall, we are in favour of liberalizing trade between the provinces, but we strongly insist-and I address these words particularly to the government members who will be having to vote on this-that they support this motion, so that MPs from the party in power will have the opportunity to have their say. Perhaps the government members representing certain regions will express themselves freely, so that their region, or their province, will be protected in sectors which might affect another province.

For this reason, we deem it very important to debate the matter in a way that is both open and transparent. I hope the government members will take this motion under consideration.

[English]

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 2 regarding changes to the bill that will implement the agreement on internal trade.

During my address today I will explain that without the inclusion of my amendment, Bill C-19 will not address the concerns of Canadian taxpayers who are tired of the onslaught of patronage appointments from this Liberal government.

I will explain how my amendment will improve this legislation to serve the best interests of Canadians by providing a transparent system of scrutinizing governor in council appointments as they pertain to the agreement on internal trade.

The amended clause would read as follows:

14(1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, appoint any person to fill any position that may be necessary or advisable, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, for carrying out the purposes of the agreement only after scrutiny and approval by the appropriate committee of the House of Commons.

(1710)

This amendment establishes elected members of Parliament serving on committees as scrutineers to patronage appointments. It will ensure that Canadians, through their elected members of Parliament, play a role in governor in council appointments.

The process thus far has been anything but open. Even though the Liberals campaigned on integrity in government and pledged to award governor in council appointments based on merit, Liberal Party affiliation has been at least as important as merit. I would suggest that it has been far more important in many of the patronage appointments made by the government.

This amendment will help the Liberals to keep their election promise. After all, everyone needs a little help now and again.

The agreement on internal trade, which will be implemented by this legislation, was contrived from executive meetings involving cabinet officials of the 12 provinces and territories along with the federal government. These 13 government bodies are defined as parties to the agreement. Their objective is the removal of interprovincial trade barriers which cost Canadians between $6 billion and $10 billion a year. The objective is, indeed, admirable. The government is to be congratulated for taking the first step in freeing up trade within Canada. Unfortunately, it is only a very small first step.

The result of this process so far is a seriously flawed agreement which identifies the problems, yet does very little to solve them. The important thing to remember is that all provinces and territories signed the agreement showing an intent to remove trade barriers. The problem exists in the means available to remove those barriers.

The agreement on internal trade outlines a series of legitimate objections which allow exemptions to the agreement. These objections are based on public security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal or plant life and health; the protection of the environment; consumer protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; and affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups. If it can be proven that any of these provisions will be infringed on by the removal of a barrier, they will be exempt from the agreement. By doing this a party can protect specific interests very easily.

The fact that all agreements are based on the unanimous support of all parties leaves the door open to protectionist practices. This is evident in the removal of a dispute settlement mechanism in the energy sector. Just last week the House debated the Churchill Falls power contract. The trade barrier created by the contract is costing Newfoundland and Labrador close to $1 billion a year in lost energy revenue.

The very principle on which the agreement on internal trade is based is contravened by that contract. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador look to the new agreement on internal trade to right the wrong. Unfortunately, the process of deliberation between the provinces does not provide any real hope for the resolution of this problem as the agreement now stands.

The definition of a legitimate objective is extremely vague. It encompasses nearly every protectionist measure implemented by the provinces and ensures that barriers will continue to exist.

It is obvious from this language that disputes between parties will arise. It is imperative that a trade agreement contain a dispute settlement mechanism which is fair, effective and binding.

It remains to be seen whether the dispute settlement mechanism in the agreement will be effective. However it has met with considerable criticism from a wide range of groups, individuals and companies that have examined this agreement.

(1715)

The process that individuals and governments have to go through to settle a dispute is lengthy, complicated and limits the access of individual businesses to the mechanism. The Minister of Industry and his provincial counterparts had the arduous task of striking an agreement which not only addressed the barriers to trade in Canada but was also agreeable to all parties on all issues. This was partially accomplished, although many of the sectors were not addressed effectively. That is the problem. Some were not addressed at all.

The committee of ministers set out objectives for designing the dispute resolution mechanism. This was to include: (a) disputes are to be directed by governments rather than private parties; (b) non-confrontation resolutions are to be used wherever possible; (c) no access to the courts will be granted in dispute settlements, no room for court interpretations; (d) restrict access to private parties in order to minimize the possibilities of frivolous claims being used as a means of harassing governments, resulting in financial burdens.

I want to repeat part of the last criteria set out by governments in this agreement: to restrict the access of private parties in order to minimize the possibility of frivolous claims being used as a means of harassing governments. This agreement is more concerned with protecting governments from harassment than it is with protecting individual Canadians and individual Canadian companies. That shows there is a real flaw in the thinking that has gone into the dispute settlement mechanism.

I question the rationale for restricting individuals access to dispute resolution mechanisms. As stated earlier, trade barriers cost Canadians money and jobs. Therefore Canadians need to be assured that their concerns on the existence of these barriers will be duly heard and acted on.

Access to dispute resolution mechanisms by individual Canadians ensures that the concerns of small businesses that rely heavily on internal trade will be dealt with. The purpose of this agreement is not to appease governments but rather to ensure access to markets across Canada. That is the purpose of this agreement.

The agreement on internal trade includes a provision which allows individuals access to the dispute resolution mechanism. The following is a brief outline of that provision. As I go through it, members will acknowledge that the mechanism is much too complex, much too slow and has no teeth.

First, an individual company is to contact its party to the agreement. Its party is either a provincial or the federal government, depending on jurisdiction. If the government involved refuses to act on its behalf, the party that wants to use the mechanism can contact the internal trade secretariat and apply for individual to government consultation.

Before access is granted, an individual has to undergo a screening process which determines whether the individual's claim is frivolous or vexatious. If it is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious, then the claim is disqualified and the individual company is not allowed to go through the dispute settlement mechanism.

If the claim is deemed valid, then the dispute will be heard by a panel of experts. This is where my amendment comes in. Each province and the territories, along with the federal government, will appoint five panelists to a roster that will consist of 65 panelists.

The terms of reference of these experts, their pay and their accountability is not mentioned in either the agreement or in this bill. The agreement also calls for the appointment to the office of the secretariat of internal trade of screeners and others as needed by the governor in council. The bill asks Canadians to sign a blank cheque for an undetermined number of people, to be paid an undetermined amount of money, to do an undetermined job.

(1720)

Canadians are tired of this kind of patronage appointment. They want accountability. In fact, when the Liberals were in opposition they too wanted accountability of order in council appointments. They suggested that there be established a non-partisan nomination and confirmation procedure for order in council appointments. Is it not interesting now that the Liberals are the government they forget what they wanted when they were in opposition?

My amendment will deal with this problem of openness in order in council appointments.

Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the two motions on the floor I will deal first with the matter that was brought forward by the hon. member from the Bloc Party.

I would suggest this amendment is one that really reflects a continuing misunderstanding of how the dispute resolution procedures of the agreement are intended to operate.

The amendment is quite unnecessary because then the federal government would be tied to a procedure to which none of the other parties under the agreement are tied. There are 13 parties and the other 12 would not be tied to the procedure.

Further, Motion No. 1 is nothing but an attempt to restrict the scope of action that the government may legitimately expect to have to ensure that it is able to protect the national interest in the negotiated balance of benefits in the agreement on internal trade.

The proposed amendment by the hon. member for the Bloc is a cumbersome procedure. It is unnecessary and it is time consuming. It is unnecessary because the government in any retaliatory procedure under the act, the retaliatory measures first of all by the government must be fully consistent with the agreement on internal trade. Second, they are matters that are entirely within the government's constitutional jurisdiction.

Again I emphasize that the procedure being suggested is one that only the federal government would be required to follow. None of the other parties would have to follow it.

The amendment in effect would be an attempt to unilaterally amend the agreement that all parties have agreed to already. This cannot be done. The amendment is a disguised effort to delay or to impede the ability of the government to act in the national interest in areas that are clearly within its own jurisdiction. For these reasons I suggest that this amendment does not warrant the support of the House.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member from the Reform Party involves a much broader question. It that involves the question of approval of government appointments. This was dealt with in committee and has already been rejected.

The committee was not the place where this matter should have been dealt with. The motion should be dealt with in another committee if the Reform Party is intent on pursuing such a matter.

(1725 )

This amendment proposes a complex method of making appointments. It is obvious the Reform Party has one intention, to tie up the House continuously in matters like this so business cannot go ahead. That is all on which the Reform Party is intent. The amendment is an attempt to grandstand, it is not an attempt to try to see that the business of the House proceeds in an orderly manner.

I would suggest this is a matter that it is not appropriate to deal with at this time and it should be rejected.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Longueuil wish to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville?

Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I would like us to move on to Motion No. 3.

[English]

Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are grouped together and Motion No. 3 is to be debated separately. I would like to make a few comments on Motion No. 3 as presented by the Bloc.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. Motion No. 3 is in the next group. We are dealing with the first two now.

[Translation]

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Translation]

Motion No. 3 in Group No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.

Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-19, in Clause 20, be amended

(a) by replacing line 1, on page 6, with the following:

``20. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act or any provision thereof, or''; and

(b) by adding after line 4, on page 6, the following:

``(2) Any order made this section respecting the coming into force of section 19 is subject to an obligation on the part of the federal government to commence negotiations and to enter into an agreement with the government of Quebec to eliminate inconsistencies between the provisions of the Internal Trade Agreement and Quebec's laws and regulations respecting bulk trucking.''

The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is 5.30 p.m.

* * *

LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA ACT

The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-9, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 31)

YEAS

Members

Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robinson
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-133

NAYS

Members

Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -74

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1755 )

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

_____________________________________________