GOVERNMENT ORDERS

JUDGES ACT

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-42.

The member for Windsor-St. Clair tried desperately in her speech to twist Reform's position with respect to this bill by implying that we were criticizing Madam Justice Louise Arbour. We are not. We are criticizing the process that is being used by the government to deal with this matter.

She also tried to take credit for a number of bills for which she read out the numbers, bills that achieved certain things in the justice area. Most of these bills would never have been presented if there had not been a Reform presence in this place. Most of those bills did not go even a fraction as far as the people of Canada would have liked them to go.

The one that was really outstanding and which she tried to take complete credit for from the Liberal perspective was Bill C-102, the DNA bill. The fact is it was the member for Wild Rose who initiated that bill. Everyone will remember that right here in the House during question period he manoeuvred the Minister of Justice into giving a commitment to deal with the bill within a 48-hour period. It is the member for Wild Rose who deserves congratulations for that. It was a fantastic bill.

The very first case which was solved using that bill was in my riding of North Vancouver. I am certainly one person, and my constituents are a whole group of people who are very grateful to the member for Wild Rose for having initiated that bill.

Another thing the member for Windsor-St. Clair said that really needs correction is that Reform would introduce capital punishment. How many times do we have to say this to get it through to these Liberal members who obviously have some hearing impairment? It is Reform's position that we would put the question of capital punishment to the people of Canada directly in the form of a binding referendum.

I suspect that the member for Windsor-St. Clair knows what the outcome would be. The fact is there is no Reform policy on capital punishment per se, but there is a Reform policy on giving the people of Canada the right to decide. If the outcome was that the people of Canada wanted the return of capital punishment, I am sure it would be terribly distressing to the member for Windsor-St. Clair who seems to think that she knows better than the people of Canada how to handle justice issues. I can understand why she would be upset at Reform policy, but I would not want anybody out there to get the wrong impression about what Reform policy is on capital punishment.

(1555)

As the member for Wild Rose mentioned, the membership in victims groups is growing by leaps and bounds. It is just exploding because of the lack of action on things like the Young Offenders Act. The member could not possibly tell me with a straight face that she does not still receive lots of letters and phone calls complaining about the Young Offenders Act.

The fact is that the twiddling with the edges of it that occurred in this House, compliments of the justice minister, were ineffective. They just made it worse. They have not done anything to deal with the real problems in that act.

Finally, in dealing with items that were raised by the member in her speech, when she talked about prevention of crime, I gave a speech in this House a couple of months ago where I gave detailed statistics from the Institute of Justice, statistics which indicated quite clearly from the United States that states which had higher incarceration rates had lower rates of crime. The estimate was that over a 20-year period there were tens of thousands of rapes prevented by having repeat rapists locked in jail. Hundreds of thousands of burglaries and robberies were prevented by having known robbers and burglars kept in jail.

A component of crime prevention is recognizing the people you are not going to rehabilitate and protecting society from those people. If we could get it through the heads on the other side of this House to start looking at that, we would not have these ridiculous, idiotic decisions coming out of immigration and refugee boards, coming from judges across this country that are just letting all sorts of criminals run free in our environment. Most Canadians are fed up to the hilt with it and they just wish we could get on with protecting society.

The motion which is being debated is an amendment to Bill C-42 introduced by the government through the other place. It removed the section dealing with a new public policy allowing judges to accept international assignments. The government replaced it with a specific exemption to the Judges Act to allow Madam Justice Louise Arbour to accept a position at the UN as a prosecutor for international war crimes at the Hague.

It is interesting that the Senate made this amendment and sent it back. I have been quite surprised at the amount of involvement of the other place in the activities of this House over the last couple of

years. They have modified and sent back items to this place a number of times.

It has been Reform policy for a long time that the other place needs an overhaul. It needs to be made elected, equal and effective. It is actually quite impressive that there has been some sober second thought. Some material has been sent back here. I am actually quite impressed in some ways.

There is an interesting little twist which has to do with that place which comes out of something that took place in this House on December 7 last year when the justice minister announced that B.C. would henceforth be considered as a fifth region in the country on a par with the prairies, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. A journalist in the Vancouver area, Barbara Yaffe, wrote a piece about this and it was quite interesting.

A problem has been created as a result of that and it really has not had much exposure in the House. The B.C. Liberal members have been fretting about it. I guess they were hoping that it would never come to public notice but it has. If B.C. is a fifth region, why does it not have an appropriate share of the Senators?

Historically each of Canada's four regions were accorded 24 Senators. As a result of being lumped in with the prairies in the previous four regions model, B.C. has only six Senators. As a fifth and separate region, surely its Senate numbers should be adjusted up to 24 or at the very least have the rest of the other place adjusted downward in numbers so that proportionately it is back in balance.

That is a very interesting idea. It could really have an effect on the type of actions that are taken by that other place in returning bills like this Bill C-42 with amendments and degrees of sober second thought for us to reconsider in this place. That would be a major improvement for the other place. I hope it has not been too embarrassing to have brought that up in the House today for consideration.

(1600)

Returning to Bill C-42 specifically, we have been very distressed, as a number of members have mentioned, that time allocation has been moved on the bill. The number of times that time allocation has been moved over the past few months is very distressing. If memory serves me right, time allocation has been used by this government more often than by the Mulroney Tories. After all the hoopla in the red book about how democratic this place was going to be, it has actually turned out to be a complete disgrace.

Mr. Benoit: Worse.

Mr. White (North Vancouver): Worse, as my colleague says. Much, much worse.

One of their own members has spoken out publicly about how bad it has become. On August 9, 1996 at a meeting of the Rotary Club of Toronto, the York South-Weston Liberal MP gave a speech which he titled: ``Honesty, Ethics and Accountability: Does it exist in Canada's political system?'' He spoke about all sorts of things, including closure. He talked about how MPs, in order to advance in the power structure of this place, usually have to sacrifice the public interest to their own ambitions.

We have a situation where members of the government will vote for closure or time allocation because they are afraid that if they do not, there will be some sort of punishment coming down the pipe. Yet they know in their hearts there should be more discussion on issues such as this one which has come back from the Senate.

The member for York South-Weston said in his speech: ``The real power, the ability to influence, is concentrated in the office of the leader of each of the parties. It is most pronounced in the case of the government, where the power is in the Prime Minister's office, or the PMO as it is known. Surprising as this may sound, in fact, this country is run by half a dozen people, half of whom are unelected. This may not be something that Canadians realize, but it is something they should be extremely concerned about. These unelected officials have a tremendous influence over public policy and the careers of individual MPs. They determine who is rewarded and who is punished, and with that control they have the real influence, and with that influence they have the real power''.

That says a lot about the types of processes that take place in the House which lead to closure on a very important issue like this one.

We are not criticizing the individual justice who has been honoured with a request that she go to the United Nations to work on a special tribunal. That really is not the point. The point is the way the government has handled this issue which could potentially place a judge in a conflict of interest position upon her return to Canada.

Time allocation and closure are not the only problems we have in this place. There are other problems which impinge upon the ability to properly function democratically and to discuss these issues in a fair and honest manner. One of those issues was brought up by my colleague, who mentioned that he had to go to you, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling as to whether he was free to speak in a committee of this House.

There are serious problems with the committee structure. In fact, the member for York South-Weston in his speech to the Rotary Club of Toronto, in talking about chairs of committees said: ``Committee chairs should be elected by their peers as opposed to the present soviet style system. Elections for chairmen are currently a farce. The PMO selects a person and government MPs go through a phoney ritual to vote for the PMO choice''.

That was certainly borne out by my observation of the system. For example, in September not only did the Vancouver area Liberal MPs vote for the PMO choices for chairs, but they also voted for members of the Bloc to be the vice-chairs. They voted for separatists. We know they are controlled by the PMO. That is very clear.

(1605 )

As the member for York South-Weston said as he closed his speech that day: ``Restoring real power to individual MPs will ease cynicism and restore confidence in our system of government because it will make every single voter more powerful. By reforming the parliamentary system, the current concentration of power will naturally break down and that will, in my opinion, be a large step in the right direction''.

That is very telling. It is a shame to hear today that the Liberal government has intervened to disband the riding association of the member for York South-Weston, to impose its Liberal bagmen appointed riding association to remove from nomination a member who chose to represent his constituents. It is a disgrace that we have to bring that sort of thing to the notice of the public. It should not be happening. Individual MPs in this place should have a great deal more power.

It extends so far into everything we do. I had a complaint from the Canadian Plywood Association in my riding. A market access subsidy in plywood is provided to eastern based manufacturers but has been discontinued for western manufacturers. Where is the fairness in that? These things are mostly done for political reasons. It makes people very upset in the west that they are constantly left out of decisions or are treated very shoddily. Certainly the Canadian Plywood Association is very upset by that decision. I was asked to mention that in the House so I am pleased I was able to bring it into my speech today.

Bill C-42 in allowing the appointment of a judge to the UN to work on a tribunal on war crimes really relates to the whole area of justice. We have heard several Reform MPs talk about how the justice system has deteriorated here in Canada and what a disgrace it is. I certainly have had my share of problems with illegal refugee claimants in my riding who continually commit crimes so they can use the system to stay in Canada.

There is quite a dramatic case in my riding. I will quote from another local columnist who states:

If you are caught doing something naughty, like forging and selling passports, make sure you come up before B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Patrick Dohm, who is full of the milk of human kindness.

The judge sentenced an Iranian passport expert to all of three months, to be served at home with an electronic beeper.

The considerate court went on to say that the offender, Mr. Ashrafinia, was just a spoke in the wheel of a larger passport forgery operation. Now I ask, does being a spoke in the wheel mean that there is no responsibility and he should only get three months for forging passports? This man was charging $1,200 and $1,500 per passport. It sounds like a pretty profitable enterprise, especially since there is no GST or taxes to pay. Anyway, we should probably bring out the violins because the lawyer complained. He said that jail time for his client would be a hardship because he does not hear very well. There it is.

I am also quoted in this article as saying that I hope that we never start electing our judges because elected judges would probably begin reflecting community values and that associate chief justice would then have to start handing out the sorts of prison terms we would expect for that sort of disgraceful conduct.

In fact, if this House would pass my private member's bill dealing with the Immigration Act, we could deport these people in lieu of a sentence. We could get rid of them right out of the country without having to worry about years and years of Immigration and Refugee Board appeals, all sorts of nonsense that just drags the system on and on and on.

(1610 )

The member who spoke before me said that the Reform Party uses scare tactics to get people upset. The fact is the newspapers are full of this stuff. I have here a folder which is full of pages and pages about the disgrace of our justice system. It goes on day after day after day.

In the Vancouver Sun of Friday, October 25: ``Deportation of Ontario drug dealer overturned as unfair''. It is unfair to deport a drug dealer. The article states:

A federal judge has overturned the deportation of a convicted drug dealer, dealing a blow to a controversial law allowing some people to be deported without a hearing.

Justice Barbara Reed, of Federal Court of Canada, ruled it was unfair to deport Jeffrey Hugh Williams because the law did not require he be told why he was considered a danger to the Canadian public.

34-year old who came to Canada from Jamaica when he was nine. He was sentenced to a four-year prison term in 1992 for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.

I had another case in my riding. It took me five years working prior to my being an MP and as an MP to get rid of a convicted home invader and heroin trafficker in my riding. The Immigration and Refugee Board after he had been convicted of home invasion and imprisoned-home invasion is something that Canadians never even thought about 10 years ago and here we have home invasions going on.

Anybody who lives in the Vancouver area knows that home invasions have become something that we read about fairly regularly in the newspapers. If the member who spoke before me thinks there is not a problem, she should live in Vancouver for a little while.

This man was locked up for home invasion. The Immigration and Refugee Board listened to his appeal hearing on the deportation order and said: ``He feels so remorseful about it, he is really not a bad person. We will give him another chance''. Within three months he was on the streets again dealing drugs.

The IRB is so naive it should be disbanded right away. All of this relates right back to the whole way that this government approaches things. It brings closure on very important justice bills and forces us into having to deal with all these issues in just a matter of hours.

Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor-St. Clair, who I can say is probably the worst chairperson of a justice committee that I have ever seen, was really self-serving and over the top in the defence of the Liberal justice agenda. She went on to talk about the Reform Party opposing merely for the sake of opposing.

We say three things about our role in this House. First we have a duty as an opposition party to hold the government to account and test the veracity and merit of what it brings forward in legislation and how it delivers its governance. Second, we desire to compliment the government when it goes in the right direction. Third, if we heavily criticize, we must be prepared to present thorough and realistic alternatives on the table for all to examine.

We are doing this specifically with Bill C-42. I have in my hand the Order Paper which contains the specific amendments we have brought in which would make this bill acceptable to our party. I would like the member to talk about the unacceptable approach the government has taken and also to highlight the solutions we have brought to this House to be voted on that would find Bill C-42 acceptable to us.

Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, that was a great comment about the committee process that was raised by the

member and also questions on what we would do in bills like this one. I would like to treat that in a general sense because I have experienced similar sorts of problems. He talks about the justice committee and how bad that chairperson was.

(1615)

I was on a subcommittee dealing with Bill C-25. We had a whole day of hearings supposedly set aside and what happens? The Liberal majority passed a whole bunch of clauses in that bill. I think it was clauses 26 to 109 or 119 in one batch. Just one lump sum. The whole thing.

How can you deal with a very complicated technical bill or very complex justice bills by passing 70, 80, 90 clauses in one batch? The only reason it happens is because in that committee we were told absolutely, distinctly they would not tolerate any substantive amendments.

That is the sort of abusive process that goes on behind the scenes in this place. It is this kind of abusive process that raises the sort of comment that was just mentioned by my colleague for New Westminster-Burnaby, the whole issue of chairmanship of committees, what happens there and our inability to introduce meaningful amendments.

For example, we had a number of amendments to Bill C-42. The hon. member for Crowfoot, seconded by the hon. member for St. Albert, put forward an amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that'' and substituting the following: ``a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendment 1 made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, and that this House agrees with the principle set out in amendment 2, but would propose the following amendments:

(a) insert the words ``for a period not to exceed three years'' after the words ``judicial duties'' in section 56.1(1);

(b) strike out all the lines in section 56.1(2) and substitute the following:

``If Madam Justice Arbour elects to take leave pursuant to section 56.1(1) she may receive moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses, in connection with her services as Prosecutor, from the United Nations''.

(c) add the following words to section 56.1(3):

``notwithstanding any prohibition against accepting any salary fee, remuneration or other emolument described in section 57'';

(d) add the following words to section 56.1(5):

``and that benefits payable under these sections will be paid or will commence to be paid at the expiration of the leave of absence without pay''.''

closure, we get committees shutting us down and it really is unacceptable.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to have the hon. member comment on something that I talked about in the House earlier today. It is a conversation I overheard between my 17-year-old sons. They were talking one night while doing their social studies homework. They study Canadian government. They were discussing some things about the Canadian government which clearly are not democratic.

One of my sons in commenting to the other said: ``Really, what it seems to me we have in this country is a Prime Minister who is pretty much fairly elected''. I could not have put it better myself. I was so proud of them, their teacher and their fellow students for having come to that conclusion. I believe that really reflects the system that we have in this country.

We have seen closure used so many times routinely. Orders in council are used instead of bringing issues before the House. We have heard of the Prime Minister threatening Liberal MPs that if they do not toe the party line they will not be running as Liberals again. This was done publicly as I am sure it is done privately.

(1620)

Could this member comment on my son's evaluation of government in Canada?

Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, I can best handle my total agreement by reading a short quote from the speech given by the Liberal member for York South-Weston to the Rotary Club of Toronto on August 9: ``The whip's role is to tell people when and how to vote.'' It is a sad reflection on our system of government when people, presumably intelligent people, have to be whipped into voting a certain way. It is also contrary to the public interest and it feeds the cynicism and almost contempt that Canadians have for their elected representatives. ``The notion of disciplining reasonably intelligent adults who were given the trust of their constituents is a practice that Canadians reject. If the leader cannot count on the majority of members of his own team to support a particular policy based on its merits, obviously there is something wrong with it.

``Allowing free votes on every issue would show true leadership in this country, whether it is the leader of the government or of any of the opposition parties''.

That answers perfectly the comments that were made by the member's sons when they recognized, without even having to be here, that it is basically a five-year dictatorship.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to the Reform Party talk about everything under the sun: the meetings in York South-Weston, the colour of grain, the Prime Minister, the red book. Reformers have been talking about things that happened years ago. One wonders what the opposition parties are up to.

A very simple piece of legislation is before the Chamber today. It is a wonderful piece of legislation. The bill has only seven clauses. A moment ago the hon. member talked about 80 and 90 clauses in a bill. I do not know what bill he was talking about. This bill has seven or eight clauses.

He just talked about amendments to the bill that had to do with remuneration of judges while the judges were away. The bill clearly spells out that the judges will not receive remuneration from the Government of Canada while they are in those capacities in the international arena.

So it is again that there is something wrong, especially with the Reform Party members. We could say they are frustrated. They are frustrated with the lack of support they have from the Canadian people and they are frustrated with the amount of support the government has from the Canadian people. Therefore they direct their attacks in very selective areas.

As the opposition points out, this debate is on amendments from the Senate, which the Reform Party does not like. They say they do not like anything from the Senate. What was the last bill with amendments from the Senate that the Reformers absolutely loved? Which bill was it? There were amendments from the Senate which indicated the direction of the Senate.

The Reform Party members and the Bloc members stood up and they loved it. They fell over one another. They were so happy, overjoyed. They fell over one another they were so happy. They were overjoyed. They were just heating up. They loved it. The Senate could not have done better. The Senate should have gone even further. ``We love the Senate. Come on Senate, bring us more''.

(1625)

What was that? Does the House recall? It was not very long ago. Yes, I can see that you remember, Madam Speaker. It was the gigantic tax breaks that the Senate wanted to give to the rich. Remember that?

That was an international bill as well. This bill deals with international activities of our judges. That bill dealt with international activities of money that was made in Canada and invested in foreign nations. They loved that international bill.

What did they particularly love about the bill? They loved the portion of the bill that said the huge foreign companies operating in Canada would get a 50 per cent tax cut. They loved it. Of course, the Government of Canada would not allow the Senate to go as far as these political parties wanted it to go. Those dividends, those profits from the subsidiaries, would have gone back to the parent

companies in another international setting in that other international bill. They loved it.

As well, they loved the reduction in the taxes on royalties and trademarks. That is the money that goes to international firms that have their head offices in other parts of the world. The Reform Party just loved it. Reformers loved it so much that they did not even want to speak on it. The Senate brought in the amendments and they were tripping over one another telling each other: ``Do not speak on this''. They selected only one member to speak on it.

The other section that these Reform Party people loved was the interest that was made on investments in Canada by international banking institutions. That is the 30 per cent tax cut that they wanted to see.

There were other things which are too numerous to mention. However, we can tell that Reformers are very selective in what they like about the Senate. When the Senate follows their party philosophy of giving more to the rich, of supporting the banks, of supporting the international profits made in Canada and cutting taxes, they love it.

It did not stop there, as we will recall. The Bloc loved the last bill which the Senate sent to us. That bill said that people who have property in the United States and other nations worth over $600,000 should receive a tax credit in Canada for it. They just loved that provision which was sent from the Senate.

The opposition is very selective in whether it likes or dislikes from the Senate.

They do not particularly like Canada's reputation on the international scene. Our reputation in the rest of the world has dramatically changed in the past three years. The Government of Canada, under the administration of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, has been in power for three years. The Reform Party and the Bloc should be standing up every day and praising the Government of Canada for its international reputation.

(1630 )

I suppose the reason the opposition parties are so frustrated is because their policies, the things they said in their policy materials before the last federal election, were about the international scene. Reformers talked about Canada's reputation. Their policies were about Canada's deficit in relation to the GDP, but compared to whom? It has to be compared with somebody. The leader of the Reform Party kept comparing Canada to the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and even Italy in some of his speeches. What has happened?

In the last three years-

An hon. member: It's best you don't talk about the G-7.

Mr. Baker: The hon. member talks about the G-7. Today there is the OECD in Paris with economists from 28 nations. When they

looked at Canada, what did they say about the G-7? Who did they name as being the most progressive, the nation with the lowest deficit/GDP of the G-7, the one with the most economic growth this year and next year and the year after, the one that was placed on the best financial footing of all?

Mr. Kirkby: Who was that?

Mr. Baker: Which country was it? Was it Italy?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Baker: Was it France?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Baker: Was it the U.K.?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Baker: Was it Germany?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Baker: Was it Japan?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Baker: Was it the United States?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Baker: There is only one left. It was Canada.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Baker: When Reform Party members look at these international reputations, when they look at the international setting of Canada, when they look at our reputation in other countries, they do not particularly like what they see on the basis of economics, the very basis on which they ran their last election campaign.

There is a simple solution to the problem of the Reform Party. It should tear up its policy papers. It should tear up its budgets. How do Reformers expect the people of Canada to follow their party when they are suggesting that we cannot afford medicare any more? Imagine a political party in Canada today that says we cannot afford medicare any more. Notice they are not denying it.

An hon. member: Tell the truth, George.

Mr. Baker: The hon. member says that I am stretching the truth.

I keep their budget in my desk just for the occasion when they say that I am not telling the truth about their platform.

Mr. O'Reilly: What page is it on?

Mr. Baker: It is on page 24. The document is called ``The Taxpayer's Budget: The Reform Party's plan to balance the federal budget, provide social and economic security for the 21st century''.

Mr. Hanger: Lost your place, eh?

Mr. Benoit: You can't find it, George?

Mr. Baker: I was not going to read all of it but I will now. This is according to the Reform Party of Canada. This is why its members are so frustrated with their lack of support: ``The public may in time agree that although access to a broad range of basic health care should be guaranteed to everyone, the original medicare model in which everyone received everything health care professionals wished to deliver is not only intolerably expensive, it is undesirable''. Imagine. What a position for the Reform Party of Canada to take.

(1635 )

Reform members not only say to the Canadian people that we cannot afford our medical services and medicare, they also say that if they are elected they are going to see the medicare system go down the tubes. They make other ridiculous claims. They want, for example, the banks to own our roads.

Some hon. members: Oh no.

Mr. Baker: Oh yes. They want the banks to own our bridges. They want the banks to own our airports. I notice nobody across the way is saying no to this because I was going to read it out. It is on page 14. It states: ``Typically, physical infrastructure refers to traditional features like highways, ports, railways and airports. Given our current fiscal climate, however, governments are ill-equipped to spend money on massive improvements. In Canada, privatize airports and allow private sector companies to build and maintain roads and bridges''. Tollgates. Imagine the tollgates in Canada if the Reform Party ever got elected.

If one notices, there is a likeness. There is another political party in Canada that now has practically identical policies to the Reform Party. That party passed at its most recent conference a resolution stating that we no longer can afford the Canada pension plan. Imagine passing a resolution at a national conference stating that we can no longer afford the Canada pension plan. While the Government of Canada and the provinces are struggling to try to fix it, along come the Tories, that great Tory party that was wiped out, having a policy meeting and stating: ``Let's allow people to invest their money in a bank account and take the interest''.

It made the same statement as the Reform Party of Canada when it talked about medicare. It stated: ``Canada can no longer afford our present medicare system and for other reasons'', they claim, ``it is undesirable''.

What we have is a situation where we are asked today to pass a bill that will allow judges to take part in international activities on invitation from other nations, international tribunals and organizations. We have the obstructionist tactics of the official opposition and the third party in the House, namely the Reform Party, to pass a simple bill of seven clauses.

The reason is that the Reform members are frustrated. The bill came from the Senate. They only want to see things from the Senate that match their policy, that is, give more to the rich, give it to the billionaires, give it to the big corporations. That is what they supported in the last amendments from the Senate and that is what they love to see. That is what they put through the House with only one speaker for a period of seven or eight minutes.

The other reason why the Reform members are so frustrated is because Canada is seen today on the international scene as progressing more than any other industrialized democracy in this world. We are now placed on the top by every international standard, from the IMF to the OECD whose job it is to examine the economies of industrialized democracies around the world. That is why Reformers are so frustrated. They do not know what they are going to do because they know they are going to end up in defeat again after the next federal election.

(1640 )

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, that was certainly a very eloquent, very refreshing, very exciting speech of the hon. member and certainly one that Canadians would appreciate.

Perhaps the hon. member could talk a bit about what could be the reason for this hesitancy on behalf of the Reform Party to participate in international tribunals, to take part in very just and worthy enterprises within the international community. Canada has a tremendous reputation in the international community for participating, for helping, for working hard to make sure that the rule of law is obeyed and enforced at all levels.

I wonder if the hon. member could tell us why the Reform Party is so reluctant to participate in these very noble endeavours.

Mr. Baker: Madam Speaker, first of all let me congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River for the magnificent job he has done in this Chamber since his election and his great contribution to the passage of legislation and also the great speech made by the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair a few moments ago.

In response to the hon. member's question, the answer probably is this. Since the Reform Party has been a member of this Chamber it has seen Canada internationally become somewhat of a hero not just in the economic field, not just in the field of peacekeeping, but also in the field of making international law, of standing up for the environment, of passing legislation that says that nations around this world can no longer plunder the resources of the sea and get a way with it; that Canada has led the way in the United Nations, at the United Nations conferences of the sea and the environment and

has consistently led the way in practically every issue that has dealt with the environment in the past three years; and also our economy.

I think that is why mainly the opposition party really does not want to become involved in any of these international activities of the Government of Canada. But of course the one exception is if these international agreements that we pass in the House help along, I suppose we could say their policies, that will assist in some way in their philosophical direction; that is, in giving tax breaks to the very wealthy or in having tax treaties, for example, that is fine.

The House will notice that whenever a tax treaty is introduced they always have been, if we examine the committee proceedings, very interested in giving huge tax breaks to the international corporations of the world who do business today. They are not too anxious to talk about transfer pricing or anything like that, but they are certainly interested in those across the board tax cuts to those very large U.S. corporations who do business in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the hon. member opposite for being a very eloquent speaker. That is a rare gift and it is very entertaining indeed to listen to the hon. member. I do congratulate him for that. The substance clearly is another issue entirely. There was a noticeable lack of substance to the member's speech.

I am here to talk about Bill C-42 which is a bill which was presented to the House from the Senate. I want to make it clear that what we are objecting to today is process. We are not objecting to Madam Justice Louise Arbour being appointed to do this international service that the member opposite talked about. Just to make it very clear, it is process which we are concerned with.

(1645)

We have seen a complete lack of regard for democracy and a complete lack of democratic process in this House over the past three years. Actually, sometimes it sickens me. Closure is invoked almost daily. Legislation is rammed through by order in council day after day after day.

The Prime Minister tells government members of Parliament that they had better not vote against a government bill because if they do, they will not be running again as members of the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister did that when Bill C-68 was being debated in the House. That is a threat which clearly throws out the whole concept of democracy. The Prime Minister says to his own members of Parliament: ``I am going to end your political career if you do not toe the party line''.

The former Liberal MP in his speech in Toronto to the Rotary Club stated it very well. He said that the Liberal government is run by the Prime Minister and two or three key people.

We are arguing against the process. Reform does not believe that this bill should be passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would like to inform the hon. member for Vegreville that I cannot accept this motion since a time allocation motion dealing with this particular bill has already been accepted in this House.

Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The time allocation order that you refer to states: ``and, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted''.

We now have a motion, which is in accordance with our Standing Orders, which extends the time provided for government business. The time allocation motion is still in effect except that if the House approves the motion by the member for Vegreville, the House would now make another decision with respect to the time provided for Government Orders. Therefore I believe, Madam Speaker, you will find the motion in order because it is within the time allocation motion made earlier today by the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On your point or order, the hon. member for St. Albert, I remain and I stand on the decision I have made on the motion for the member for Vegreville. We are now continuing debate. Does the hon. member for Vegreville want to continue on debate?

Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, as I was saying before I presented the motion, Reform will not support Bill C-42 because of process. I was talking about what has been wrong with the process in this House for the three years we have been here and before. This is not new.

This government has had three years to at least make it look like it is honouring some of the commitments which it made in the red book with regard to making this place more democratic, making government more accountable. In fact we have seen that it has moved farther and farther away. The government is now farther away from having a democratic government than anything we have ever had before. That is why we had better talk about process here.

I would like to comment on what should take place in this House and some changes that Reform has put forth. They are in our fresh start platform. They are part of our guarantee to Canadians that what we promised during an election campaign will be honoured. In this fresh start guarantee as we call it we give the power to the people in this country. We give the power to the people.

Some Liberals across the way are pretty uncomfortable with this and so they should be. They have heard the threats from the Prime Minister. He has told them they had better support government bills or they will not be running as Liberals next time. They know what happened this morning. A former Liberal member had his whole executive thrown out by the Liberal Party. How democratic is that? His whole party executive in his constituency was thrown out by this government. That is the most recent demonstration of the lack of democratic process in this place.

Reform wants to change this and we have put forth several specific proposals for doing that. They have actually been presented in the House before.

One example is the right to recall a member of Parliament. We want to give people the direct power to fire their members of Parliament between elections if they are not representing the constituents' views in this House. Clearly members of Parliament are not representing the views of their constituents in this House if they live under this threat by the Prime Minister. They will not be allowed to run again under the Liberal Party banner because the Prime Minister will not sign their nomination papers.

(1655)

We know there are not many members of Parliament who win as independents. Some of these Liberals sitting across the way should be thinking about that because quite possibly some of them will not be allowed to run again under the Liberal banner. Their chances of getting elected as independents are very slim. There are very few who could in fact do that.

The member of Parliament for Beaver River has twice sponsored a bill in this House which would have given to the people the power to fire their member of Parliament between elections if the member was not representing the wishes of the constituents. Twice it was shot down by the Liberals and the Bloc who voted against the bill on both occasions. They teamed up and shot down this bill which would have given that kind of power to the people.

There was a second piece of legislation which was sponsored by the member for Mission-Coquitlam, a Reform member of Parliament. It would have put in place freer votes in the House of Commons. It was a very simple change which would have made it so a government bill could be defeated without defeating the government. It would require a separate non-confidence motion to pass the House to bring the government down. The bill was shot down by the Liberals and the Bloc.

And they are laughing about denying Canadians the right to be represented in this House by members of Parliament who are responsible to the people rather than to the government and the Prime Minister. They are laughing about that kind of thing. Quite honestly I find that sad. It is sad. I would not laugh about that.

The member for Mission-Coquitlam sponsored the bill, a change that was made in the House in Britain probably 20 years ago. It was shot down by the Liberals and the Bloc, a second major change.

Let us talk about what would have happened had the recall bill and the bill which would have put in place freer votes in the House of Commons passed. Imagine what that would give to Canadians. It would give Canadians a power that they have never had before.

When the Prime Minister and the whip of the party tell the members that they will toe the party line whether or not their constituents back the bill, at that time the people back home would say: ``You listen to us because we will recall you. We are going to fire you before the next election''. The choice for the member would be either not to have the nomination papers signed or to be fired by the people back home. It would give more power to the people back home.

The freer votes would give members of the governing party, these same people who are heckling and laughing at these changes which really would give the power to the people, the right to represent the majority of their constituents in this House without the fear of defeating the government. They could defeat a bill. We as an opposition party might bring forth a non-confidence motion. Only if the motion passed would the government be defeated. The bill would not pass but the government would not be defeated.

These two changes would completely change the relative power of the people and of the Prime Minister and the little select group that runs the country now. They would change the system from a system that my two 17-year old sons recognize pretty much as an elected dictatorship. That is their own evaluation of our system which I think is very accurate. They would change the system to one in which Canadians really did have the power over their members of Parliament and where their views really would be represented in this House. That will be a change that Canadians will welcome and a change that is long overdue.

(1700)

Those two changes alone completely retilt the balance of power toward the people. We are also proposing a triple E Senate, a Senate that is elected by the people, not appointed by the Prime Minister and that small group of people who run the country, according to my sons' evaluation, with an equal number from each province, not the imbalance that we have now, and a Senate which

is effective enough to stop legislation that is unfair to any region of this country.

I know and people from Alberta and western Canada certainly know that we should have had that when the national energy program was put in place. It would have never been put in place. The triple E Senate would stop this kind of nonsense.

Another change that we put in our fresh start guarantee is the use of national referendums to settle issues like capital punishment, abortion and physician assisted suicide. These are important social issues and important to a wide range of Canadians. This change would put power directly in the hands of the people. They would not have to go through their member of Parliament any more. This would give people an equal say on settling these important issues, abortion, capital punishment, physician assisted suicide and so on. That is a change which Canadians certainly would welcome.

These members scoff and laugh at that change because they just do not understand that we could have a system that is that democratic. That is the kind of system Reform wants, the kind of system supporters of Reform want and the kind of system that we are going to do our best to put in place.

At this time I would like say that these changes are changes that Canadians do support right across the country. These are changes that this Liberal government has had three years to put in place and which Liberal governments of the past have had 20 years out of the past 30 to put in place. They have not been put in place.

It is a sad commentary on the lack of a belief in true democracy on the part of this government, and Canadians, I believe, will not tolerate it. This next election will be as much about making the system democratic as it is about anything else. Reform is the only party that will offer a true democratic government in this country. We know that because the Liberals have shot down all these motions and bills that we have brought forth which would have made the changes needed to make this country democratic. They should be ashamed.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to make a few comments and ask some questions of the hon. member for Vegreville with respect to Bill C-42.

This is certainly a great opportunity for Canada to participate in the international stage and once again show the leadership that Canada is known for. It is probably enforcing and assisting to enhance the role of the rule of law in the international forum. We know that it is out of respect for Canada's integrity, its peaceful nature and its reputation for fairness that it has been asked to participate at such a high level in prosecuting war crimes, war crimes that involve some of the most heinous and violent activity, activity which can only be viewed as an abomination. Certainly, right thinking people who view nations as having a responsibility to participate in enhancing this role and in bringing those to justice who have perpetrated these crimes would support participation.

(1705)

The Reform Party is suggesting that there is a technical breach. There is not. It is quite clear that proper authorization was given to Madam Justice Arbour to participate in this forum. The purpose of this bill is to allow the United Nations to pay Madam Justice Arbour directly in order to allow compliance with United Nations rules. Clearly the steps which have been taken have been entirely appropriate in complying with the law and in changing it in order to facilitate the applicability of UN rules.

I put a question to hon. members of the Reform Party. When it comes to international activity, to helping other nations, to standing up for the rule of law, international fairness and morality, and to ensuring that we take a tough stance against violence in the international forum, why is it that every time we seek to engage in such noble purposes the Reform Party tries to undermine us by bringing forth erroneous objections? I would like to know why the Reform Party is stalling and filibustering when this activity is so important to Canada and its reputation.

Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I am saddened that the member of the governing party has completely distorted what Reform has done on international issues. Our member of Parliament for Red Deer has done an admirable job in giving advice to the foreign affairs minister, in particular, with respect to serious situations. That advice has been heeded in some cases, although not enough.

We made it very clear that we do not object to this judge's doing that work. We object to the process that is being used. We object to the government's breaking the law. We do not think it should be violating the Judges Act. That is what we believe.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have some questions for the Reform Party.

I have listened to the debate throughout today and yesterday and I have heard some very disturbing comments. The member for St. Albert said yesterday: ``Surely they could have found someone else. Surely there is somebody else who could do this important job. Surely there is somebody else who is equally qualified''.

I do not know why Reform members have such problems being proud that a Canadian was chosen by the United Nations as the best person to do this job and why they have such a problem facilitating

a competent Canadian who has been internationally recognized as being capable of doing this job.

Perhaps Reformers are suggesting that Madam Justice Louise Arbour should do this job and not receive any salary while she is doing it. I am totally confused about what their purpose is. I do know they have chosen to waste a full day to debate a bill and to complain at the same time about wasting the time of the House of Commons in dealing with this.

(1710)

They have complained that we are not obeying the law. We recognize there is a section of law that has to be changed to accommodate this very unusual situation. Canada and Madam Justice Arbour have been honoured by this appointment.

Why, if they are so concerned about this, have they spent the entire day debating everything except the subject matter of the bill before us at a cost to the Canadian taxpayers of $80,000 an hour for every hour the House of Commons sits? Why do they have so much trouble accepting that the international community wants to honour one of our own? Why have they chosen to spend more than a full day debating issues unrelated to this bill, issues that they can choose to debate on any opposition day? I wish they could answer those questions.

Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, once again, we are not objecting to Madam Justice Louise Arbour. We are not reflecting on her character or her capabilities in any way. We have made that very clear throughout this debate.

We are objecting to process. We clearly do not believe the government should break the law even if it is only breaking it by a little bit. We do not believe it should be violating the Judges Act. Let us make the appropriate changes in a democratic way.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Questions and comments.

We will resume debate with four minutes left.

Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move that the member for Wild Rose now be heard.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will recognize the hon. member for Wild Rose, but I would like to advise him there is only one minute left in the debate.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, one minute of debate. That is not much. If you are going to talk about what is wrong with this government you need about four days.

Just a quick note. Among all the things we heard today was that the Prime Minister was not going to sign the nomination papers of those who would not vote the right way like on the gun bill and a few other things.

The members on that side of the House kept saying that is not so. I wonder if they could explain this article:

Toronto-Rebel MP [for York South-Weston's] riding association was disbanded by Liberal Party brass yesterday in an effort to prevent the GST martyr from seeking re-election.

(1715)

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the amendments made by the Senate to the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: No.

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the amendment 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 nays have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

(Amendment negatived.)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on the main motion.

Mr. Laurin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question is on the amendment to the amendment, right?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Yesterday's amendment to the amendment? We are now discussing the main motion.

Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, I understood that the question was on the amendment to the amendment. So I apologize. The amendment having been dealt with, it is normal for us to return to the main motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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 amendment 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:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the members.

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

(Division No. 189)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1740)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to and amendments read the second time and passed.)

(1745)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members Business as listed on today's Order Paper.