Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 078 (Official Version)

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should respond specifically to the challenges faced by Canadians with rare diseases and disorders, and the initiative put forward by the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders by: (a) establishing the definition for serious rare disorders as those with a prevalence of less than 1 in 2000 Canadians; (b) examining the feasibility of a national “Chance for Life Fund” equivalent to 2% of the total annual public drug expenditure to be designated for therapies for rare disorders; (c) considering the establishment of a multi-stakeholder advisory body, including treaters and patients, to recommend treatment access for life-threatening or serious rare disorders, based on scientific standards and social values; (d) considering the establishment of centres of reference for specific rare disorders, comprised of national and international experts, who will develop criteria for treating patients based on scientific evidence and patient impact and provide on-going surveillance into the real-world safety and effectiveness of these treatments on individual and group basis; (e) considering options to provide incentives through orphan drug regulation and policy, to assure Canadian organizations and researchers are motivated to conduct research and development into treatments for rare and neglected disorders; (f) supporting internationally accepted standards for conduct of clinical trials in rare disorders appropriate for the challenges inherent to very small patient populations; (g) considering ensuring that Health Canada’s progressive licensing framework provide appropriate support to the design of clinical trials for very small patient populations and appropriate review of evidence submitted from these trials; and (h) reporting the progress accomplished to the House within six months.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin debate on my private member's motion, Motion No. 426, which addresses the issue of rare disorders. If passed, Motion No. 426 will begin the process of bringing Canada into line with numerous other developed nations that have already implemented effective policies offering extensive support and treatment for citizens with severe and life threatening rare disorders.

More specifically, Motion No. 426 calls on the government, through Health Canada, to consider the policy proposals advanced by the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders. I consider this motion a starting point and CORD's Chance for Life Fund an ideal framework in which to examine many of the challenges faced by Canadians living with rare disorders.

Based on experience and evidence, I hope to prove that proposals within Motion No. 426, if implemented in Canada, would be as effective here as they have been in other nations. I also believe that doing so would reflect not only the principles of universality as outlined in the Canada Health Act but also the compassionate approach that most Canadians feel is at the core of our public health care system.

I have been greatly encouraged by the support I have received from the other parties on this issue. As rare disorders affect thousands of Canadian families from all walks of life and backgrounds, so too has my family dealt personally with this issue, and I have been impressed by the spirit of cooperation and non-partisanship that has been constant in my discussions with my colleagues as I have moved this issue forward and developed the motion we are debating today.

There are some issues that are truly non-partisan, and this is one of them. In particular, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, as well as the health critic from the NDP, the member for Winnipeg North, and the Bloc health critic, the member for the riding of Québec.

I have also worked closely with CORD as well as many of the organizations affiliated with it, such as the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada and the Canadian MPS Society, and wish to thank their representatives for their continued support and diligent work in bringing this issue forward.

Before I continue, I will clarify that I will often refer to “rare disorders”. Other nations have adopted similar language to describe these conditions, such as “orphan diseases, disorders or rare diseases”, and I will refer to them all throughout my remarks, but for the purposes of today's debate, they mean the same.

February 29 of this year marked the first annual International Rare Disease Day. With 2008 being a leap year, “the rarest date on the calendar”, February 29, was the perfect date to launch what will be an annual occurrence.

In the simplest possible terms, Motion No. 426 addresses the issues faced by Canadians who suffer from a wide range of rare diseases that affect very few people. At present, Canada does not have a definition of, or an official policy on, rare disorders and, as such, our health care system does not differentiate between someone who has a very common disease and one that is extremely rare. Essentially, the prevalence of their occurrence among Canadians is not considered.

In order to develop a comprehensive Canadian policy on rare disorders, it is necessary to establish a Canadian definition of rare disorder or, more specifically, what prevalence among Canadians a disorder should have to be considered rare. Motion No. 426 calls for the definition of rare disorders as those with a prevalence of less than 1 in 2,000 Canadians, and I will deal with this further in a moment.

The inspiration for Motion No. 426 is found in the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders Chance for Life Fund, an action plan that CORD developed to address this issue and begin the process of establishing a made in Canada policy that will ensure patients with rare disorders have the exact same right and access to effective therapies, or the same “chance for life”, as all Canadians.

A policy for rare disorders is based on the basic principle of the equitable provision of health care that many Canadians assume is an unshakable element of Canada's universal health care system, but in the case of rare disorders, this principle of universality is currently missing.

Rare disorders include such conditions as cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, legionnaires' disease, muscular dystrophy, thalassemia, MPS, pulmonary hypertension, Fabry disease, Gaucher disease, ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, Waldenstrom's anemia, AIDS, and acromegaly, to name a few.

(1105)

Rare disorders can be acquired or genetic. It is also important to note that several rare disorders fall within more common conditions. For example, while cancer is obviously not considered a rare disorder because of its prevalence, kidney cancer is. Many of these rare disorders we may have heard of, because self-help groups have done a good job of public awareness.

From the brief list of rare disorders that I just named, I am sure many Canadians can already identify a family member or friend who suffers from a rare disorder. My grandson, Dylan Bell, was diagnosed at the age of 3 with a rare disorder, pulmonary hypertension, and passed away the day after his 12th birthday. In my own riding, young Nicolas Harkins has MPS 1, an enzyme deficiency disease that is also life threatening. Today's Globe and Mail article on page 3 by Lisa Priest refers to 11 year old Szymon Cajmer, who has MPS 2, otherwise known as Hunter syndrome.

However, that list of disorders is minuscule when compared to the complete list of approximately 7,000 rare disorders that are currently identified. Using the prevalence standard or definition of rare as being 1 in 2,000, it is estimated that 1 in 12 Canadians has been diagnosed as having, or being a carrier of, a rare disorder. That is over two and a half million Canadians who today are affected by a rare disorder.

Clearly the impact of rare disorders is much greater than most realize. While only a small number of Canadians may have a specific rare disorder, as a group Canadians with rare disorders are far from rare. It is for this reason that CORD, which is the only organization of its kind in Canada, plays such a vital role. By collecting information on rare disorders and raising awareness, CORD is developing networks for Canadians with rare disorders, networks that allow them to speak effectively with one voice and, most importantly, to realize they are not alone. Simply put, there is strength in numbers.

Not only does Canada not have an official definition of prevalence of rare disorders, which is critical in order to move forward on this issue, but it lags far behind most countries in the developed world when it comes to rare disorder policy. For a country that considers its health care system to be a badge of honour, the envy of the world, as it is often referred to, I believe the manner in which we deal with this issue would surprise most Canadians.

The United States was the first country to enact rare disorder legislation 25 years ago in 1983 and was quickly followed by Australia, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea in the 1990s. In 2000 the European Union established its own orphan drug legislation.

Official definitions or prevalence of rare disorders vary in each country. In the U.S., a prevalence of less than 200,000 persons in the total population, which is approximately 1 in 1,300, is the official definition. On the other end of the spectrum is Australia, where “rare” is a prevalence of 1 in 15,000. Other nations generally fall somewhere in between. Establishing a definition, or prevalence, is only the starting point, and it is through that definition that other policies and changes to our system can flow.

Access to medication for Canadians with rare disorders has been described as “trying to untangle a Gordian knot” and is the greatest challenge faced by those with rare disorders. Because Canada does not have a rare disorders policy, medications and treatments available to a person with cystic fibrosis, for example, in the United States, South Korea or France may not be available to a Canadian or, worse, are available but not necessarily covered under all provincial health plans, and therefore weakens the aspect of universality.

Rare disorder policy, such as the orphan drug act in the United States, which, I would like to add, was the result of a bipartisan effort, has produced positive, tangible results; a key area of improvement being a dramatic increase in the number of innovative therapies in development due in part to economic and regulatory incentives included in rare disorder legislation. This has led directly to an exponential growth of the biotechnology industry and the development of more cutting edge technologies and treatments for those living with rare disorders.

(1110)

Canada's policy void in this area has forced many Canadian biotech firms to offer free clinical trials to small groups of patients as the only way to give them access to life-saving therapies. In many cases these clinical trials have proven to be immensely successful. Unfortunately, such trials were limited to only a few individuals and participating in them often involved regular travel which can be too expensive or difficult for those with advanced conditions.

A Canadian rare disorder policy must view the biotechnology industry as a priority sector in a knowledge-driven economy that not only helps with the “brain gain”, but can also produce life-saving technologies for those suffering from rare disorders.

Motion No. 426 asks the government to consider the establishment of centres of reference for clusters of rare disorders, comprised of national and international experts, who would develop criteria for treating patients based on scientific evidence and patient impact, and provide ongoing surveillance into the real world safety and effectiveness of these treatments on an individual and group basis.

Motion No. 426 also asks the government to consider options to provide incentives through orphan drug regulation and policy to ensure Canadian organizations and researchers are motivated to conduct research and development into treatments for rare and neglected disorders.

There is a tremendous pool of talent in Canada in the health research fields that we must encourage through a made in Canada policy on rare disorders. In the other countries I have mentioned, orphan drug legislation has provided incentives for the development and marketing of medicines for rare disorders that otherwise would not have gone forward.

Motion No. 426 can begin an evaluation of how this process could develop in Canada. Recent data reveals how effective such changes have been in helping those in need. For example, CORD reports that during the 2003 review of the U.S. orphan drug policy, it was found that 1,100 products received orphan drug designation, 231 were marketed, thereby impacting over 11 million patients. During the 2005 review of the European Union policy, 260 products received orphan drug designation, and 22 received market authorization, thereby impacting over 1 million EU patients.

Clearly, Canada has work to do to catch up to our friends to the south and in Europe. Perhaps the greatest roadblock for those with rare disorders accessing drugs and treatments is the common drug review process.

As part of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, the common drug review performs systematic reviews of clinical evidence, pharmacoeconomic information, and with detailed recommendations by the Canadian Expert Drug Advisory Committee, CEDAC, it provides evidence-based recommendations to provincial drug plans on which drugs should be covered under provincial health plans. All provincial drug plans, with the exception of Quebec, participate in this process and use CDR decisions as a starting point when deciding on funding.

While there are some provincial programs that do offer assistance for specific rare disorders, AIDS being one example, these programs can be temporary and only create a patchwork system. While the CDR provides a streamlined drug review process in Canada, it only accepts specific evidence-based data in its decision making process.

More simply put, stringent evidence, a mandatory requirement for a drug even getting to the starting point in the CDR process, must have been produced from a study with a minimum number of patients. Without a specific minimum number of patients enrolled in a study or trial, evidence is simply not considered to be of high enough quality to advance in the CDR process let alone be considered for approval.

We can imagine the frustration of researchers and doctors who are unable to find enough patients to participate in a process that they believe could result in life-saving treatments becoming available to those who so desperately need them.

Motion No. 426 calls on the government to consider supporting internationally accepted standards for conduct of clinical trials in rare disorders appropriate for the challenges inherent to very small patient populations and to consider ensuring that Health Canada's progressive licensing framework provides appropriate support to the design of clinical trials for very small patient populations and appropriate review of evidence submitted from these trials.

Some rare disorders are known to affect as few as 20 Canadians. One can only imagine the incredible challenge of not only attempting to identify enough cases for a clinical study, but the tremendous travel costs and other concerns such as work, family and health concerns of individuals who may be able to participate.

(1115)

It is my hope that with the passage of Motion No. 426, we can begin the process to move Canada a little further down the road in developing a rare disorder policy and at the same time raise public awareness on this important issue.

As parliamentarians, I encourage all members to rise above partisanship and continue to work together to ensure that those Canadians with rare disorders are given a chance for life.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Health.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary for Health, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing forward this very important motion.

The health minister and I have been following the progression of this motion very closely and empathize greatly with the people who are affected by rare diseases.

It might be of interest to Canadians, if the member does not mind, for the member to explain a little bit of his own life. Often when members bring motions such as this to the House, they have been touched in some way by a constituent or a family member. I wonder if the member would be willing to share with us his motivation, from a personal perspective, for bringing the motion forward.

(1120)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Don Bell:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the parliamentary secretary's support in bringing this motion forward.

As I mentioned, my first awareness was when my grandson, at age three, was diagnosed with what we found was in effect a terminal disease: pulmonary hypertension.

As any member who suddenly finds a family member with a rare disease or life threatening illness, after getting past the period of shock, I began to look into it. I found out more about the disease from a website and worked with my son and his wife to try to find out if there was a cure, if there was a way in which we could deal with it and to avoid what was obviously a life threatening consequence.

I can say that Dylan, at about age three, was treated; he was given a 24 hour intravenous pack which he wore for the last nine years of his life. He wore it when he went to bed. He wore it during the day time. His illness affected his ability to participate in regular life activities. He went to a regular school, but he could not perform any of the physical activities because he would be short of breath, part of the side effects of his condition.

One of the first drugs he was on had a life cycle of about 30 minutes. That means, if the alarm went off indicating his pump had failed, we had about 15 or 20 minutes to get him to a hospital, with the risk of him passing away at that moment. Hon. members can imagine the pressure that puts on a family.

Through that and through my son's involvement in the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada, and he is now the president, I became aware that there were many other diseases, particularly by talking with people from CORD. I became aware that this was only one of many diseases that affects people in this way. I mentioned Nicolas Harkins in my own community. The story about another young man is in today's Globe and Mail.

One in twelve Canadians are either carriers of or affected by rare diseases. What I heard from CORD, and from the patients, the caregivers and the families was that the problems in the Canadian system that I have identified were access to treatment, therapies and the approvals.

I determined, as Dylan's legacy, that I would do what I could in my position as a member of Parliament to bring forward what I hope, with the help of the government, would be an effective way of addressing those problems.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, since they have recognized the Quebec nation in Parliament and boasted about having recognized it, it is now time to act. This morning marks a wonderful opportunity to do so. An amendment has been submitted and discussed for a week that would give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation. In fact, the 10 year plan to strengthen health care, from 2004, gave Quebec the right to do just that.

Why is it taking the Conservative government and the Liberal Party so long to accept this type of amendment? Otherwise, we would be voting in favour of it this morning.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Don Bell:

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of amendments that will be proposed by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government and the Bloc. Those issues will be discussed with my critic and with the government. I have indicated that we will consider that and I hope address those in the second hour of debate.

(1125)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for North Vancouver for raising this important issue and also to make members of this House aware that the government is interested in finding common ground on this important issue.

The subject the hon. member has raised is quite serious for many people, those diagnosed with these rare diseases, their families and loved ones, and Canadians across Canada who sympathize with their suffering.

Rare disorders affect people of all ages, races and ethnic backgrounds. Some disorders are genetic, for example, Tay-Sachs, Huntingdon's, or Sickle Cell disease. Some disorders are acquired, such as Legionnaires' disease. Other rare disorders can cause general health conditions, such as heart disease and cancer. Most have no known treatment.

A rare, or orphan, disease is one that affects fewer than 1 in 2,000 people. However, there are more than 6,000 rare disorders that, taken together, affect approximately 3 million Canadians. One in ten individuals in Canada has been diagnosed with a rare disorder. Many Canadians are affected, but very few with any one particular disorder. This is a serious issue for this government.

We recognize that Canadians who suffer from rare diseases have health needs that frequently are not met, particularly, in terms of access to needed treatments. Few therapies exist to treat these diseases.

The rapid advance in medical technologies and therapies has given many Canadians new hope, but developing and providing these medical techniques, such as genetic therapies, requires enormous resources. Potential treatments have often been considered too difficult and expensive to develop because of a very small patient population.

It is often difficult to conduct clinical trials and to demonstrate outcomes because the number of people suffering the disease is too small to allow the standard scientific techniques, like random sampling, control groups and so on. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the suffering of Canadians with rare diseases.

Recently, new drugs for rare disease have become available in Canada, but evidence on whether they work is often weak and the costs of these drugs are beyond the budgets of most Canadians. Thus, important public policy regarding these drugs is essential.

[Translation]

This government has not been idle on this issue. My colleagues can attest to the fact that we have already taken many steps towards improving pharmaceutical management in this country, most notably in relation to drugs used to treat rare diseases.

We are improving the way we regulate drugs as part of the food and consumer safety action plan. This includes a life-cycle approach which goes beyond a simple decision on market access and also monitors drugs once they enter the market.

Along with our provincial and territorial partners, we have been working on improving the common drug review process.

[English]

We continue to work with the provinces and territories to improve drug management, including for rare diseases, as part of our collaboration under the national pharmaceutical strategy, a component of the 2004 health care accord.

As mentioned before, the government and the hon. member for North Vancouver have been working behind the scenes to find common ground so that this motion can pass this House. We have focused our discussions on several aspects of the motion and I am happy to outline these areas for my colleagues.

First, and foremost, the government believes the motion ought to take into account the roles played by the provinces and territories with this issue.

Our provincial and territorial counterparts are primarily responsible for deciding the extent of drug coverage for Canadians. Provincial and territorial governments determine who qualifies for public coverage within their jurisdictions, what drugs qualify for reimbursement, and what portion of the costs will be covered.

They also negotiate with drug manufacturers on the prices for the drugs they choose to reimburse, including prices for rare disease drugs. They regulate prescribing and dispensing of these drugs within their jurisdictions. This is an important element of this issue, given the key roles doctors play in determining appropriate prescribing and developing clinical practice guidelines.

As such, the government believes that we must include a reference in this motion to our provincial and territorial colleagues; a fact that the hon. member for North Vancouver has listened to and demonstrated a willingness to accept.

[Translation]

The government also believes that Motion M-426 should note the important role of the common drug review process—a productive collaboration between federal, provincial and territorial governments that assists them in their decisions about drug coverage.

The common drug review process evaluates the therapeutic benefits of drugs as well as their cost-effectiveness in comparison with existing therapies. It also provides recommendations such as if and under what circumstances drugs should be covered under government drug plans.

(1130)

[English]

As the House is aware, the Standing Committee on Health undertook an examination of the common drug review and released a final report this past December. In that report, it recognized the importance of the role played by the common drug review and it made recommendations to improve it. One of those recommendations was the creation of a public advisory board for the common drug review.

The recommendation is quite similar to an element of this motion, which suggests that we consider establishing “a multi-stakeholder advisory body, including treaters and patients, to recommend treatment access for life-threatening or serious rare disorders”.

This government believes that the common drug review should be included in any work on rare disease issues.

In our response to the committee's report, the government indicated its interest in pursuing discussions with participating provinces and territories on opportunities to appropriately involve the public in the common drug review process. Appropriate public involvement can lead to better decisions, as well as confidence in the fairness of the decision making process.

Adapting the common drug review approach to assessing drugs for rare diseases was also highlighted.

One of the more challenging aspects to the motion surrounds a reference to defining a “rare” disorder. While experts have focused their study on defining this issue, to date there is no common definition of a rare disease.

Determining what diseases count as rare and, therefore, who will benefit from any changes that governments might collectively or individually implement, is a vital step and not one to be taken lightly.

If governments adopt special approaches for rare diseases, how then do we deal with the almost rare?

For example, if diseases affecting fewer than 500 Canadians are considered rare and treated differently, what happens to the people suffering from diseases that affect slightly more than 500 Canadians?

The government feels that we need processes that can adapt to the needs of all Canadians and all diseases, and we thank the welcoming nature with which the sponsor of Motion No. 426 has received these comments.

We recognize that these diseases have few options for treatment and that available drug therapies are often extremely costly. However, in the absence of solid analysis of other ways in which we could address these challenges, we are not convinced that this motion's proposed fund is the best way to deal with this difficult issue.

The government recognizes the difficulties faced by Canadians suffering from rare diseases and acknowledges the spirit in which the motion was put forth. However, the hon. member's motion does not take into account the necessity of working with the provinces and territories and the government is also concerned that some elements of this motion are premature.

These are serious issues that need to be addressed but we must do so in way that is prudent and respects the roles of those involved.

I can identify personally in a very small way with those who suffer from rare diseases. When our son was born in Germany 34 years ago, he was initially diagnosed as having PKU disease. Although PKU disease is not that rare, it does involve severe lifelong dietary restrictions to prevent irreversible brain damage. The prospect for our son was scary but in the end the diagnosis, thankfully, proved to be inaccurate.

The motivation and intent of the motion are entirely honourable and worthy of very serious consideration. I know the hon. member for North Vancouver has a strong personal investment in this issue and that he is committed to doing the right thing. I and all members of this House applaud him for that.

We look forward to working with him and other colleagues to arrive at a positive course of action that will ease the load on families dealing with the impact of rare diseases, while still respecting the requirement for collaboration and cooperation with all levels of responsibility and authority in the delivery of effective and affordable health care to all Canadians.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. M-426, which calls on the government to respond to the challenges faced by patients with rare diseases and disorders. I thank the member for North Vancouver for making us aware of this important issue today. The lives and quality of life of many young people—most of these patients are young people—are at stake today in this debate.

This is a very important motion that sheds light on a regulatory problem that limits access to drugs to treat rare diseases, either because they are not allowed on the market or because they are not covered by provincial drug insurance plans.

Before I address the issue that is at the heart of the motion we are debating today, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois cannot vote for this motion as is, not because of the principle behind it, but for a very specific reason that I will explain. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion, but it requires an amendment, which we proposed to the sponsor of the motion, concerning how this motion applies to Quebec.

Under the 2004 10-year plan to strengthen health care, Quebec is not subject to the common drug review or the national pharmaceutical strategy. The 10-year plan to strengthen health care recognized Quebec's right to withdraw unconditionally, with full financial compensation, from any national health initiative.

I would like to reiterate certain principles set out in the 10-year plan to strengthen health care. The plan clearly states that nothing shall be construed as derogating from Quebec's jurisdiction over health.

We would have liked the Conservatives and the Liberals to agree to this amendment this morning so that we could go ahead with this motion today. Quebec has already set up a committee to look at this issue. This committee has begun looking at another way to deal with rare diseases and verify the efficacy and safety of drugs, taking into account their cost. This is the role of the common drug review. Quebec has its own drug review program, known as the Conseil du médicament du Québec, and is therefore not subject to the federal program. We need no lessons from the federal government, because Quebec is completely independent in this regard.

As such, any national strategy or policy concerning rare disorders and governing access to drugs to treat those disorders cannot apply to Quebec.

The only recommendation in this motion that can apply in Quebec is (g), which is about the drug approval process and clinical trials, issues that clearly fall under Health Canada's jurisdiction. We may be able to build consensus on this motion based on the proposal in (g).

That being said, as everyone knows, in the spring of 2007, the federal Standing Committee on Health conducted an in-depth study of the CDR, the common drug review. The committee then submitted a report containing five recommendations. The Bloc drafted a dissenting opinion to reiterate its preference that the national strategies for rare disorders not apply to Quebec. Instead, we asked the federal government to establish a specific approach to the evaluation of drugs for the treatment of rare disorders.

Last week, we received the government's response to the report. Even the government was quite vague with respect to recommendation 5, which called for a real policy on rare disorders. We are very disappointed in the government's response.

(1135)

Here is what the government said in its response to the committee's report on the common drug review.

The government supports the “idea of exploring options”. It also recognizes that there might be “merit in exploring approaches to assessing these drugs as one of the first steps”, and in the end, it said it was interested in “pursuing discussions”.

That gives us some idea as to whether the government will support this motion or not. The response is pretty lukewarm and bears little resemblance to the proposals in the member for North Vancouver's motion. It is highly unlikely that the government will support this motion. I would be very surprised and also very pleased if the government decided to move more quickly and make the rare disorders policy more proactive and more considerate of the circumstances surrounding rare disorders.

As I said earlier, the Conseil du médicament du Québec has already begun working on a draft of the evaluation criteria for drugs to treat rare disorders. There must be specific criteria because rare disorders are not like other, more common disorders.

We know that in the United Kingdom, for example, 1 in 50,000 inhabitants has a rare disease, while here it is 1.1 in 10,000 inhabitants. That is why, in the approach set out in the motion—and this is what Quebec focuses its research on—we have to take into account the fact that clinical trials have been conducted in other countries in addition to those done in Canada and Quebec. Then we could have a better sample from a larger population base, instead of basing research only on the population of Canada. In fact, as far as certain diseases in certain countries are concerned and other diseases in Canada and Quebec, we could have better sampling and a much broader assessment of the safety and effectiveness of the drugs. That information could be used in approving the cost of drugs.

That is where the CDR or common drug review comes in, since it could recommend that a drug be covered. Quebec is not subject to a national strategy because it has its own drug review program.

Often the reason provided for not covering the payment of a drug treatment for a rare disease is that it is too costly and the patient base suffering from the disease is too small. The cost is astronomical.

In my opinion, we have to look at the situation from a human perspective. When we can offer not only a better quality of life to people with rare diseases, but also greater longevity, this certainly touches us emotionally. By agreeing to pay for a drug, regardless the cost, we are offering patients a better quality of life.

I know the hon. member presented this motion because people very close to him have suffered from a very rare disease and access to drugs was not possible.

I know that the hon. member is doing a good job raising awareness within his party and that is why I sincerely hope the Bloc Québécois amendment will be accepted in order to exempt Quebec from the strategy we are debating this morning. Nonetheless, we could support a national strategy for all of Canada, except Quebec, just to show some openness.

In Quebec, I met with one of the members of the committee, and he was saying that this issue has to be addressed differently and there should perhaps be more progressive reviews that take into account different factors. Then we might be able to approve the drugs for rare diseases.

(1140)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate on a motion submitted by my colleague from North Vancouver.

This motion represents an important discussion for the House of Commons and it is relevant for many Canadians. Although we are talking about rare diseases and treatment for such rare diseases, when we add up the numbers, in fact we are talking about a significant proportion of the Canadian population. Well over 10% of Canadians today are affected in one way or another by this issue and by the absence of adequate treatment and drug coverage for those who are affected by this very serious issue.

I want to thank the member for North Vancouver for bringing this issue to this House. It was inspired by his personal experience. His story of his grandchildren is tragic and devastating. We take courage in his ability to take some hope from these dire circumstances to change the world for others, to make this world a better place so that the kind of experience he and his family has had to endure will not have to be repeated by so many over and over again.

All of us bring our personal experiences to this House and they intersect here in the political world. It is here at that intersection where issues are most poignant and where they become relevant in a very deep, personal way for action.

I too bring to this House a personal experience on the issue of rare disorders. I have talked many times in this House about my son, Nicholas, who is now 23 and suffers from a very rare disorder. In fact there are only 11 boys in the world with his particular genetic disability or disorder. It is called band heterotopia, or double cortex syndrome. It causes uncontrollable seizures, profound intellectual disability, and of course many behavioural issues.

We became aware of this when Nick turned three. He started having seizures and he was diagnosed as simply having epilepsy. We were told not to worry, that everything would be okay. As the years passed and the drug trials continued and the tests persisted, we soon became aware that we were dealing with something very difficult. To this day we still struggle with drug therapies to bring his seizures under control. We keep hoping and praying that there will be a discovery that will help his particular situation.

In our case, we have been blessed with a wonderful medical system in Manitoba, with good access to neurologists. Obviously we have tried every drug in the world that exists. We have also used the exceptional drug program to access drugs that were not approved. We continue to be blessed by a system that is sensitive, insofar as it goes to the particular situation facing Nick.

However, we always hope that there will be the resources to find a cure, to find a solution, to find some remedy to help him, just as my colleague from North Vancouver hopes that something can be done to prevent the tragedy he has had to go through with the death of his grandchildren.

My other colleagues bring similar stories to this House. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is fighting for a family in his constituency. It is the case of a two year old girl in Paquetville, New Brunswick, suffering from xeroderma pigmentosum, a condition in which she cannot be exposed to sunlight. Cancer development is triggered by sun exposure and she has already recently suffered some new developments pertaining to cancer.

She lives in the dark all the time and can only go out at night after sundown. She requires special windows. She would need a special dome to protect her outside to play normally, and of course this is a very costly method of protection. Her parents have had to leave work to care for her. The family continues to struggle to ensure that this little girl has a future.

(1145)

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh mentioned to me today that Szymon Cajmer, the little boy who is mentioned in the Globe and Mail story, is in his constituency of Windsor--Tecumseh. When this little boy was six years old, he was denied entry into a clinical trial to test the only drug to treat his rare disease because his lungs worked too well. Now at age 11 he suffers from severe hearing loss and easily loses his breath. The drug he did not qualify to receive years ago, idursulfase, has since been approved by Health Canada to treat his disease, Hunter syndrome, but now Szymon cannot obtain the enzyme replacement therapy for a different reason. It is funded in British Columbia and Alberta but not in Ontario.

With this range of personal stories we have a better understanding of the problems facing many Canadians. We need a strategy to help Canadians who are faced with rare disorders.

My colleague from North Vancouver has presented a comprehensive motion that does not prescribe exactly what the federal government ought to do, but recommends that the government consider various steps to ensure that a strategy is put in place. The first recommendation my colleague has made is that there be a strategy, that we define what rare disorders are, that we do what the United States has done at least, which is to give it a word, give it definition, give it meaning, and then develop a strategy to act on those issues.

I commend my colleague for that. I certainly support in general his motion. We can quibble with some of the aspects but that is for us to sort out as we move this along.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to take the wisdom of the experience of the member for North Vancouver and the personal experiences of so many in this House and build on them and come up with solutions. We do not want these rare disabilities and disorders to become a jurisdictional football, as is the case of the family living in Windsor—Tecumseh.

It is wrong that provinces with more wealth and ability to pay for expensive rare drugs can do so while others cannot. We need a national strategy.

The government could immediately recommit itself to a national pharmaceutical strategy which is sitting on a shelf somewhere gathering dust without action and without purpose. We need a minister of health and a Government of Canada that is prepared to get back to the drawing board and recognize that this country needs a national pharmaceutical strategy with a national formulary that would have a specific fund allocated for people suffering from rare diseases as a part of it. Otherwise, it will never be possible to address those particular conditions. They are too specific, too small, too narrow to be part of a common drug formulary. That is clear.

We are not suggesting that every province reinvent the wheel and come up with funds from scarce resources in order to cover these particular rare disabilities. We need a central clearinghouse. We need a place where those families with family members who suffer from rare disabilities, disorders and diseases can have some hope. These families are facing serious challenges in terms of drug coverage. Drugs may not be thoroughly clinically tested, may not be thoroughly without side effects, but might provide people facing these circumstances with some hope that they might be able to enhance the quality of their lives or even add to their lives. The government must recognize that and put a plan in place.

There is no excuse for the government not to recognize the importance of having a national drug coverage plan that would ensure that all Canadians would never have to make the difficult choice between paying for needed drugs or buying food for their family and paying the rent.

There needs to be a planned approach on all fronts. Serious discussions are needed with the brand name drug companies that are still spending very little of their profits on research and development which would help people with rare diseases and would be of significant benefit to Canadians in these circumstances.

We need to convince the drug companies that spending 90% of their budget on marketing and advertising does not make sense. They have to invest that money in helping Canadians, whether it is in terms of rare disorders and disabilities or whether it is in terms of a universal program that would help many across all jurisdictions in this country.

I commend the member for North Vancouver for bringing this motion to the House. I will support him in his efforts. We look forward to strategies and recommendations and courage from the federal government on this issue.

(1150)

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to address and fully support Motion No. 426, a motion to address the lack of a rare disease drug policy in Canada.

Health care is always among the top concerns of residents in my community of Thornhill and, of course, all Canadians. From access to treatment to quality of care, residents in my community and all across Canada want a health care system that is there when they need it and that is inclusive.

I am very proud to speak in support of the motion by my colleague from North Vancouver, which has been very much inspired from his own very difficult, sad family experience and has been used in such a positive fashion to help others in the same predicament. I am very proud to support all of his efforts. We were all very moved today to hear the story that he shared, as well as other members' personal experiences.

His motion would move Canada toward a system where Canadians with rare disorders would receive the same standard of care as patients with more common disorders. As a breast cancer survivor for 16 years, if I had not had the drugs available to me at that time, I cannot imagine what would have happened to me. The same is true for many others. I can well understand all those who need to be part of our system. When we consider that other countries are doing so, it is vital that we move together. I am happy to see there is some consensus.

As a member of the health committee and part of the common drug review, it was very clear from the organizations and advocacy groups that this issue has not been adequately addressed. The time has come to do so now.

A telling example was brought to the committee's attention, and it was particularly disturbing. It revolved around Nexavar, a drug to treat kidney disorders. It was rejected by the CDR essentially because it was too effective. The interim data from clinical trials of Nexavar were producing stellar results and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that patients in the control arm of the study should be allowed to enter the treatment arm. It was the obvious ethical choice.

Many patients in the control arm of the study, obviously enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to receive this new, groundbreaking drug, but because most U.S. patients had left the control arm, there was not enough data left to satisfy CDR requirements. The placebo data was determined to be statistically insufficient and the drug was rejected on these grounds. Clearly, the placebo data would not be forthcoming and access to Nexavar, available to those suffering in the U.S. and Europe, was severely hampered in Canada.

There is not much motivation in these kinds of cases for Canadian biotech companies at this time to simply duplicate a clinical trial that has already proven to be successful elsewhere. That is one of the other dilemmas.

Because data from trials conducted in other countries is not accepted by the CDR process presently, patients are often forced to wait years for clinical trials to conclude in Canada while patients in other countries, as I have said, have already had access to the drugs being tested. In Canada, patients with rare disorders are forced to wait for no logical reason and to their detriment, except for the rigid requirements presently, in this case, in the CDR process.

Drugs that are often covered by private drug plans to treat conditions such as gigantism, Fabry disease, Fabrazyme, MPS, Gaucher disease and kidney cancer have been rejected by the CDR and are not accessible to those with public drug plans.

Who is being denied treatment the most often? The sad reality is that in many cases it is Canadian children who have rare childhood disorders. In fact, it is those children and their families who are being denied access to treatment. Even in cases where drugs for rare disorders have been approved through Health Canada's progressive licensing framework, often CDR will stand in isolation and essentially reject the conclusions of Health Canada and numerous international studies.

Motion No. 426 asks the government to consider the establishment, and rightly so, of centres of reference for specific rare disorders that would be comprised of national and international experts who would develop the criteria for treating patients based on scientific evidence and patient impact. They would provide ongoing surveillance into the real world safety and effectiveness of these treatments on individual and group bases so that we could consider supporting internationally accepted standards for the conduct of clinical trials in rare disorders appropriate for the challenges inherent to very small patient populations.

By expanding the CDR and developing a separate process for the consideration of rare disorder drugs, we can even the playing field as so many other countries have already done, be it in the U.K., the U.S. The examples are everywhere. It is time for Canada to follow their lead and embrace the international framework model that has proven to be so successful.

Many countries, such as France and the U.K., and others in the EU have successful models of separate bodies that consider treatments for rare disorders. Canada must take a hard look at the cooperation that is happening in these countries as there is much it can learn from their experiences. The time has come, again with our collective resolve, to do so.

(1155)

It was suggested to our committee that changing the CDR process to allow for the pooling of limited Canadian data rejected by the CDR with rare disorder patient groups outside Canada would likely set the stage for more approvals of treatments of rare disorders, which is what is necessary.

The testimony the health committee heard on this issue was compelling. When our final report on the issue was tabled, included in it was the recommendation, as referenced today by the government, that the government look at options. We are happy to see the government has accepted that recommendation favourably. Again, we will very much be looking to see this is implemented and moved forward in a very expeditious fashion. Often we hear there is interest by a government, but it does not always moved on it. In this case there is no other acceptable option but to move on it.

Clearly there is consensus, as I have mentioned, including the government and the health committee, that a new approach is required and that the one currently taken by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health in approving drugs for rare disorders is not yet there.

When the government tabled its response, I was pleased it was received well. I very much look to see that this has everyone's total support and that we will see action in this area, which is so vital. It is predominantly affecting children and other Canadians.

I fully support this, and again commend my colleague for moving on and taking leadership forward. We want to see this happen not in a long period of time, but in the very near future so those suffering currently will feel they are part of our health system in every fashion and that they do not have to look elsewhere.

(1200)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The hon. member for Cambridge has 10 minutes of which 4 minutes will be today.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today on behalf of my riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries and speak to this very important motion.

The government understands the seriousness of the issues faced by Canadians who suffer rare diseases. We have taken action on these issues for this vulnerable population of Canadians and will continue to do just that.

These disorders affect a very small number of people, which is the good news, sometimes fewer than 100 people in the entire country, making them difficult to diagnose and even harder to treat. The government recognizes that Canadians who suffer from rare diseases can face unique challenges, due in part to the limited information available to doctors, hence making it even more difficult to diagnose and leaving treatment options restricted.

Rare diseases means just that. They are rare. Very few people get them, but that truth makes it a very tricky thing to develop drugs for them. Appropriate testing is difficult and the potential market is very small. Research and development is often prohibitively expense for drug companies.

Perhaps it might be useful to briefly explain the system and how it works and the roles of the different participants.

The federal government is responsible for deciding what products can be sold on the Canadian market, based on sound and practical assessment of the drugs benefits and its risks. We first must do no harm. This is done through a review of the safety and efficacy data from clinical trials conducted on patients. In fact, therein lies one of the problems.

Traditional clinical trials use hundreds and in some cases thousands of patients in a study. Clearly this is not an option for analyzing treatment protocols for rare diseases. This means that by making regulatory decisions about drugs for rare diseases, it is just that much more difficult and that much more challenging.

However, after all that has been done, after all the trials and the research, the drug is approved for sale in Canada. Now each public drug plan, provincial, territorial and in some cases the federal drug plan, for example with first nations or veterans, must decide whether to pay for the drug treatment in their respective jurisdiction.

The high per patient treatment cost means that there will almost never be considered a cost effectiveness using traditional measures and traditional methodologies. It is challenging to know where to draw the line or whether we should even apply different standards if we were to do so, considering only the rarity of a condition.

Physicians must make difficult decisions on how to prescribe these drug therapies or even if they should prescribe them at all based on limited data. Patients must make the ultimate choice of whether to use them and, sadly, sometimes there are no other alternatives.

The good news is the government is taking steps forward on a system meant to improve the health of Canadians, including those with rare diseases. Our recent investment of $113 million in the food and consumer safety action plan is evidence of this progress. The action plan includes a comprehensive set of measures to improve the safety of products that we use, including prescriptions drugs for rare diseases.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When Motion No. 426 returns for study by the House, there will be six minutes left for the hon. member for Cambridge.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

* * *

(1205)

[English]

Judges Act

The House resumed from March 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31. It is a very short bill. It is a government bill that will have the effect of increasing the number of judges at our superior court levels across the country, from 30 currently to 50.

We have roughly 900 judges at that level across the country. These particular appointments are in a special category and they are as a result of an agreement that the federal government made with the provinces a number of years ago, which allowed us to manoeuvre around what was a constitutional problem and allowed for these appointments to be made at the request of the provinces.

That is what has happened in this case. A number of provinces have come forward and made requests to increase the number of judges, with the current federal government recommending to Parliament, in the form of this legislation, that the number be increased from 30 to 50.

It is important to note that we are at third reading and that we have had committee hearings in the justice committee. This is the committee that is no longer functioning, but it was at the time this bill went to it. We did take some hearings on it. They were quite brief because, as I said, the issue is a very narrow one.

Before we get to what happened at committee, I want to put in context what has happened with the workload of our judiciary at the superior court level across the country. That workload has been increasing dramatically as a result of a number of factors.

First, we simply have a growth in population. The last time the number of judges was increased across the country was almost 25 years ago. Therefore, in that period of time, we have had a substantial increase in our population, resulting inevitably in an increase in the number of cases coming before the courts.

I want to make the point that this level of court is not the court that deals with most of our criminal cases. Roughly 95% of all criminal cases and charges in the country are dealt with at the provincial court level and by judges appointed by provinces. However, what does happen at this level and what has happened more and more often is the number of trials that run on for extended periods of time have increased dramatically.

We have seen this under regular charges and the more serious charges under the Criminal Code. However, where we have particularly seen it, has been in the area of drug charges. Oftentimes there is an element of organized crime involved and the trials go on with multiple accused for extended periods of time, literally in some cases, for more than a year, but often for three to six months. This is almost becoming the norm when there are multiple defendants in these areas because of the amount of evidence to be put forward by the prosecutor and then the response from the defence. The length of the trials has increased dramatically therefore putting a burden on our courts in that regard.

The area where the workload has gone up dramatically has been in family law. Without any doubt, I think any observer of our courts would accept this is the reality, that the biggest workload increase by our judges at this level of courts has been in the family law area. It takes the form in two ways: huge increase in the number of motions brought prior to trial, which most of our judges at the superior court level sit on and try these motions; and then the actual trials.

Again, in the family law area well over 90% of all matrimonial breakdowns that result in any kind of litigation never gets to trial, but a good deal of it does get dealt with at the motions level, and those numbers have gone up dramatically.

(1210)

There were a series of articles in the Toronto area at the end of last year, early part of this year, showing the number of times cases at the motion level had to be adjourned simply because there were not enough judges available to hear them. This makes it much more expensive for the claimants in those cases, whether they are the plaintiffs or the defendants. Lawyers attend, wait for their turn on the motions and then, at the end of the day, time runs out and they have to come back another day. They end up charging their clients for their time in court even though they were not able to argue the case.

This happens repeatedly. I certainly know in my home community of Windsor that it is happening. I know it is happening in Toronto because of those articles. It is my understanding it is happening across the country in greater numbers.

Because of the costs, we find more claimants who end up in front of the courts at the trial stage unrepresented. This puts an additional heavy burden on our judiciary to ensure the trial is conducted properly and fairly for both sides. Even when one side is not represented by counsel, it requires additional time for the judge to ensure there is a fair trial, thereby lengthening the trial. Therefore, that has increased the workload and the time allocated.

We can look as well in the civil litigation area around personal injuries files. I can remember when I first started to practise a long time ago, those trials would take on average two to three days. Now, often two to three weeks is pretty well the average, and it is not usual for them to take over a month's time. Again, for most of that period of time, the number of judges in Canada has not been increased at all.

Having set that context, I want move to what happened at the committee. I had expressed in my speech at second reading, as did other members of the House, concern as to whether the increase in the number of judges, from 30 to 50, would be adequate to meet the growth in demand for services by our judiciary.

I want to then put in context and make it clear what came out of the committee, and I think a number of us knew in any event. The way the system works is the additional judges who will be appointed will be paid out of funds from the federal level of government. However, all the services that go with the additional judicial appointments are paid out of provincial funds, and that is all the staff. For those people who have not been in court very often, that is a very significant number of people. There are court reporters. There are usually one or two people providing security. On average, at this level of court, between six and ten people have to be there for that courtroom to function. In addition, there is the capital outlay for the building space so there are sufficient courtrooms available for the judiciary to perform their functions.

Therefore, the tab, if I can use that colloquialism, at the provincial level is substantially higher than the wages of the judicial person on a ratio of about 3:1 people, on average, across the country.

During the course of the committee hearings, there was a strong feeling that additional judges were needed, and we heard this from the bar associations, the law societies, the judicial councils, the senior judges who provide the administration for our courts. However, and I do not want to overplay this evidence, it was quite clear, from what we heard from the justice minister, that there would have been, if it had been left up to the judicial councils, the bar associations and the law societies, a significantly greater number of judges, on top of the 20 judges, being sought by the provinces. However, because the provinces were not in a financial position to cover those added expenses, this was in effect to what they agreed.

(1215)

Even the wealthier provinces like Ontario were not prepared to seek additional judicial appointments at this time because of the costs that were attended thereto.

With regard to the bill, I have to think that sometime in the next few years we will again be faced with another request from the provincial level to make additional appointments. I believe this simply will not be sufficient.

I want to make one final point that came out in the course of our debate around the bill. Of the 20 judges, 6 judges' time will be allocated to the land claims tribunal. All of that other work that needs to be done, whether it is in the criminal law area, the family law area, the area of personal injury or other general civil litigation, we are only getting the time of 14 additional judges, not 20.

We also heard a concern from a number of the first nations communities as to whether the six judges appointed to the tribunal on a periodic basis would be sufficient, in addition to the ones who were already allocated. We may, in the next few years, be hearing from the first nations community, which is dealing with a huge number of land claim applications, that it may require additional judicial appointment time in order to get through a huge backlog in that area.

I want to make the point that all political parties and all sectors of the community are adamant that we deal fairly but in an expeditious way with those claims. However, we will not be able to do that without having a sufficient number of judges. I expect that at some point in the next few years there will be a request for additional judges to cover this off and another government will be back asking for additional appointments.

Although we have grave concerns about the adequacy, there is no doubt that we need at least these 20 judges and probably many more. The NDP will be supporting the legislation on third reading but with the caution that at some point in the near future we will probably be back before the House asking for additional judges.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his always wise input to brief but important legislation.

I took the opportunity to look at the government's representations with regard to Bill C-31 before it went to committee. It laid out very clearly many of the facts of which the member had advised the House in his speech, particularly about the concentration of the family issues in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, as well as the pressures in the aboriginal communities.

One of the things I do not hear is that the case was made that these were existing and projected demands on the judicial system.

Second reading of Bill C-31 started on January 28, two years after the government took office. It makes me wonder where the accountability is of appointing sufficient judges to ensure we do not run into a situation where someone could say that justice delayed is justice denied. From a lay perspective, if we cannot have our courts operating in an efficient fashion there will be consequential implications to that.

I do recall what we went through in the first session when a myriad of bills were thrown at the justice committee. I think there were 10 or 12 bills at one point in time. The government was saying that somebody was delaying these things but Bill C-31 was not among them.

When we came back in the second session, rather than reintroduce most of those bills at the same point in the legislative process, many of them were rolled into an omnibus bill, which meant that we had to restart most of the work on a lot of these bill that already had been done.

Accountability is the concern I want to raise with the member. This is a very straightforward priority. The justice department was clearly aware of it and it briefed the government and the minister at the outset. However, the government did not get the job done.

I wonder if the member could help us understand why it is that we are faced with a significant and tragic backlog at a time when the government had the opportunity to address it very quickly in a straightforward bill.

(1220)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin:

Mr. Speaker, there were two points to which I want to respond.

First, there is no doubt in my mind, from watching the government function, both in the public safety arena and in the justice arena, that it is not paying significant attention to the consequences of some of the criminal laws and amendments that are being passed as it affects the provincial level of government. We have seen that with some of the criminal law bills, one of which, I am proud to say, we were able to fix to such a degree that it would not have a major economic consequence on the provinces, which would have been the result had the bill gone through as first drafted by the government.

However, when both those ministers were in front of the justice committee and when I was sitting on the public safety committee, there is no doubt that the government does not do an analysis of the consequences of its legislation, whether it is on the judiciary, the police services or the prosecutors. It is not doing that analysis and it is being dumped over onto the provinces.

Second, when the provinces come back to say that they have these needs, they are not given any kind of affirmative response from the government in saying that it will figure out some way, in the transfer of payments or in some other fashion, to provide them with the necessary resources. We are seeing that with regards to not getting enough police officers on the street, not getting enough prosecutors into our court and, as we are seeing now in this bill, not getting enough judges into our courts.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, it is helpful to know the two areas. It is easy to make laws at the federal level but when they need to be enforced and applied at the provincial and territorial levels and they do not have the resources to enforce them, then we have a situation where the laws are ineffective. In fact, there may be some unintended consequences.

The question I want to ask the hon. member has to do with a concern I have with regard to the independence of the judiciary. This has come up from time to time. We now have a situation where the bill would provide additional salaries for up to 20 more judges. However, there has been some evidence of partisan appointments. Even the Supreme Court justice had expressed some concern about claims matters at the tribunal.

I would ask the hon. member for his opinion. How do parliamentarians approach this? When we make the argument in this place about the need that we are fulfilling on behalf of Canadians in the judiciary, the police, et cetera, how do we do it in a way that is open, transparent and does not involve the appointment of people who have some connection or political involvement that may undermine the independence of the judiciary?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Comartin:

Mr. Speaker, from the comments made to me by the Law Society's Bar Association and the legal profession generally, there is no doubt that since the Conservatives took power the judiciary has a great deal of concern over their drive to ideologically frame the courts.

I have worked, as have a number of other members, on various committees that have been attempting to review appointments. I was involved in some of the Supreme Court of Canada appointments and came forward with suggestions on how the appointment system should be changed to not only make it as accountable and transparent as possible, but to guarantee that there will not be a partisan nature to those appointments in terms of absolute party politics. The criteria should always be the most qualified person to fill the opening.

We continue to have that problem. We saw the government change the committees that screen the appointments at the provincial level, which had nothing to do with merit. I think the number of committees was up to 15 across the country. The government changed the composition of that, which was clearly an attempt to ideologically imprint a Conservative bent on the appointment.

I do not think it will work. I have much more respect for our police officers who were added. I do not think they will fall into that trap set by the government. We badly need a process that is much more transparent and much clearer, where the only criteria for our judicial appointments has nothing to do with what political party one belongs to or the political spectrum one is on. It must be the absolute best candidate for that position available at the time.

A lot of work has been done on this internationally. I have sat on committees where we have reviewed all of that, but the government, since it has been in power, has not done anything about changing the appointment process, except that one change to the current committees, which was clearly to imprint a right wing ideology on our judges.

(1225)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-31. Members will know that this bill is simply a one paragraph bill to amend the Judges Act.

Yet after reading the debates at second reading and hearing about the discussions at justice committee, as well as hearing the member who just spoke, it is clear that the bill would have some fundamental implications for all Canadians with regard to providing the kinds of services we require in our judicial system at both the federal and provincial levels.

As well, there was some discussion about the federal government making new laws that have to be in force at the provincial and territorial levels, but we have not taken into account the resources necessary for the provinces and territories to be able to enforce those laws. Passing laws that cannot be properly enforced across the country is a bit of a nil process. We have heard this time and time again.

I want to reflect on some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when this bill was first debated on January 28, about two years after the government took office.

It would be a tough sell to convince Canadians of this significant, emerging and terrible situation that we have with not enough judges to hear the various cases in various jurisdictions. If this is such a priority, what happened during the last two years?

Members will recall that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh referred to the activity within the justice committee. Members also may recall that during the first session of this Parliament there were 10 or 12 bills, all pretty well straightforward, all pretty well involving many of the same witnesses, and yet those bills were not introduced as is normally the case. Normally where there is a broad range or potpourri of items to amend the Criminal Code, they all would be included in an omnibus bill which we would then be able to deal with in a more productive fashion. Many of those bills were very straightforward and, quite frankly, were not contested by anybody in this place.

However, this process dragged on for a bit. As a matter of fact, instead of using an omnibus bill, the government introduced each bill one at a time. It was done that way for political purposes. The government was trying to paint a picture. It was trying to say that because somebody else had done a bad job many changes needed to be made to the Criminal Code. The Conservatives said they were going to be tough on crime. All that really did was delay the processing of important legislation.

The justice committee is one of the busiest committees, if not the busiest, and cannot deal with 10 bills all at once. It has to deal with them one at a time. The committee has to decide the priorities. If the committee streams to them sequentially, it is very difficult to do anything other than the next one coming at it.

The House also may recall that when the parliamentary session came to an end a number of those bills were at various stages. I think one or two were already in the Senate. After the throne speech, when the second session started, the government reinstated some of those bills at the same point they were at when the House was prorogued, but most of them were then put into an omnibus bill and we had to start right at the very beginning again.

(1230)

Again, I suggest that this had to do more with trying to get political points for reintroducing or repackaging legislation that had already been in the House for over a year, simply for the government to be able to say, “Look at how busy we are on justice issues and there are a lot of things we have to change”. All that it really did was delay the passage of important legislation and amendments to the Criminal Code.

When I saw the timeline on Bill C-31 and read the speech of the parliamentary secretary from January 28, it laid out a case that clearly there was a problem, that there were not enough judges to handle the cases in Ontario and Atlantic Canada, particularly in family law cases, and in the north, aboriginal land claims items were being delayed.

One starts asking oneself questions if a backlog has been built up, if there are projections of population increases that are going to require certain things, and if more and more people have less and less money to be able to defend themselves and hire lawyers. People are going to court without being represented by counsel, which means that suddenly judges have longer trials. It was well laid out by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

Is it not a priority? If it was a priority and if it is a priority today, and I think it is, why was it not introduced earlier in Parliament? We are talking about two years after a government takes office. The justice department clearly is aware of it, because it is the continuity. Politicians come and go, but the people in the various departments are the continuity and they know what the priorities are.

Why is this so? The member for Windsor—Tecumseh had some thoughts about it, and it had to do with basically setting up some things for appointments of judges. This is another area of concern. I do not think there is a party that is going to oppose this bill with regard to providing the legislation that is necessary to amend the Judges Act to pay salaries for up to 20 additional judges.

There are two issues that remain. First, how are we going to prevent the same circumstances from occurring in the future? The country is growing. The litigious nature of our population is increasing. The courts are backlogged. This is going to continue. What is the plan to make sure that we do not find ourselves in the same situation of the courts not being able to respond, where instead of the average case taking three to six months, it is taking a year? Suddenly that involves a lot more time, a lot more money, a lot more delay and a lot less justice. There has to be a commitment.

Second, the other point raised by both the parliamentary secretary and the previous speaker in questioning was with regard to the independence of the judiciary. The previous speaker was very diplomatic in suggesting that the questioning of judicial independence was a cloak for ideological preferences for people. However, there is some evidence that what has happened already has in fact shown that there can be some partisan influence, which I do not think is very appropriate. As has been stated, it causes some concern to the Law Society, the Bar Association and those who have a stake in making sure the judicial system operates efficiently and effectively.

There have been such cases. For instance, the Prime Minister's former campaign manager in New Brunswick was appointed as a judge, a former president of the Conservative Party in Quebec was appointed as a judge, and the party's former chief money raiser in Alberta was appointed as a judge. I do not know what signal that gives to people, but I am not sure that it is a good signal to be giving to Canadians.

With regard to ideological side, even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada has had reason to be critical of the government for its attacks on judicial independence. We have seen a number of examples of that as well.

(1235)

Thus, the bill may be only a paragraph long, but it is a proxy for looking at the bigger picture with regard to the condition the courts are in, why they are in that shape, and why the government has not been accountable and responsible for making sure that this situation was not exacerbated. Delaying the appointment of qualified, properly recruited judges for our various levels of the courts is an ongoing and very important process, and it was ignored. I think that speaks volumes.

As has been indicated, the bill amends one paragraph, paragraph 24(3)(b), of the Judges Act. It authorizes salaries to be paid for up to an additional 20 new judges in provincial and territorial superior trial courts.

I found it interesting to hear about the demographics and the needs of Ontario and Atlantic Canada, particularly in the family court side, and the fact that 90% of these cases never do get to trial. In fact, now we have this other operation, where trials are pending and suddenly go to motions, and the judges are more engaged now in this.

The whole nature of the operation of the judicial system is starting to morph itself into something a little different than Canadians might realize. It is taking our judges a lot longer to do cases simply because they are more complex. As was laid out in debate, we have a lot of cases that have more serious problems to deal with, such as issues of drugs, organized crime or gang violence, and so on.

As this changes, Canadians need to have the assurance from the government that when we deal with legislation like this there is in fact an accountability as to the progress being made. Have we taken sufficient steps to make sure that not only can these backlogs be dealt with but so can the projected growth? Have we ensured that we have a mechanism and a plan in place so the courts continue to be responsive to the needs of our judicial system?

The other important part has to do with some of the other legislation and the consequences of passing federal legislation when the responsibility for the enforcement is at the provincial level. If we do not have the resources at the policing levels to enforce the laws that the federal government passes, there really is a question that comes up. How effective are our laws if they cannot be enforced? What about plea bargains and the number of cases that are just not heard in time so charges are dropped and justice is not seen to be done?

These are the kinds of questions that lay people ask. The lawyers can deal with the details and some of the more profession-specific issues, but I wanted to speak on this simply from the standpoint of a lay Canadian. In terms of the Canadian justice system, the operation of the courts, my observations, what I hear from debate and what I hear from the bar associations or the legal community itself, is that there are some concerns. There is a lack of confidence in the ability of the federal government to be responsive to the needs of Canadians and to make sure that the judicial system is operating efficiently.

Those are significant indictments of our federal system: to make laws but not have the resources to follow them. It is easy to do laws, but where is that partnership in terms of making sure that we have the enforcement side of the equation taken care of?

(1240)

This is where it would be good to see the Government of Canada coming to this better arrangement with the provinces and the territories to ensure that those resources are going to be there. There has to be a proper analysis of the implications of our federal legislation.

From time to time there is gender analysis that is required in certain cases, but in this particular case, what we are talking about is to demonstrate that if we do this, here are the consequences, to say we understand what the consequences are going to be. We understand where the financial burden is going to be and we understand there is a plan to make it happen.

Parliamentarians ought to know whether there is a plan, whether there is that certitude that if we were to pass a law, that it would really happen, that it would be enforced, it would do the right things, it would deal with backlogs, and would ensure that the increasing demands on our judicial system would be met in a timely manner.

Those things have not happened. Parliamentarians have not been given those assurances by the government. We have just simply been told there is a backlog and so we have to have 20 more judges, but that is only a small part of it. I just cannot imagine why we cannot have a responsible government being open and transparent with Parliament and with Canadians, because that is who we represent, to say we have done the work, we know what has happened.

Those were the two concerns I wanted to raise today. First, that I did not see the analysis of the implications of passing this legislation to the consequences of those who must enforce the legislation. The second one has to do with the plan to ensure that, at the federal level, we continue to monitor this and that the priorities are there. It was clear to me, by reading the speeches and from the committee work, that the priority is clear and uncontested, and this bill will be supported by all parties.

However, the problem is it took two years before a one paragraph bill came before this place. That is unacceptable to Canadians. It is unacceptable to Parliament. I ask the government to ensure that these kinds of priorities are not simply put off to the side only from the standpoint that they are not as spicy and interesting to the public for partisan purposes. The real implications are that the courts are backlogged; the courts are jammed. They are affecting people's lives and delaying justice, and that means that justice is denied.

(1245)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the debate on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act, at third reading.

Bill C-31, if passed as is, would make it possible to appoint more judges to the provincial superior courts. This would mean 20 judges more than the current limit.

The purpose of increasing the number of judges is to improve the flexibility of the legal system so that superior courts can handle the many cases for which they are responsible, as quickly and efficiently as possible. Moreover, it would allow judges from superior courts to be assigned to the new specific claims tribunal, which was created by the Specific Claims Tribunal Act.

Bill C-31 is necessary because the number of judges provided for under the Judges Act has not changed for years. Accordingly, the act does not take into account the population increase and the resulting new social realities, including divorce, and the increasing complexity of some cases. These factors have caused delays in the legal system that penalize citizens.

This bill is a necessary update to accelerate and improve provincial legal systems. It makes sense, which is why this bill was recommended without amendment by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

That being said, beyond good intentions, it is important to point out that Bill C-31 will never successfully cover up two major problems concerning justice that are of grave concern to me, that is, the judicial appointment process and the elimination of the court challenges program. Any citizen who cares about having an impartial, efficient judicial system deserves to know about this government's questionable intentions on these two issues.

Regarding my first concern, I would like to emphasize the subjective nature of the judicial appointment process. I have talked about it on several occasions during past speeches. It is such a major problem that it could compromise the desired effects of Bill C-31. I would remind the House that, since being elected, this government has always said it would rather get tough on crime than prevent it. Bill C-31 is nothing more than a slight blip in an ideology that advocates penalizing and imprisoning as many people as possible as the only way to reduce crime.

First of all, I will provide some context by saying that judges are appointed by the government from a list made by a judicial advisory committee whose members voted for the candidate they deem best qualified.

Before the changes made by the Conservatives, the advisory committees had seven members. Out of seven evaluators, four members were politically independent, in other words, there was a representative from the Canadian Bar Association, another from the bar of the province concerned, a representative of the provincial department and, finally, someone to represent the judges. The three other members, appointed by the federal Department of Justice, came from the public. These individuals frequently subscribed to the ideas of the government of the day.

It is important to realize that, as it turned out, the federal government was in the minority on that committee and therefore could not impose a candidate. Nevertheless, the Conservative government was not happy about this situation because it would have had a hard time passing its political “law and order” agenda for justice. So without consulting the legal community, this government unilaterally decided to change the makeup of the advisory committees in the following manner.

First, in addition to the three members of the public, it decided to appoint a police officer, thereby ensuring that four members would be government supporters. Then the judges' representative was denied the right to vote except to break a tie. This means that the government has a majority on these committees and is able to impose its repressive law and order ideology with ease. I believe this is blatant disregard for the entire legal community and clearly shows a shocking lack of faith in the judicial system and the recognized professionalism of judges.

(1250)

I would like to draw to my distinguished colleagues' attention to the results of The Globe and Mail 's investigation into the matter, published on February 12, 2007, which showed that, apart from the police officers, no fewer than 16 of the 33 individuals appointed to 12 advisory committees were connected in some way to the Conservative Party. This is not a mistake; we are talking about half the candidates. Coincidence? Unlikely. The newspaper revealed a number of cases where the connection was extremely clear.

The members of the Bloc have been saying for a long time that we can hardly wait for the day when partisanship no longer plays a role in judicial appointments and independent committees will choose the most competent judges.

As for my second concern, the government used the excuse of budget cuts to government operations—even though they had a $10 billion surplus—to eliminate the court challenges program, which was cherished by minorities that wished to defend their fundamental rights. That program was created to put individuals and citizens' groups on a level playing field when going to court against a government they felt was is interfering with one or several of their constitutional rights.

When citizens must take the government to court to seek justice, the latter has a slew of lawyers at its service, while ordinary citizens must use their own savings to defend themselves. Since court costs are huge, these people could rely on the court challenges program to balance things out.

With this completely unjustifiable budget cut, the government is showing us, yet again, that its vision on legal matters is narrow and shortsighted and has nothing to do with the word “efficiency”. One thing is certain: the abolition of the court challenges program violates at least five laws or provisions of the Constitution. Before making such a huge decision, the federal government should have consulted with the interested parties, the minorities affected.

But, as is the case with the judicial appointment process, the Conservative government did not consult anyone before shamefully eliminating a program that had proven effective, all to save a mere $5.6 million out of an annual budget of $283 billion. Many organizations have harshly criticized this cut, and rightfully so.

It is clear that the court challenges program was abolished for purely ideological reasons. I think that the Conservatives do not care one bit about minority rights. I feel strongly about this because I am a staunch defender of human rights, as shown by my Bill C-384, which will soon be debated in this House.

It seems as though the Conservatives are discomfited by minority groups such as disabled persons and gays, and by immigrants' rights organizations, women's rights organizations, and all organizations that defend minority groups.

I stated that the court challenges program has proven its effectiveness not only by defending minority rights, but also in the context of common law, by providing jurisprudence. I will provide a recent example of its effectiveness so that everyone will understand how important this program is.

On April 11, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Marie-Claire Paulin and the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, stating that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police must offer its services in both official languages across the entire province of New Brunswick. The RCMP, as a federal institution, was only required to provide services in the minority language in areas where numbers warrant. In her comments about her lawsuit, which has taken eight years, Mrs. Paulin clearly stated that she would not have been able to take her case all the way to the Supreme Court without the help of the court challenges program.

This is the program that the Conservatives have eliminated. Without this opportunity, this woman would have had to have been content with unilingual English service in her own province. This is the sad vision being offered to us today, which greatly concerns me. But the people can always rely on the vigilance and efforts of the Bloc Québécois to make the government understand that this situation is wrong and that they should reverse their decision.

(1255)

I would like to conclude by saying that if one puts the aforementioned concerns into perspective—the political machinations involved in appointing judges and the elimination of a program as important to minorities as the court challenges program—one cannot help but question this government's real intentions when it comes to justice.

Exactly how will Bill C-31 be able to meet the demand when the intent is to punish rather than prevent? On the one hand, we can expect the legal system to become overburdened very quickly. On the other hand, having more judges will not make a difference if citizens do not have the means to exercise their rights. In my opinion, Bill C-31 is nothing but a drop of good intention and effort in an ocean of ill-conceived punitive approaches.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-31 so that it can go through the legislative process. All the same, the problem remains: partisanship will always play a major role in the selection of judges regardless of the total number of judges on a superior court.

The Bloc Québécois will always continue the fight to eliminate partisan appointments to the bench. It will do all it can to help the people get truly independent committees whose judge appointment processes ensure that the most competent people are chosen. The Bloc Québécois has also always been extremely supportive of the court challenges program. The government's lack of sensitivity on this issue is inconceivable, as is the fact that it is so out of touch with the needs of our community.

We will do everything in our power to ensure that the government understands that when it comes to justice, it is headed the wrong way. It is even contradicting Quebec's approach, which has often put the lie to the Conservatives' ideological shortcuts and preconceived notions.

We will always be there for Quebec.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to address the act to amend our Judges Act, proposed by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

From the outset, I would certainly put on the record that our party supports efforts to appoint additional judges to deal with the increasing backlog in our superior court system. As we have heard many times today, justice delayed is justice denied, and we see examples of this all too frequently.

When there is a backlog, judges' schedules are overcrowded and they also suffer from the stress of the overcrowding, as do their staffs. It is not only the litigants to the process who are concerned and are impacted, but the judges themselves, and all that that means. Sometimes certain judges may become ill as a result, and that only compounds the necessity of increasing the number of appointments.

This bill, however, does nothing to address our party's concerns about the Conservative government's attack on judicial independence. This is so important and at the same time, the Conservative government, I respectfully suggest, has stacked the Judicial Advisory Committee to ensure that the justice minister's chosen representatives have a majority voice on every provincial judiciary advisory board.

This partisan tone certainly will not fare well in the future and I think we need independent individuals who are not swayed by a certain political ideology in order to improve and preserve the independence of our judiciary.

Actually, this is the same government that went out of its way to make a large number of patronage appointments to Canada's judiciary, including the Prime Minister's own former campaign manager in New Brunswick, the former president of the Conservative Party in Quebec, and the party's former chief money-raiser in Alberta.

There was much to-do in the previous Parliament about partisanship and when the members opposite were in opposition, they were vehement in their opposition with such suggestions of partisanship. What happens when they get in the government? They ignore that.

I would also point out that even the chief justices of the Supreme Court, like Beverley McLachlin, have also had a reason to criticize the government for its attacks on judicial independence.

The Conservative government claims that this legislation is being introduced to help alleviate the backlog in the provincial superior court system and to help provide justices to the independent tribunals which are being set up to adjudicate first nations specific land claims. Certainly, this has not been addressed for a considerable period of time, and we need additional judges to deal with some of these land claims that have existed for too long. It is important to move forward with additional judges to help get these out of the way.

The bill amends paragraph 24(3)(b) of the Judges Act to create the authority to appoint 20 new judges to the provincial and territorial superior trial courts. In particular, the superior courts in Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Nunavut are experiencing serious and growing backlogs and delays. Nunavut, in particular, faces severe challenges in providing access to justice for its aboriginal communities. Certainly, we look forward to more aboriginal judges too in our territories.

The remaining provinces are experiencing significant strains, particularly in the family court branches of the courts, as a result of population growth. As of January of this year, there were currently 31 judicial vacancies that the Minister of Justice is responsible for filling, so if we add that 31 with the additional 20, we still have a significant backlog in judicial vacancies. There are also 10 vacancies in the provincial Court of Appeal and the provincial Supreme Court.

(1300)

The specific claims tribunal, which I mentioned briefly, will have the authority to make binding decisions where specific claims brought forward by first nations are rejected for negotiation, or where negotiations failed. Based on the federal government's analysis of the specific claims workload, it has been estimated that the new tribunal will require the equivalent of six full time judges to manage approximately 40 claims per year. These claims are dispersed across the country, some in my area of Ontario, with the greatest number arising in British Columbia, and some of the most complex cases originate in Ontario and Quebec.

It is anticipated that six new judges will be appointed to the superior court of these provinces in proportion to their respective share of the specific claims caseload. It is intended that this infusion of new judicial resources will allow a number of the superior courts to free up their experienced judges, so that they may be appointed to a specific claims tribunal roster.

The roster will consist of up to 18 judges who will be appointed as tribunal members by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. These judges would be assigned, likely on a part-time basis to specific matters by the tribunal chairs in consultation with the chief justice of the affected court.

To support these additional requests for judges, the provincial and territorial courts have provided the federal government with detailed proposals containing statistical data and information on relevant geographical and cultural factors that impact judicial resource needs.

They have made their case and it is time to proceed with this legislation with all due dispatch. As I indicated, the government and courts of the jurisdictions provided statistical data and information with respect to the average sitting hours or days per judge, evidence of trends in case volumes, backlogs and delays, and information on relevant geographical and cultural factors that impact judicial resource needs.

There is a perception that perhaps the judiciary is a position that people would aspire to because of perhaps an easy workload. I suggest this is very wrong. Our judiciary is very diligent and it works very hard, has long hours and certainly is most deserving of the compensation it receives.

There is currently no authority under the Judges Act to appoint new judges to any of the provincial superior trial courts and this amendment would provide the government with that flexibility, to respond to objectively substantiated requests for new provincial superior trial court judges at present. It would also address the new demands of the specific claims tribunal.

I suppose my only complaint is that we should have moved forward on these some time ago, months ago, perhaps as soon as the new government took office. In the previous Parliament similar legislation was before the House and when the House fell of course, because of the intervening election call, the legislation died. It could have been immediately introduced and it could have in fact been law today.

We have been well aware of the backlog and the government should certainly have moved forward much sooner to respond to it. The delay has not only exacerbated the situation of backlogs, but also it has exacerbated the conflicting situations of the trials and the litigants who are in the system waiting for their day in court.

In moving forward with the appointments, I urge the government to be aware of the need for francophone judges who are fluently bilingual. This would be especially important in my region of Niagara, in Ontario and certainly in my constituency of Welland.

The appointments process will no doubt come under scrutiny and perhaps the partisan flavour of appointments may become a concern once again. In the previous Parliament, and at the urging of the members opposite who were then in opposition, the appointments process was certainly reviewed and alternative suggestions were made. In fact, there was a review of the proposed applicants. This was done to advance the idea that capable, qualified applicants be considered for these positions.

Heretofore, the vast majority of our judicial appointments have been excellent with men and women, I would say, of the highest quality. In fact, Canada is known throughout the world for the quality and expertise of its judiciary and we hope this phenomenon, this policy and practice will continue.

(1305)

I did question the inclusion of police officers in the evaluation of applicants when the Conservatives introduced some new changes. It certainly feeds into their law and order agenda, but it takes away from the independence and impartiality of the selection board. I would encourage my friends opposite to revisit that situation. Certainly, judicial appointments should be independent of any type of influence and made objectively of the highest quality individuals.

Soon we will also have to deal with the question of compensation for our judges. I respect it is just as important that they be well compensated and earn good salaries for the very serious work they do, the long hours they put in and the importance of making impartial judgments. It is a difficult task and they should be compensated for the hours that they put in.

That is about the end of my comments on the Judges Act. I would hope that we move forward on this legislation and pass it. It is important and necessary, and it is needed now. I would hope that there would be all party support for this; I would see no reason why there would not be. I certainly will be standing in favour of this bill.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to see Bill C-31 move forward. I listened to my colleague's comments on the various issues of concern that he has. I have to ask why he thinks it has taken so long to deal with an issue of such importance as ensuring we have sufficient judges across the land to deal with the variety of issues that are currently out there. Is there any particular reason he thinks that this has taken a while for this to come forward?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Maloney:

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer lies in the agenda of the justice minister as to which legislation he wanted to bring forward. This would have been very simple to reintroduce and get through the House. As I indicated in my address, this bill could be law today and we could be addressing the backlog. This has not happened and it is disappointing. What can I say? We are here now. It is disappointing that we did not do this two years ago, but it could now move forward quickly and become law.

(1310)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro:

Mr. Speaker, there are 31 judicial vacancies to be filled. British Columbia currently has the highest number of vacancies, with 10 vacancies between the provincial Court of Appeal and the provincial Supreme Court. We are only dealing with 20 vacancies.

Does the member have any comments as to why he thinks the government has decided to deal with only 20 vacancies rather than the 31, given the fact that it seems to take quite a long time to get these bills prepared and forwarded and given, we also understand, the amount of legislation the justice minister has been responsible for?

As the member said, there are only so many things that can be dealt with at a particular time, but there are 31 vacancies. Does he have any suggestion as to why we are not dealing with 31 vacancies rather than the 20 vacancies that are currently part of the bill?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Maloney:

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, those 31 vacancies exist today and the 20 new positions that we are creating would be in addition to them. If my understanding is correct, that would give us a total of 51 vacancies that would have to be addressed. Those positions are not filled at the snap of a finger. People apply for the positions. The applications are vetted. It is a long process. It will take the government some time to fill not only the existing vacancies but certainly the additional positions that are being created by this law.

The member's concerns are compounded by the situation. The sooner we address this, the better.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to say a few words on this legislation.

I will be supporting the bill. In my view it is not controversial. It raises by the number of 20, the judges the government is authorized to appoint at the trial level. This is a good move. It is beneficial to our justice system, specifically for those vulnerable to injustice and especially aboriginal populations in certain areas of this country.

I support the legislation as it will provide increased support for jurisdictions which I consider to be presently under-represented. There is no guarantee, and there never is any guarantee that anything will happen, but hopefully it will resolve some of the specific claims that have been kicking around for generations involving aboriginal populations. Also, it will hopefully decrease some of the backlog that has been experienced in our court system in certain areas of the country.

This is an extremely important issue. There is nothing more fundamental to a properly run democracy than access to an efficient and equitable justice system. It is the right of all Canadians.

I should point out that there have been tremendous improvements over the last 15 to 20 years in the management of our judicial system, mainly in the area of case management. It was felt the system did not lend itself to management and it was basically up to the litigants and their lawyers to manage when the case came before the court. There were all types of delays and confusion in some of the pleadings.

Now there seems to be a much more aggressive stand taken by court administrators and judges in bringing these things forward. They make sure that the lawyers comply with the time limits and the rules of court, and that there is early and full disclosure of documents and other testimony both in civil and criminal cases. At the earliest opportunity the parties are brought before a judge, but not the judge hearing the case, to try and resolve how things are going, where they are going, if it is moving on a timely basis and also to encourage, in some cases aggressively, people to settle a case so that it does not add to the backlog in the judicial system.

There have been substantial improvements in the system over the last 15 or 20 years. Also, there have been improvements in the specialty of law, whether it is family, criminal, or commercial. Some of the commercial cases are extremely complex. There is a specialization within the system which has helped tremendously in the administration of justice.

It has been pointed out that we are debating the authorization to appoint 20 additional judges. Right now there are 31 vacancies. Those could be filled tomorrow, assuming the proper preliminary procedures had been done, but they are not being filled. One wonders why that is the case. The government will have authorization to appoint up to 50 new judges once this bill becomes legislation. Having said that, I do support this particular piece of legislation.

With respect to the judicial advisory councils, there has been what I consider to be fundamental changes made to the provincial judicial advisory councils over the past year or two. It is my understanding that the Minister of Justice makes the majority of appointments to these judicial councils.

(1315)

It just defeats the very principle upon which these judicial councils were established in the first place, to take away not only patronage, but the perception of patronage. Sometimes highly qualified people are appointed as judges, but if they happen to be close to one particular party, they get stamped with a judicial advisory council, they get appointed by the judge, and sometimes people just shake their heads as to how the system operates. The changes that were made in the provincial judicial councils, I submit, were a step in the wrong direction.

I do hope that the new members of the court, whether they are filling one of the 31 vacancies or one of the 20 additional spaces, will study and analyze exactly why there is a backlog and what is causing it. Is it a certain particular case? Is it a certain particular group of lawyers? Is it a specialty? Some of the commercial cases go on for six to eight months. Are they causing some problems?

I understand from some of the reading I have been doing that the backlogs are concentrated in central Canada, Quebec and Ontario, and some of the Atlantic Canada provinces, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There is also a situation in Nunavut that requires some attention from the judicial system, probably judges who come from that area who can speak the local language and of course are familiar with the local culture. We hope with the new judges some of those issues can be resolved and we can move forward.

Other members spoke of the court challenges program. I cannot overstate how important that was to the efficient and equitable operation of the justice system right across the country.

In my own province of Prince Edward Island we had an issue regarding the funding of French language schooling. Because of budgetary constraints, this request from the francophone population in our province was denied and denied and denied. Some of the parents, to their great credit, took the matter to court and a decision was rendered. It set parameters as to when and under what circumstances a group of parents would have access to French language education for their children.

Let me say that those parents, and there was not a great number but they did show leadership, did not have the resources to take this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. They sought and were successful in receiving funding from the court challenges program. That case served as a precedent for other provinces to set the parameters and guidelines as to when a certain community within Canada should have education for children who come from French Canadian families. If that funding had not been available under the court challenges program, that case would not have seen the light of day. It would not have gone anywhere. It would not have gone to court and we would have been a lesser country as a result of that particular situation.

Sometimes there are abuses. Sometimes there are problems, but when we see how important cases like that are to this country, we have to shake our heads and wonder why that particular program was totally eliminated by this particular government--

(1320)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My apologies, but I have been listening to the member for quite a while and he is speaking about the court challenges program. I wonder if the member could be reminded that we are not dealing with that program right now, that according to the orders of the House, we are dealing with Bill C-31.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I thank the hon. member for his point of order. Perhaps the hon. member for Charlottetown could make his way back to the bill before the House.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, I think they are very much related. We are talking about the administration of the judicial system in Canada, the number of judges, where they are placed and the other tools that are available to judges so that we have an equitable functioning judicial system. That was just one point that I raised, one among many.

We need to bear in mind that this all comes back to the basic statement that access to justice is a right of all Canadians, regardless of where they live or the type of people they are, and we cannot just use one particular tool.

Even if we had 1,000 new judges, there will be certain situations where those judges will not help a particular situation. It depends where we put these judges. Of course the court challengers program is very much, I submit, related to the discussion that the chamber is having today.

I hope that with the new judges, if they are directed in a certain manner, it will help to resolve the situation that we now see in Nunavut. This is a complex situation. It is an extremely large area. I certainly do not stand here today and suggest that I have all the answers. I probably do not have any of the answers but I hope, from what I read in the legislation and in some of the background material, that it is somewhat directed to that particular issue. I hope that it resolves itself, which will not be immediately but over time.

In this legislation, I hope we are seeing some steps with a commitment to resolving specific claims with the aboriginal communities. One branch of these judges, I believe it is six, would be designated for that particular purpose. It is needed and I hope it works. I hope these judges will be sufficiently trained and committed to this particular process. I hope we see some progress in resolving some of these disputes that have been unresolved for generations now.

Above and beyond the appointment of the 20 new judges, I also hope the government sees fit to provide the resources. I am talking about this specific tribunal. It is one thing to have the six or seven new judges but we need administrators, court managers, administrative staff, research staff and a whole host of other resources to see that this issue gets off the ground in the right manner and hopefully we will see the results coming forward.

On this side of the House, we are hoping that those judges appointed to that particular tribunal, which will not be an easy challenge, will have sufficient background on aboriginal history and be sensitive to the unique understanding that will be required of them when they take their positions. We all hope to see that happen. I think it is a step in the right direction but it probably will not be resolved overnight. However, I do support the way it is going.

As I said when I started, I will be supporting the legislation and I hope it passes the House as soon as possible and is enacted into law.

(1325)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I found it quite interesting to hear the comments from my hon. colleague, in particular, the ones on the issue of the court challenges program. The importance of the program has been discussed a lot in the House and it is sad that we no longer have that program to offer to Canadians.

I want to ask the hon. member specifically about the claims tribunal that would have the authority to make binding decisions where there are specific claims brought forward by first nations and that have been rejected when it comes to the whole issue of negotiation.

Based on the government's analysis of the specific claims workload, it has been estimated that the new tribunal will require the equivalent of 6 full time judges to manage the approximately 40 claims per year. Quite clearly, these are very complex issues that will require judges and individuals to have a lot of knowledge of the cultural challenges facing specific communities in the aboriginal community specifically.

Could the hon. member comment on what he sees as the challenges for these judges and just what he thinks they will need to do to resolve some of the outstanding issues?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, it is my submission that this is a step in the right direction. The member stated that this was a very complex issue. She is quite right. I do not know whether six or eight judges will be sufficient but I will point out that the judges alone are not the total answer. A whole host of back office resources will be required to operate this tribunal efficiently so that it functions.

Some of the narrative dealing with this act talks about trying to appoint judges who are culturally sensitive to the area and maybe speak the language. Again, that may be a very simple statement, but whether judges are available and meet the minimum qualifications for the Superior Court remains to be seen.

This is a situation that is very much a step in the right direction and I support it, but it probably will not happen overnight.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. The Government of Canada can pass legislation but if it does not have the resources behind it, then the effectiveness of legislation comes into question.

My question has to do with preparing for tomorrow. It has been laid out by all speakers, I believe, that there has been a trend line that has put greater demands on the judiciary and that it has been a long time since there have been increases. However, we did not see any analysis come out of all of this work about the projections for how many judges will be needed down the road.

What are the criteria? What is the timeline? The member will know that it has taken two years since the government took office before it even brought this bill forward for debate in the House. It does not seem to be a priority to the government and yet we need to ensure the backlog in the courts is dealt with and the land claims, the family law claims, the drug and organized crime cases are dealt with on a timely basis. If they are not, justice is delayed, which the member knows is justice denied.

I wonder if the member knows how we determine the capacity that we will need to meet in the future, what criteria we might want to expect from the government and the Department of Justice to alert us so that we do not get into the same problem in the future and also to ensure that the resources will be available downstream to enforce this legislation.

(1330)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point. I have never seen anything come from the government or the Department of Justice regarding projections into the future as to where we are going or what sorts of caseloads are increasing or decreasing. We have had no analysis as to what we may be looking at five or ten years down the road, whether we are talking about commercial law, family law or criminal law.

I know in certain areas of the country litigation is actually going down, and there is no question about that. The courts are doing a better job of managing their caseloads and are having cases settled at an earlier time. That is probably in the civil end of it. In criminal law, there is more pretrial disclosure. It is not trial by ambush any more. Some good steps have been taken. This has not happened in the last year or two but over the last twenty years.

I have seen no projections as to exactly where we are going nor have I seen projections on what the judicial system may look like five or ten years down the road.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on the government's treatment of judges in general. Being a lawyer, I think he has seen some unprecedented actions, which I will comment on later. I know he has a lot of experience in the area of the cutting of judges' wages, the reduction of their powers and the political appointment process of them, all tremendous steps backward.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of lawyers who want to be judges, so we are not at that stage at all.

By and large, my biggest concern is about some of the changes that were made to the Canadian provincial and judicial councils. It is my belief that they are driven by ideology and that it is a step in the wrong direction.

However, having said that, Canada and the people who live here are well-served by the judges we have right across the country. They are, by and large, well-trained, hard-working and they do a good job.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many comments, including some from that member's colleagues on the other side, about the government's move forward on a number of different programs. It is a great thing for Canadians to see progress on the justice file.

I wonder if the member would comment on the fact that sometimes it takes a little while to research and find qualified individuals who will serve Canadians properly. It has taken a while to get this legislation forward because sometimes it takes time to find good qualified people.

I noticed that an agreement was reached among parties that since this legislation was agreed upon only one speaker would be put up by the Liberal Party and then we could move forward on this initiative. However, I see that a number of members on the opposite side want to get up and speak. That, in itself, is fodder for that party as those members continue to delay things.

I wonder if the member could comment on why the Liberals are delaying this legislation.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, neither I nor anyone else is delaying this legislation. I wanted to speak to it and I am speaking to it. I am privileged to have been given the opportunity to speak to it. If the member across does not want to speak to the legislation that is his prerogative.

The member talked about it taking a long period of time to find qualified individuals but he is not quite correct in that assertion. The way the system works is that each province has a standing provincial judicial appointments commission. At one time there were appointments from the Canadian Bar Association and other interested groups, such as provincial attorneys general and the federal minister of justice who would bring forward to the minister of justice the names of individuals who were qualified to be a Superior Federal Court judge.

The Conservative government changed that system. There has been a change in the focus of the composition of each provincial judicial council. Different individuals are there now.

This is an ever-evolving process. People who want to apply can apply. Their resume and their application is adjudicated upon reasonably quickly by these councils. There are always names of qualified applicants available for disposal by the Minister of Justice. Therefore, there really is no reason for any type of delay and certainly no reason for having 31 vacancies presently in our Superior Courts right across Canada.

(1335)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for being late. I wanted to be here earlier to speak in this debate but I was attending an emergency meeting about rice prices having gone up three times and that over the next two months people in Burmese refugee camps will be starving unless we come up with a solution. I had to attend that important meeting.

I did want to speak to this bill in support of more judges. More judges are needed in family court, youth court and for the specific claims tribunal, which I will talk to at length when we get to the specific claims tribunal.

As I mentioned in my question to the previous member, there have been all sorts of problems in the treatment of judges, reducing their pay, making the way we choose them more political and reducing their options for sentencing. All of these things happened in this Parliament.

However, because this bill is specifically about increasing the number of judges for the tribunal and for family courts, with which I think everyone agrees, I move that the bill be now passed.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

An. hon. member: Agreed.

An. hon. member: No.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear:

Mr. Speaker, I have to congratulate the member for attempting to move a motion even though it is not parliamentary procedure to do such a thing.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for Cambridge, but the hon. member does have the ability to finish his speech within his time slot. If he has more to say on the subject, I will allow him to finish and then we will move on to questions and comments afterward.

The hon. member for Yukon.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow that member to have the first question.

I would like to talk about the treatment of judges in general in Parliament, which has been totally unfair. I will go into the specifics of the bill and talk about a number of items that I support, but I have some questions about its implementation.

First, as people know, the last Parliament judges were afforded a pay raise. The final signatures had not come through. As part of a very unfair and backward treatment of judges, that pay raise was denied by the government and was not allowed to go forward.

The next item was the change in the selection of judges. In our system the fundamental basis of our democratic system is the general separation of the judiciary, the executive branch and Parliament. The people are convinced there is a good separation and that there is a good process for the recommendation of judges. The executive branch still has the authority and approves the actual judges. However, the judicial councils, which have various expertise from the various groups on them, had suggested that they should make recommendations to the government, although the government could still decide who it wanted.

The minister added another government member to that body, which was a horrendous change. Now there is a majority of government members on that selection committee. Not only does the minister get to make the final decision, but he also gets to have a majority of people appointed on the committee that makes the recommendations to him. What faith will people have that the judges appointed are independent? This has already led to some very questionable appointments, which I might get to later.

I also want to comment on a third backward step in treating our judiciary. The government has taken away the discretion of judges in a number of the bills brought before Parliament. Judges have a lifetime of expertise. The judges see all the evidence, hear all the cases and sit through the entire procedure. They have research and all the precedents to make the most reasonable decisions on the punishment someone should receive and the type of remediation so society will be as safe as possible and the person is least likely to reoffend.

People are different and different punishment and rehabilitation would apply. However, unfortunately, we have been presented with a number of bills that would reduce the discretion of judges, and not to increase the maximum penalties, which people might want, to deal with offenders, which could make them more safe.

A perfect example was Bill C-23, which would have reduced a whole number of relatively successful remedies. To a large extent, the criminal justice system has failed for the last thousand years. Huge numbers of criminals who go to prison come out and reoffend.

A number of community type justices, as the chief police of Ottawa can tell us, have a much better success rate than what has been done traditionally. Up to only 30% or 40% of youth going through those types of rehabilitation are likely to reoffend, as opposed to 50%, 60% or 70% under the traditional system.

(1340)

We had an innovative, successful type of approach in some cases and we had a bill that would take away from the judges their ability to use that type of tool. Fortunately the opposition parties fixed that bill and reinstated those successful remedies in a vast majority of cases.

I want to compliment the minister on looking at a point related to judge. It was related to the chief justices in the three territories. By an anomaly of the system, back in history there was a reason, because of function, to separate the title of the chief justices of the territories. I believe they were called head judges. Now the judicial councils and everyone who deals with judges understand that their roles are identical to chief justices in the provinces and therefore the names should change.

I appreciate the minister looking into that for the last six months or so. Hopefully he will soon provide me a written outline of what the exact issue is, if there is still an issue, or if the government could make that change. I know there were some thoughts that it might be different responsibilities, but the Judicial Council basically has said that they are identical.

The last point in the whole area of the background for the bill is related to the lack of analysis done and the unpreparedness of the justice system for the huge agenda. As I think everyone in Parliament knows, there has been a massive agenda on justice. There have been more bills through the justice committee than probably all the other committees put together, which is fine if work needs to be done there. However, an analysis of the repercussions has to been if those bills are to become law. What effect will they have on government? What effect will they have on prisons? What effect will they have on the budgets of the provincial and territorial governments? On the bill before us, what effect will it have on judges?

Time and time again in committee we asked about the analyses and about the preparation that had been done. It was very limited, if any. No planning had been done on the effects on an already overcrowded jail system. More important, on the resources in that jail system, the teachers, the anger managers, all the supports that go with the jail system and the parole system, no analysis had been done on the extra cost to the provincial governments or who would pay for them. No analysis had been done on the extra procedures that police may have had to undertake or whether it would take more time for them to go through these procedures and therefore more time in the courts.

Therefore, it is surprising that if there were these new types of increases in the justice system, that there would not be a need for more judges to deal with these situations, especially in the sense where it becomes harder to get a rehabilitative sentence and someone has to face a sentence that could be far longer and more severe than actually a natural justice would suggest. Therefore, it may not even stand up to a constitutional challenge. However, because of these limited stiffer sentences, then more defendants would have to go to court. They would not have the other options where they could make a deal, where they could get rehabilitation, which would make them less dangerous to society. Therefore, this would increase the number of people in the system, the court time and the number of court cases, and therefore the need for judges.

(1345)

We may get this bill through and have to do another bill right away. We are so far behind because there has not been any analysis done in this area. I hope the government has listened to this and does an analysis of the whole system and the ramifications of the many bills that we have passed in Parliament and the impact they would have on the rest of the justice system.

With regard to this bill, as I said earlier, it involves increasing the number of judges by 20 judges, of who 6 equivalent full time judges would be for the specific claims process, which I will comment on a bit later.

These additional judges would deal with the increasing backlogs in the superior court system in six particular areas of the country, including Nunavut and New Brunswick. About four or five other jurisdictions have outlined their backlogs, especially in family court and youth related matters.

When cases come forward related to child custody cases or different types of family court cases, they have to be dealt with quickly. They usually involve serious issues, such as the conditions under which a child might live, or the parent with whom the child might live and there has been a crisis, as can be seen lately.

Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are other areas where there have been delays. Nunavut, in particular, has problem providing justices to their far-flung aboriginal communities. As we know, it is very difficult to get anywhere in Nunavut. On a per capita basis, we certainly need a good number of judges. New Brunswick has had problems recently about the appointment of unilingual judges who replace bilingual judges when they retire. They are unable to carry the same workload or cover the same number of people with whom they need to deal.

As of January 24, there are currently 31 judicial vacancies that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is responsible for filling. Even by filling the existing vacancies, the minister could appoint more judges than this entire bill would allow. The largest number of vacancies is in British Columbia between the provincial Court of Appeal of and the provincial Supreme Court.

We support the increase in the number of judges and we strongly support any appropriate amendments made by the committee related to the specific claims tribunals, which we worked on when we were in government. These are much needed changes, although there are questions about exactly how that and the appointments would work, et cetera. I will talk about that in a moment.

(1350)

[Translation]

Yet, unfortunately, the government continues to put forward measures that are unsuitable and insufficient. Even though I agree that Bill C-31 should pass and that we need to increase the number of judges, I do not approve of the implementation of this bill. Perhaps this is because I worked so much in the field and saw first hand that there are not enough judges, especially in New Brunswick, as I said earlier.

[English]

Just before I get on to the specific claims tribunals, I want to talk about what the government was questioned on previously relating to the bill. I hope that there is a plan in place and that it is related to the regional distribution of the judges.

There are some very distinct challenges in New Brunswick, Nunavut, Quebec and Ontario related to language as well as getting judges out to difficult locations. I wonder if the government has indeed, based on questions from the opposition, come up with a plan for that type of distribution.

Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I want to say once again how hard-working, experienced, thoughtful and independent the judges are and we certainly appreciate them.

In relation to the specific claims tribunal, how is the government going to ensure that the judges are fully knowledgeable about aboriginal affairs? The aboriginal people want to ensure that they certainly have a full and fair hearing. What is a little worrisome is that there is no way for appeals. There are very few things in our society where there is not a possibility of appeal.

I am very supportive of items in the bill, but I am not so happy with the way judges have been treated throughout this Parliament in other ways.

(1355)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the member's support for the government's agenda, particularly on the crime initiatives and the jurisdiction of justice.

I have listened all morning to a number of members opposite. They continually say that they support the bill and that the government maybe should move a little faster on it. I want to thank the members for their support, but my question actually leads to what happened a few minutes ago.

I asked if there was consensus that only one speaker by the Liberals would be put up and we could move on with this issue. They have put up a number of speakers and when the member himself put forward a motion to have the bill now passed, members from his own party ran out and said no. Is this a flip-flop or just a lack of communication on the part of the opposition?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is going to be sad that he asked about democratic procedures and the small little point he is making about an extra speaker when the government has been so bad, anti-democratic and so disastrous in its process.

I recall in the justice committee what a lack of justice there was in the process. Witness after witness would come to committee and say that a bill did not make any sense, that it had no foundation in law, would make Canada a more dangerous place, and yet the government would not even accept any of this advice. We might as well not have had committees.

I do not know if this is because they have a book that explains for their members how to stop committees. In the last couple of weeks, we have had discussions about the Conservatives and how they have cost Canadians hundreds of thousands of dollars. They have been stonewalling committees by going on and on. They have illegally walked out of committees to stop them just so they could not be investigated.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

The hon. member will still have eight minutes left for his questions and comments period.

We will now move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Edmonton East.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Richard Paré

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour the life and service of a proud Canadian, Mr. Richard Paré, retired Parliamentary Librarian, who passed away last Thursday at the age of 70.

I join with my fellow members of Parliament to acknowledge what Mr. Paré did to contribute to Canadian parliamentary democracy.

After serving as Associate Parliamentary Librarian for 14 years, Mr. Paré was appointed Parliamentary Librarian by the Prime Minister of Canada in 1994, serving in that position until his retirement in 2005. His extensive expertise in library information systems and services was a benefit to us all. He was the first francophone Chief Parliamentary Librarian, a fact in which he took great pride.

More than just a librarian, Mr. Paré was known throughout Parliament as a true gentleman. Today the library continues to impress with its tremendous services and efficiency, a true testament to Richard Paré's life's work.

* * *

Verna Bruce

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this Friday Verna Bruce, a long serving and well respected federal public servant, will be retiring after 34 years of public service.

Ms. Bruce began her public service career with the government of Prince Edward Island in 1994. Competently rising through the ranks, Ms. Bruce had an impressive career with the provincial government including deputy Minister of Health and Social Services, Treasury, Intergovernmental Affairs and Clerk of the Executive Council.

After 24 years with the province, Ms. Bruce joined Veterans Affairs Canada as associate deputy minister and served in the position of acting deputy minister. During the past 10 years, Ms. Bruce has provided impressive leadership to the many challenging and evolving issues facing Canada's veterans. Important veterans' policy issues did not get lost in changes of deputy ministers and ministers as Ms. Bruce provided continuity and leadership in the department.

Along with the demands and commitment required of her public service life, Ms. Bruce always found time to lend her talents to the volunteer community, especially those dedicated to the social welfare of children.

On behalf of all members, I wish to congratulate and thank Ms. Bruce for her dedication and commitment to public service, and wish her every success in her future endeavours.

* * *

(1400)

[Translation]

Clos Saragnat

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Christian Barthomeuf and Louise Dupuis, cider producers from Frelighsburg in my riding.

The Clos Saragnat cider mill tied for this year's prize from Spain's Asturian cider foundation. The award is presented to individuals or businesses whose personal or commercial contribution has contributed to the evolution and promotion of cider in all its forms worldwide.

In 1989, Mr. Barthomeuf created and perfected the process involved in producing ice cider. He also planted the first vineyard in Dunham in 1979, and later those in Sutton and Frelighsburg.

Clos Saragnat decided to pursue an ecological, natural cultivation process, one that is adapted to the soil, environment and climate of the region.

Congratulations to these entrepreneurs from my riding.

* * *

[English]

Northwest British Columbia

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the northwest of British Columbia is a land of partnership and a deep collective spirit. For millennia people have worked with the environment and continue to hold true to that value today.

A coalition of first nations, commercial fishermen and sport fishermen, municipal and environment groups, and every day citizens joined together to fight the provincial and federal governments' plans for open net fish farms at the mouth of the Skeena. Friends of Wild Salmon fought alongside northerners and we won.

Even as we celebrate this victory, we must turn our attention to another threat. Shell's plans to drill for coal bed methane in the Sacred Headwaters bringing the threat of irreparable damage.

We are a hunting and fishing people. We work to be stewards of the land. Northerners will work with those companies willing to work with us, like Galore Creek and Blue Pearl Mining.

If not, we will unify. We will organize and we will defend our rivers and our way of life for future generations to come.

* * *

CFB Trenton

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Northumberland--Quinte West is the proud home of Canadian Forces Base Trenton, the hub of Canada's air force. Since the Conservative Party became the government there has been an unprecedented amount of investment at the base in Trenton. The frequent flights of Canada's new C-17s are a visual reminder of this.

Over the next 10 years the government will invest many millions of dollars into the base. The economic spinoffs are and will continue to be an economic boon for the entire region. Contracts have been let to businesses in Cobourg, Colborne, Trenton, Brighton, and there will be more to come.

CFB Trenton is a vital part of the community, and the thousands of military families and support staff are the backbone of our community. I am proud to represent them and all of the people of Northumberland—Quinte West, and proud to be a member of a government that recognizes the importance of protecting our sovereignty. We have placed a priority in rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces which were shamefully neglected for far too long.

* * *

Geoffrey Pearson

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday hundreds of people gathered here in Ottawa to celebrate the life of Geoffrey Pearson.

A career diplomat and recipient of the Order of Canada, Geoffrey Pearson held many key posts at the Department of External Affairs, including ambassador to the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War and special representative for arms control under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

As the son of Nobel prize winning Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, Geoffrey Pearson established his own brand of diplomacy with an ambitious view of the role Canada plays in the international community. He served as the first executive director of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and later as president of the United Nations Association of Canada.

A loving father and grandfather, Geoffrey Pearson leaves behind his wife, retired Senator Landon Pearson, his beloved children and grandchildren and, ultimately, a legacy that serves every Canadian around the world today.

* * *

National Victims of Crime Awareness Week

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. This year's events revolve around the theme “Finding the Way Together”, a very appropriate theme which acknowledges that it takes the efforts of many people from all walks of life and throughout our communities to address victims issues.

During National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, people in communities across Canada will be getting out the message about what crime does to victims and what all of us can do to help victims more effectively.

Our government is committed to protecting Canada's citizens, but we cannot do it alone. Clearly, all of us must work together to help victims and to prevent crime and that is what National Victims of Crime Awareness Week is all about.

I would also like to recognize that this year marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the first Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime.

Canadians now have a government that cares about victims issues. This government will continue to stand up for the victims of crime and for their families.

* * *

(1405)

[Translation]

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, to undermine opposition efforts to get things moving in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London finally resigned as chair of the committee.

In his letter of resignation, he goes on at length about a supposed “tyranny of the majority”, which he seems to be confusing with the democratic expression of the will of the majority of elected members of this House.

However, when the Chief Government Whip tells us to buckle under or else the Prime Minister will go to see the Governor General, that is tyranny. When the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights vacates his chair to avoid holding a vote on a motion on the Cadman affair that is embarrassing to the government, that is tyranny. When the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs resigns to avoid calling meetings and prevent us from shedding light on the Conservatives' irregular election spending, that is tyranny. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons makes barely veiled threats that “there will be consequences”, that is tyranny.

* * *

Bloc Québécois

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is trying every way possible to take credit for the Conservative government's accomplishments. The Bloc's inconsistency is certainly not in the interest of Quebec. In fact, at 18 years of age, when it should be mature, the Bloc is still going through adolescence: it yells, it contradicts itself and it tries to advance its own agenda when it is in fact at the mercy of its head office. The Bloc would like to prove its relevance here, in Ottawa, but it will never have significant influence.

Our Conservative government recognizes the nation of Quebec within a strong and united Canada. The Conservative caucus of Quebec has been working day after day, month after month, for over two years now, on such things as respect for Quebec, UNESCO, the fiscal imbalance, providing $350 million for Quebec's green plan, resolving the softwood lumber dispute, support for farmers, support for supply management and the reopening of the military college in Saint Jean.

The Bloc Québécois is as powerless as ever on its perpetual opposition benches. In the next election, Quebeckers will choose the winning team: the Conservative team.

* * *

[English]

Municipal Property Taxes

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, homeowners in Mississauga and around the country are bracing for massive property tax increases as the federal government continues to shortchange the future of Canada's cities.

The latest estimates show that homeowners will pay thousands more in property taxes over the next decade to rebuild roads, transit, waste management, and other municipal infrastructure that are the essential bodily functions of a growing economy.

In Mississauga the bill will work out to $100 per resident per year, adding over $300 to the average property tax bill. This is the end of the road for Canada's cities. Property taxes will have to rise unless the federal government rises to the occasion and finally commits to funding the infrastructure our economy is built on.

* * *

Liberal Party of Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's inability to articulate clear policy on virtually any issue is evident by the number of flip-flops made by the leader and his party.

The Liberals' pattern of behaviour is becoming all too familiar. First, they criticize the government's policy initiatives, and then they turn around and support the good work of our government.

The Liberals have criticized a number of our government's policy initiatives, too many to name, but I will showcase a few.

During the Afghanistan debate on extending the mission, the Liberal leader changed his mind as often as he changed his shirt. On the important issue of the budget, the Liberals attacked it, only to turn around and let it pass. Just recently on immigration reforms, after a few days of criticizing our initiatives, the Liberals voted in favour of them.

With the number of flip-flops reaching close to 100, it is no surprise Canadians are confused about where the Liberals stand.

Our government was elected to stand up for Canada and that is what we are doing.

* * *

(1410)

Homelessness

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, last week the Social Planning and Research Council released the homeless count for metro Vancouver.

To say that the results were devastating is an understatement. Across the Lower Mainland, homelessness increased by 19% over the last three years, in New Westminster, 53%, in the tri-cities, a whopping 157%.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture. The numbers have increased in B.C. since 2001 and continue to rise. Not since the Great Depression have we seen a crisis like this.

The Conservative government is failing its people. There was a lot of back-slapping in Ottawa over the announcement of $148,000 for a homelessness strategy. Yet the reality for ordinary folks in B.C. is that this money is less than one-quarter of the cost of a family home in Coquitlam.

We do not need more strategies. We need housing. The government is failing, and we see the results of that failure under every bridge and on every street corner in metro Vancouver.

* * *

Louise Arbour

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House to recognize an extraordinary Canadian. Louise Arbour was the first francophone ever appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Renowned for her courage, she relentlessly pursued justice and dignity as chief prosecutor for both Rwanda's and Yugoslavia's international tribunals.

In 1999 Louise Arbour was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2004 Ms. Arbour became the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

During her tenure she spoke with clarity about the responsibilities governments have toward their citizens. She has always been a strong advocate for civil and political rights and did not spare despots or democracies when making her point.

Ms. Arbour led the world in exposing problematic practices in Darfur, Zimbabwe, China, Sri Lanka, the Middle East and the United States, to name a few.

Louise Arbour has shown the world the best of what Canada stands for. We hope that we will see even more from her.

On behalf of all Canadians, I want to thank Ms. Arbour for her brilliant record of public service to Canada and the world.

* * *

[Translation]

“There for Quebec”

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, “There for Quebec”, the Bloc Québécois' new slogan unveiled yesterday, reiterates our commitment and will guide the Bloc's actions until the national convention in October 2008.

“There for Quebec” expresses the commitment and leadership of the Bloc Québécois, the only political force on which Quebeckers can count here in Ottawa.

“There for Quebec” also conveys the Bloc's determination to ensure that recognition of the Quebec nation is more than just talk and that the federal government will take concrete action that respects the foundations of the Quebec nation, namely its language, culture and identity.

“There for Quebec” recognizes that, for the Bloc Québécois, gains made on a day-to-day basis in the name of Quebec strengthen the Quebec nation and takes it one step closer to full sovereignty.

* * *

[English]

Aboriginal Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this meanspirited government shows no respect. Last week the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians and his parliamentary secretary shamefully attacked the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard.

By attacking the former prime minister and the Kelowna accord, they show a lack of respect for the prime minister's office, provincial and territorial governments and all aboriginal Canadians.

If they thought undermining the member for LaSalle—Émard would bring honour to their government, the members were mistaken. Their attacks confirmed why, under the Conservatives, relations with aboriginals have gone from an all-time high in 2005 to a second day of action planned for next month.

When the minister and his parliamentary secretary stand in the House and scurrilously attack the former prime minister and his accomplishments, they attempt to deflect criticism of their own lack of progress for aboriginal Canadians and their opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Instead of tossing around cheap shots and partisan rhetoric, why will they not listen to the words of their former minister, who acknowledged Kelowna--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

* * *

Liberal Party of Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, with spring finally here, fishing season is fast approaching. True to form, the Liberal leader continues to perform like a fish out of water.

First, he wanted troops out of Afghanistan by 2009. Then, lured by the deputy Liberal leader and his motley crew, he took the bait and supported our motion to continue the mission until 2011.

This month, as he angled foreign issues to divide Canadians, he promised to defeat our efforts to make positive changes to our immigration system. Then in midstream he flipped and flopped and finally allowed our budget to pass.

Desperately dodging to find another wedge issue, he and his Liberal cronies told Canadians a whopper by promising to abolish the GST. Yet, recently he suggested that he will increase the GST back to 7%.

Ever since the Liberal Party swallowed his leadership hook, line and sinker, the Liberal leader, like a fish out of water, has been left gasping for air on issue after issue. It is no wonder that he and his Liberal Party continue to flounder.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the motion we passed in this House about our mission in Afghanistan called for much more transparency by the government, but just look at what it is trying to do to the Military Police Complaints Commission. The government is trying to shut down an investigation into allegations of torture.

Why is there this persistent lack of transparency about an issue as serious as torture? Why is the Prime Minister trying to go to court to shut down this investigation?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. In fact what we are doing is supporting the Military Police Complaints Commission.

On this particular issue, however, there is a question of jurisdiction. For that reason the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, is looking for clarification on the jurisdiction and the mandate of the military police. However, we have provided incredible disclosure. We continue to work with this commission on a range of subjects. On this particular mandate subject, we believe the commission is outside its jurisdiction.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Conservatives are shutting down this investigation.

[Translation]

The government's lack of transparency has consequences for detainees who might be tortured, and also for our troops. At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development last Thursday, General Hillier said that the government knew for two years that we were short 1,000 soldiers for the mission in Kandahar. The government only revealed that information a few months ago.

Why hide that information from this House and Canadians for two years? Why put our troops at greater risk that way?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, again there has been a tremendous amount of transparency. With respect to the disclosure on this particular case, there have been over 1,300 documents that have been turned over. There have been 38 witnesses whom the police commission have been allowed to interview. This is the type of disclosure that we believe is in keeping with the mandate.

However, we believe that when it comes to this subject, it is outside the current jurisdiction of the mandate. We will have a judicial clarification on the matter, despite the righteous indignation from the member opposite.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that was not even the question. The question was about why the Conservatives hid the fact that we needed another 1,000 troops for two years.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Stéphane Dion: I will tell you why they showed such a lack of transparency: because they want to hide their incompetence and their contradictions.

Not so long ago, the Minister of National Defence supported General Hillier by saying that the governor of Kandahar was doing phenomenal work. Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs asked that the governor be replaced. Today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is telling us to forget what he said yesterday.

Who are we to believe: the Minister of National Defence, yesterday's Minister of Foreign Affairs or today's Minister of Foreign Affairs, or none of them?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan is—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the floor to answer the question. Let us listen to his answer.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan:

Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions on government appointments. Canada fully respects that fact and is not suggesting any changes to the Afghan government.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, when the House renewed the Afghan mission, it was on the explicit condition that the government would be more open about the mission and about detainee transfers. Late on Friday, when the government thought no one would notice, it began challenging the jurisdiction of this commission.

The point is the government did not challenge the commission's jurisdiction for over a year and the question is, why has it suddenly begun to do so now? What is it about the detainee issue that makes it impossible for the government to tell the truth?

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that there have been over 17 technical briefings. There have been 20-odd appearances before committee. There have been two debates in the House of Commons which resulted in a vote, something the previous government never did with respect to the Afghanistan mission. With respect to the particular issue that the Military Police Complaints Commission is looking at, this subject matter of a public hearing only was voiced last month, not a year ago. The member should get his truth in order before he starts throwing stones.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, if that is the answer, then the House would want to know what he has against public hearings. I simply do not understand the answer that the minister has offered.

[Translation]

Again, on March 13, in this House, the Minister of National Defence said, “We are in compliance. We will continue to cooperate with the commission. We fully intend to.” I fear the minister misled the House.

What is happening now? What do they have to hide in this detainee affair?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, I will repeat that we are not challenging the general mandate of the Military Police Complaints Commission. It is this specific subject matter.

There are three separate investigations going on. There have been volumes of information turned over by the Department of National Defence. It is the mandate with respect to operations going on in Afghanistan with respect to today that we are suggesting is outside the mandate, and we will have a judicial ruling on that in the near future.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested that the Karzai government replace the governor of Kandahar, mainly because of the corruption in that region of Afghanistan. This statement by the minister is especially surprising given that the Government of Canada has been telling us for months that major progress has been made in Afghanistan and ministers have boasted about the work this governor has done.

Why did the government conceal this situation during the debates on extending the mission beyond 2009?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, Afghanistan is a sovereign country that makes its own decisions about government appointments. Our main goal is to promote Afghanistan's self-sufficiency in all aspects of its nationhood, including development, security and governance.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, this is all well and good, but we heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs on television, just like we saw him handing out Jos Louis. This time, he made a more serious mistake than he did with the Jos Louis. The minister should not just tell us any old story. The government has told us plenty of stories here and has hidden the truth from us, just as General Hillier hid the truth.

Is this not one more reason to leave Afghanistan in 2009, because the time has come to stop playing fast and loose with the truth?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the leader of the Bloc Québécois has problems with the concept of sovereignty, but we believe that Afghanistan is a sovereign country that makes it own decisions about government appointments.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, the government has repeatedly told the House that it was collaborating fully with the inquiry being conducted by the Military Police Complaints Commission concerning the torture of detainees in Afghanistan. This morning, we were all stunned to hear that the government wants to halt the inquiry because—it claims—the commission lacks the necessary jurisdiction.

Why did the Prime Minister decide to question the commission's jurisdiction now, when he promised to cooperate fully with the inquiry just a few months ago?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, the government is not challenging the Military Police Complaints Commission on its general mandate. This deals specifically with what was announced just a month ago: that it was having public hearings. We believe this is outside the jurisdiction and outside its mandate. This matter will be clarified by the courts. Subject to that, there is not much more that can be said about it.

(1425)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, the government said it intended to cooperate. So why is it challenging the commission's jurisdiction now? The Manley report recommended transparency in the Afghan detainees file, but the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that recommendation.

Will he admit that, once again, he is trying to hide the truth about a potentially explosive issue that has already tarnished his image considerably? When can we expect to see the transparency his government promised?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. There are now three inquiries into this issue. The member knows that there is a lot of documentation before the court, a lot of information, many revelations concerning this file.

[English]

We have had 17 different briefings with respect to Afghanistan. We have had debates in the House of Commons. We have had numerous ministers appear before committee. We answer questions daily. There have been numerous documentaries and questions by the press.

What is happening in Afghanistan is hardly a secret despite the attempt by members opposite to suggest so.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, last year, the government was already trying to stop this inquiry from happening. In March, it said that the inquiry was finally under way.

But one year later, because of delays, I had to ask the Prime Minister why he was refusing to cooperate. He responded that he was not refusing and that the ministers had received clear instructions. However, the government's lawyers are now doing everything they can to stop this inquiry.

If this is not a lie, then what is it?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of cooperation between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the other departments, such as the Department of National Defence.

[English]

We have disclosed 1,300 documents. Thirty-eight witnesses have made themselves available to the military complaints commission.

With respect to the public hearings suggested by the commissioner, we are saying it is outside his mandate. There will be a court hearing with respect to that jurisdictional issue. We will await the outcome of that court hearing.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, this makes absolutely no sense. The minister is saying that the government is throwing all kinds of paper at the inquiry, while at the same time it is going to the courts to try to stop the inquiry from taking place using some argument about jurisdiction.

Did the government not know about this before or is this just the latest technique the PMO has come up with to figure out how to shut the door to the public, which wants to know what happened to the prisoners who were detained and the allegations of torture? It looks to us like another step in a cover-up that--

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it may look like that to the leader of the NDP, but he would know, and he should know, having followed this, that there has been a court application that was heard by the Federal Court, which in fact turned down the application of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. The court turned down the argument that the Canadian Charter of Rights applied in Afghanistan. That matter is now under appeal.

With respect to the public hearings, as I have said before, we have cooperated thus far for disclosures. We do not believe that this is within the jurisdiction of the commissioner and for that reason we will hear from the court on the matter of jurisdiction.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the Minister of National Defence said the government was not going to interfere in the internal affairs of Kandahar. A few days ago General Hillier was praising the governor and said he was doing phenomenal work. Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs contradicted that statement and said that it was the government's view that the governor of Kandahar should be removed.

I would like to ask somebody over there who can clear up this confusion, what does the government really think of the governor of Kandahar?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our position is quite clear. I am sure it is the same position that any reasonable person would come to a conclusion about, which is that the affairs of the Afghan government are the affairs of the Afghan government. It is a sovereign country. It is responsible for its own nominations and its own appointments. We do not make those decisions for the people of Kandahar.

Our focus, however, is on assisting the Afghan people to build the strength of their state and to build their capacity, and to assist in their development. We are having considerable success on these projects.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. What the minister has just said completely contradicts what his government's Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday.

How can he explain that his government is in complete disarray?

(1430)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our position is quite clear. What is difficult to understand is any position on almost any issue coming from the Liberal Party. We understand that because often there are many different groups and many different factions within the party that have different positions.

What is more remarkable is that it is also the leader of the Liberal Party who can take one position on issues of foreign policy one day, and then two weeks later take an entirely different position. Those members did the same thing on the tax bill, Bill C-10. They did the same thing on the immigration bill last week. It is the Liberal Party that has trouble sorting out its policies. That party has no policy, no vision and no leadership. It is all over here.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, transparency and accountability are alien to the Conservative government. Last week General Hillier revealed that both Canada and NATO knew two years ago that we needed at least 1,000 troops to do the job effectively.

Why did the government wait until after January, after the Manley report, to announce that it needed the 1,000 troops, two years after this was already known?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is new to his critic's portfolio, but giving him that, where has he been?

The Government of Canada and the Department of National Defence have been asking NATO and our allies for additional troops in Afghanistan certainly since we came to office. I do not know what he did under his time, but the reality is that we have been encouraging other countries to contribute to the south, to that region. Despite the apoplectic discussion coming from the former defence minister, that is the reality, and I know he does not like reality because it hurts.

As for disclosure, let us talk about the sponsorship scandal.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, setting aside that vindictive nonsense, the government does not seem to know who is on first and what is on second when it comes to Afghanistan.

The question remains. Two years ago, the government knew we needed more reinforcements and it chose to do nothing. So much for transparency and accountability. Why does it not simply answer the question? Why did the government not tell Canadians two years ago that our troops were significantly under-resourced? Why did the government wait? The trouble with the government is that it never wants to tell us the facts.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is not vindictive to talk about the Gomery inquiry or the sponsorship scandal. That is part of Canadian history. It is part of the Liberal Party's history.

The reality, while the member may have been hiding under his desk during this time, is that this government, previous ministers of defence and I have been engaged with our NATO allies, requesting further support, whether it be troops, equipment or all efforts to secure Afghanistan to help it build its security forces and to help with humanitarian aid and development work.

We have been on the job, doing the job. Those members have been missing in action.

* * *

[Translation]

Heritage Buildings

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, asked the Prime Minister once again yesterday to make a clear commitment to the reconstruction of the Quebec City Armoury. He said that it is not enough for the government to state its intentions and that he wants a firm commitment. Mayor Labeaume believes that the actions of the federal government are the responsibility of the Prime Minister and not of its officials or its ministers.

Will the Prime Minister make a firm and straightforward commitment to rebuilding the armoury?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have made a firm commitment. The Prime Minister responded 72 hours after the fire. Departmental experts are investigating the causes of the fire. It is too early to discuss the details of the investigation. It is clear that the government has committed to working with the other levels of government, provincial and municipal, to deal with the armoury.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, citizens and organizers of celebrations to mark the 400th anniversary of Quebec City need to know what the government is going to do with the site this summer.

How does the government plan to ensure that fitting celebrations take place at the site? The question is clear.

(1435)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the departmental officials and all organizations involved are working with the Société du 400e anniversaire de Québec. They will ensure that the site is properly cleared and that the celebrations take place as planned.

* * *

Securities

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said the commercial paper crisis was only further proof of the need for a single securities regulator. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance went even further. It is sheer hypocrisy, considering that the banks, which are responsible for this crisis, are already under his responsibility and that of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Instead of seeking false pretenses for his plans, which no one except Ontario wants, should the minister not admit that he and his Superintendent of Financial Institutions are the ones who abdicated their responsibilities in the commercial paper crisis?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Ontario is de facto regulating securities in Canada, since over 80% of all transactions take place there.

We believe that the constitutional jurisdictions of each level of government must be respected. We are aiming to establish a common securities regulator that will work with the provinces and territories, not a federal agency.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, instead of blaming the securities commissions in Quebec and the provinces, the Minister of Finance would be better off to clean up his own backyard. He is the one responsible for banks, yet he is doing nothing about the situation at this time.

How can the Minister of Finance explain that neither he nor the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions have taken any action with the banks to prevent the commercial paper crisis and therefore protect investors? Why did he decide to leave them to fend for themselves?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

The member opposite is mistaken, Mr. Speaker. Most of the entities who were selling the non-bank, asset-backed commercial paper were under the jurisdiction of the provincial securities regulators. This is a serious problem. It is a gap in dealing with this issue and the solution has to come from the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada. It is we who had to create the Montreal table, create a forum to resolve this issue, and hopefully it will be resolved. The provinces were not there.

* * *

World Food Program

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, people in developing countries are struggling to deal with much higher food costs. Swelling global population, soaring energy prices and increased competition for scarce supplies have raised the possibility of food riots in some countries.

Without harming the farmers, as it is not their fault, what is the government doing to ensure that the world supply of food grains is not out of reach for people in developing nations, particularly the bottom billion?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic to hear this from the opposition, since we know that my colleague from Calgary East proposed that we study this issue, and they were opposed to it.

[English]

We are number two in our support of the world food program of all the countries in the world. We will maintain our level of support. We will ensure that we study this crisis and work with our partners to address the issue.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am glad other people are raising it.

Under the UN Food Aid Convention, Canada says that it will supply 420,000 ton of food aid this year. CIDA has estimated that current prices for food grains will soar by 20% or more. This will necessitate a substantial budget increase.

Will the Minister of International Cooperation confirm that she has obtained the necessary budget increase so that the volumes shipped to the poorest of the poor will go up, not down?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I wonder where he was when we were debating this in committee. Now, because the Liberals have no policy, they want to raise it in question period.

As I said, Canada is the second highest supporter of food aid in the world. We will continue to ensure that the demands that are needed will be supported.

I find it ironic that the opposition consistently makes commitments. I was just in Washington. I was in Tokyo with my colleagues. I indicated that when Canada and this government make commitments--

(1440)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. member for Nunavut.

* * *

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, global warming continues to harm Canada's north at alarming rates. The largest ice shelf in Canada has split into three pieces. The Arctic ice is melting faster than anyone's prediction but the government refuses to take the advice of its scientists and set aggressive targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

When will the government start taking global warming seriously and implement stricter targets?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, inaction is not an option. That has been the Canadian policy for 10 long years.

We are taking aggressive action to respond to global warming. It will require real action to take on the big polluters, something that was absent in the recent regime. It will also be expanding support to the province to help in the construction of a hydrogen highway in British Columbia and to help with adaptation initiatives up north.

We are working hard for an absolute 20% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed, we are acting and we are getting the job done.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, every scientist, environmentalist and economist who has studied the government's plan has said that it is too weak and doomed to fail.

Why does the government refuse to listen to them? When will it actually care?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, global warming will be a top challenge for a generation of Parliaments. We are taking real action. We will be judged by our action just as the previous Liberal government will be judged harshly by its inaction.

* * *

Aboriginal Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Clarke (Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 is our government's commitment to deliver protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people living on reserve.

The Liberals should be ashamed that their reaction to the bill was to stall and delay it for a year.

On first nations, many Canadians do not realize that first nations people living on reserve do not have the same protection as other Canadians and that the same issue has been studied for 30 years.

Attempting to change the channel on their internal problems and horrible record on aboriginal issues, the Liberals say that we may not move forward on Bill C-21.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs set the record straight.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Chuck Strahl (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that first nations deserve the same protection that all other Canadians enjoy on a daily basis, which is why we introduced the bill to cover first nations under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

First nations should have received this protection years ago. The Liberals did nothing on this for 13 years. They have stalled, amended and done everything they can to stop it ever since.

The Liberal member for Winnipeg South Centre said:

If we've waited 30 years, what difference does a number of months more make... Six months, ten months, a year, I don't see what the difference is....

First nations deserve coverage under the Canadian Human Rights Act. They deserve it soon and we will get it for them.

* * *

The Senate

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, once again the unelected and unaccountable Senate shows breathtaking audacity in its willingness to burn through taxpayer dollars. We are learning now about $3 million in travel and hospitality for what has become a perpetual road show.

We have single source contracts to high priced consultants, hotel rooms at $450 a night and a $60,000 promotional budget to sell the boondoggle back to the taxpayers.

When will the government show some sober second thought and turn off the taps on Senator Kenny and his high-flying, unaccountable gang?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government agrees entirely with the comments of the member for Timmins—James Bay.

We are very concerned about the waste of taxpayer dollars and the lack of respect over there by some of them, but that is why we are proposing changes to make the Senate more accountable, by giving Canadians a say in who they would have representing them in the Senate and reducing senators' terms from the current 45 years to 8 years. Both of those would be strong improvements to help democratize our Parliament.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing, when it comes to the democratic reform of the Senate, is that the Conservative Party has left out the democratic and is sticking the taxpayer with a lot of cost for the reform rhetoric.

What we are seeing is that Elections Canada has been scathing in its denunciation of the selection Senate bill. One hundred and fifty million dollars will be spent on this farce, which, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister would not even obligated to accept the democratic will of the Canadian people.

When will the government get really serious about the democratic reform of the Senate and put the question to the Canadian people about abolishing this high priced, political fossil?

(1445)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we are not yet convinced that abolition is the appropriate solution. We would prefer to see if it is possible to reform the Senate. However, we will acknowledge that if the Liberal dominated Senate and the Liberals in the House prove so resistant to not allow any reasonable propositions for reform to come forward, that day may one day come.

* * *

Infrastructure

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we Liberals tried to persuade the finance minister to allocate $7 billion to much needed infrastructure but he did not. Instead, the finance minister is trying to buy himself a multi-million dollar train through his riding without any costing or due diligence. He just recently announced a $45 million disability fund, the criteria for which only an entity in his riding can meet.

When will the finance minister stop dishing from the pork barrel and start spending Canadians' money where it is really needed?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we Conservatives have put $33 billion on the table. We are getting the job done.

An hon. member: In your dreams.

An hon. member: It's a bare-faced falsehood.

Some hon. members: More.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. There seem to be a lot of calls for more. There will be more but we need to have silence so we can hear it.

The hon. member for Willowdale has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, that was a brave attempt to avoid the question.

The only centre capable of meeting this funds criteria has on its board of directors the finance minister's wife, his executive assistant and, formerly, the finance minister himself.

The only consultation that HRSDC did for this fund occurred in Whitby and the national Office for Disability Issues was not even aware of it. Is that a coincidence? The wording of the criteria is directly drawn from the material of the Whitby group. Is that a coincidence?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong in her assertions. The fact is that all proposals for the enabling accessibility fund will have the exact same terms and conditions.

However, it is very low when members on the other side stoop and start to attack a world-class facility that supports people with disabilities simply because it is in a member's riding.

* * *

[Translation]

Ethics

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, tapes seem to be the Conservatives' nemesis. The Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity) was taped speaking about the Sikh community. Senator Angus was taped speaking about Bill C-10. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was taped speaking about homosexuals. The Prime Minister was taped speaking about the Cadman affair.

Why do they say one thing in private and another in public?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all. What is being referred to, by and large, are imaginary scandals that the Liberals conjure up for one very simple reason: they do not have any policy to talk about. When they do have a policy to talk about, they change their position on it the next week. Then, when they change their position on it, they do not even bother to show up to vote on it the next week. Sometimes they even walk out of this House.

All of those things are shown on videotapes that Canadians see, which is why Canadians have no confidence in a Liberal Party with no leadership, no vision, no policies and taking Canada nowhere.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Cadman affair has caused problems for the Prime Minister but the problems are of his own making. If the Prime Minister had simply put a stop to Conservative attempts to offer Mr. Cadman a bribe, he would not be facing these repeated questions.

What were those financial considerations for Mr. Cadman, which the Prime Minister referred to explicitly on the tape?

(1450)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as we have said a number of times, the only offer we made to Chuck Cadman on May 19, 2005, was to rejoin the Conservative caucus, run for us as a candidate and get re-elected as a Conservative.

However, as the House leader has said, we know why the Liberals are repeatedly asking these questions. It is, frankly, because they have run out of steam. They have run out of steam on their own policy and on their own leader. It is evidenced every day here in the House of Commons.

We have spoken the truth on this issue. The Liberals continue asking these questions and we know why. It is because, frankly, they have nothing else to do.

* * *

[Translation]

Broadcasting Industry

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, there is still disagreement between Paris and its francophone partners regarding the appropriate place for the multilateral channel TV5 Monde. Belgium is threatening to withdraw, as did the Swiss government last week, if France continues with its plans to integrate the francophone television channel into the proposed France Monde.

What pressure is the Canadian government putting on France to ensure that TV5 remains a multilateral resource for francophone countries?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, for several months now, government officials have been in talks with the various partners, including French officials, and we will continue to work together.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Johanne Deschamps (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, in response to the British Prime Minister's proposal to include the food crisis on the agenda for the next G-8, will the government take the initiative to put this subject on the agenda of the Sommet de la Francophonie, since a number of Francophonie countries are seriously affected by this crisis?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this is a question that has been having intensive discussion, not only domestically in Canada but internationally. We continue to have discussions and I know there are important conferences coming up over the next few months.

Canada will be fully engaged and work with its partners around the world to address the situation as it develops.

* * *

[Translation]

Court Challenges Program

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, it is clear that the court challenges program is vital to this country's minorities.

Marie-Claire Paulin, who just won a long and important battle against the RCMP to uphold linguistic minority rights, said that without this program, she never could have defended her rights all the way to the Supreme Court.

Why is this government refusing so stubbornly to reinstate the court challenges program? This is a simple question. Why go against the will of the linguistic minorities?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, the case is currently before the courts. Our government has made its submissions, but no judgment has yet been handed down.

* * *

[English]

Sealing Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans promised to ensure the safety of our Canadian sealers. He stood in the House a week ago and told us charges would be pursued against the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and that our government would not tolerate the reckless antics of these money-sucking manipulators who threaten the safety of Canadians while posing as conservationist.

Over the weekend the government did the right thing and the vessel, the Farley Mowat, was seized and brought to port.

Would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please provide an update?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canada has laws in place to ensure the safety of our citizens. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society broke those laws and in so doing, put the lives of our sealers at risk. Laws have broken. Action has been taken. A boat has been seized. Charges have been laid. It is that simple.

Paul Watson can continue with his PR exercise to siphon more money from the unsuspecting public. In the meantime, I will stand up for our sealers and our laws.

* * *

Health

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Canada's only safe injection site does not lead to crime or increased drug use, but in fact reduces health risk, saves health care costs and, most important, saves lives. Those are the findings from the minister's own hand-picked advisory committee. It cannot find anything wrong with Insite. To the contrary, all indications point to its success, including the city of Vancouver and the B.C. government.

It is time for the minister to honour and support the extensive research that has been done. Will he commit today to keep Insite open, to make the downtown east side a safer and healthier place.

(1455)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary for Health, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on October 2, the minister advised Vancouver Coastal Health Authority that its exemption under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would be extended until June 30.

The exemption is for the purpose of research into the impact of such sites on prevention, treatment and crime. Our government will review the research very carefully. No decision has been made.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, how much more research can be done? It is all out there, all the scientific and medical evidence. In fact, we have concerns regarding the editing of the minister's own expert panel report.

The NDP obtained an internal copy of the report prior to its release and it appears that changes were made. The original text stated, “Insite may have prevented about nine cases of HIV”, but the edited version removed that text for no apparent reason.

Will the minister investigate this substantive edit, which covers up concrete conclusions, and report back to the House?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary for Health, CPC):

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, our government will review the research very carefully. No decision has been made.

However, as I have the floor, I am reminded that the Liberal Party and its leader have no policy, no leadership and no vision for the country. That is why the people said “no” to a Liberal government.

* * *

Foreign Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical week for Brenda Martin as the Mexican legal system rules on her freedom. To date she has received indifference and incompetence from the government.

For the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has had to take over this file from his inept Secretary of State: What is Ms. Martin's current condition and what is the government doing to bring her back home, now?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jason Kenney (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, her condition is that unfortunately she continues to be detained in the Mexican penal system. This government is doing is everything it possibly can to bring her home as soon as possible. This has been raised at the highest possible levels.

I met with senior Mexican officials and obtained, only three weeks ago, their assurances that they would do everything possible to see her case expedited. Hopefully this will result in her acquittal. We hope for that. If not, we will work very closely with the Mexican officials to secure a transfer to Canada as soon as possible.

* * *

Human Resources and Social Development

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of this Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, Manitoba is experiencing near record growth. The unemployment rate is 4.3% and 21,000 new well-paying full time jobs have been created in the past year alone. Clearly the hard work of this government is paying off for the people in Manitoba.

Despite this great news, we know employers are experiencing great demand for workers with the necessary skills to fill these new jobs.

Could the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development tell this House what he is doing to help meet the labour demands in Manitoba?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):