Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I am sure the House would agree to that.

Agreed.

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). 1 have a meeting with a Minister with regard to a private Member's Bill. I want to get to that meeting because it is important for my constituents and merchant seamen and veterans in Canada.

I would like to make a few remarks on behalf of the New Democratic Party in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary's very succinct speech. The topic of judges reminds me of the Monty Python skit in which a coal miner says "I would have been a judge if I had the Latin, but I do not have the Latin so I won't be a judge".

Well, judges do not speak Latin these days but they do have a very busy job due to all the legislation that we pass and the more litigious nature of our society. In addition, we passed the Charter of Rights and have now passed the Meech Lake Accord with additional terms, if I can put it that way, which judges will have to interpret. We want to have the best judges that we possibly can in the country. By and large, we have a pretty good bench.

I note that the salaries of judges are being increased in the Bill but not entirely retroactively. I think that was a good decision. There is some controversy, and always will be, on how much judges should be paid. Some people in my Party think that judges get paid too much. Other people in the law profession and elsewhere say that if we want good lawyers to become judges we must pay them good salaries. Of course we

December 11, 1987

want the best lawyers to be on the bench. I will, therefore, leave it at that. We do, however, monitor that very carefully.

It is very interesting that Parliament must pass salaries. I do not think that judges like that. They would rather have an independent commission do it, but I think Parliament should keep doing it because it gives us a chance to talk about judicial performance in a general way and to talk about government action with respect to judges and judicial appointments. I would like to make a few remarks on that point as well.

The Canadian Bar Association Committee Report "The Appointment of Judges in Canada" of August 20, 1985, states in part as follows:

In our interviews-conducted in every province and territory, with members of federal and provincial governments and courts at all levels, with offices of the Canadian Bar Association and provincial law societies, and with lawyers generally-we found widespread dissatisfaction with the present method of judicial selection and appointments and a broadly-based desire for change.

That change has not come. We have been waiting for the Minister of Justice to indicate a better and fairer process of judicial appointments and we are still waiting.

The report continues:

Jurisdictions that already have judicial councils or selection committees for choosing provincial judges are notable exceptions.

In most jurisdictions, however, there is dissatisfaction with the extent of political patronage in judicial appointments, despite the recognition that political ties and legal or judicial skills often co-exist in the same persons. Where the nominating process emphasizes political criteria, excellent lawyers of the "wrong" or no political affiliation are passed over as serious candidates for the bench, with the result that there can be no assurance that the best possible nominees for judgeships are chosen.

A former minister of justice told us that he sometimes chose the candidate rated "qualified" by the CBA Committee-

The Canadian Bar Association Committee represents some progress in the appointment of judges.

-rather than the one rated "highly qualified", because he was influenced by "other sources" that presented judgments different from those of the Committee.

Such an unsystematic process has resulted in much public cynicism about judicial appointments. Whatever the actual merits of the judges selected, there is a widespread public perception that judges are chosen primarily for political reasons.

In my own Province of British Columbia there are rumours in the bar that the Government may appoint the present Attorney General in the provincial government as Chief Justice of the Province of British Columbia. This is the same fellow who became a legal-laughing stock earlier this year when he unsuccessfully sought a court injunction against a threatened protest strike by B.C. labour on the grounds that the one-day job action would be seditious. Of course, the Supreme Court of British Columbia wisely threw that out. I do not think lawyers in my province would want to see someone who brought that rather strange law suit become Chief Justice of our province.

In summary, yes, politicians or people who have Party affiliations could be appointed judges. As the bar report says,

Judges Act

that could co-exist in individuals who have good legal skills and so on. There are good examples of that in all three political Parties. I think of Davie Fulton and Stu Leggatt as examples.

We are asking for a better process for the selection and for better consultation. We hope that in the end there may be some means of scrutiny such as there is in the American jurisdiction, perhaps by a committee of this House. We have been receiving promises from the Minister of Justice. Like the person waiting for the suitor who receives nothing but promises, promises, promises, that is all the Minister of Justice gives on this area. 1 would like the Government to study that a little further.

With regard to pensions, I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there were consultations ongoing on a few of the pension problems which the judges have had. I think that can be worked out and I am pleased the Government is doing this.

Let me conclude by saying on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we are prepared to let this Bill pass today after a short debate at third reading. We are pleased with the cooperation in committee and in the House on this Bill. The judiciary is becoming a more and more important level of Government. Canada, this strange country, is kind of half British and half French. It looks back to Britain and France for half our system, the other half following the American system. We are somewhere in between. The great thing is that we are now beginning to fashion our own system, something for which we are all struggling together. A good and strong judiciary where the average Canadian can get justice is what we are really striving for. That is why these kinds of Bills are important.

Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak in this debate, because speaking for my Party, for the Official Opposition in this House, I too must say that as a lawyer and former Minister of Justice, I am convinced this is a very important Bill.

I do not think one can emphasize too much the importance of securing for Canada judges of the very highest calibre. I will say that I share the views expressed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), which is not always the case as you might appreciate, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a tribute to Members of this House on all sides that we seem to be looking together in the same direction on this important issue.

Some weeks ago I had the pleasure of participating in a panel discussion at the University of Alberta, The other participants representing the views of other Parties, were Roy Romanow, who is now the Leader of the New Democratic

December 11, 1987

Judges Act

Party in Saskatchewan, and Lou Hyndman, who was formerly the Minister of Finance in Alberta. The topic of our panel was "Who rules Canada, judges or politicians?" Naturally, the debate took us very much into the area of the Charter and the incredibly important role which has been assigned to judges. They must reflect the mores and evolution of our society in the interpretation of that Charter which protects the rights of individual Canadians in every corner of this land.

Similarly, we raised the question of Meech Lake. If the Meech Lake Accord proceeds, and even if the proposed amendments are adopted, it is clear that judges will have a more and more important role in determining issues of fundamental law that touch the lives of every Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of getting the best lawyers in Canada to serve as judges.

We support this Bill. We would like to see its rapid passage. I would say that on this issue of selection, I very much share the views expressed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I should also tell my colleagues in the House that at this panel, and during the subsequent participation by members of the audience, it was made clear that everyone recognizes the importance of the judicial selection process. It is undeniable that judges will play a more and more important role in the interpretation of the laws of this country, and I mentioned the Charter and the Constitution. Everyone agreed with that. There was no dissent.

However, there was concern that the judiciary may not always be capable of reflecting that cross-section of view so necessary in interpreting our fundamental law as our society evolves. Thus it is absolutely critical that the selection process be improved.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as Minister of Justice for a rather brief period of time, I had the pleasure of meeting on numerous occasions with representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and the committee which had been struck by that association on judicial appointments. The Canadian Bar Association takes this issue very seriously. The Canadian Bar Association, and all its subsections, recognizes that the appointment of judges is fundamental to preserving the integrity of our judicial system.

It is important, as this Bill recognizes, that if we are to attract those men and women to the Bench who are capable of providing that integrity and of serving with honour and distinction in dealing with these litigious and difficult questions which touch the lives of all Canadians, they must be remunerated at a level that will convince them that they should give a good part of their lives to public service. These salary levels may seem high, but the best people in the law profession in many parts of this country are well paid and one can expect they will have to make sacrifices, and they will be making sacrifices even at this level of remuneration. However,

this level of remuneration with the desire to provide public service by serving on the Bench, which is the touchstone in my judgment of success in the legal profession, is a necessary and fundamental step in attracting those people to our judiciary.

With respect to this issue of political patronage and appointments, I must say it is an important issue, but the political activity, whether it be serving as members of legislatures, provincial or federal, or whether it be simply political activity at the riding level or at some other level, should not preclude someone from serving on the Bench. In fact, Members of this House and those of other legislatures are brought into contact in many ways with problems that affect the lives of Canadians and they can be an important reservoir of talent for appointment to the Bench providing they have the professional qualification and the demonstrated objectivity that is required.

I can think of the eulogies paid in this House even by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway upon the death of the Hon. Douglas Abbott, who served with distinction in this place for so many years as a senior Minister of the Crown, and then moved on to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again he served with distinction, objectivity and great honour. He was regarded, if I may say so, as one of the finest members of that court.

Political activity should not in any way preclude people from service. I would like to remind Members of this House that it was the Leader of the Opposition, (Mr. Turner) when he was Minister of Justice, who reached out and brought in men and women of different political persuasions on the basis of merit. I think Members can appreciate that many served in that capacity. Being a lawyer himself, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition recognized the importance of the kind of legislation we have in front of us today and went very far in improving the method of judicial selection. When one looks across the country at the judges who were appointed in the period when the Official Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Justice, one can say with all objectivity from all parts of this House that, indeed, he was successful in attracting some of the best men and women to the Bench.

That tradition must be continued. I fear it has not always been continued. The issue of judicial selection, while not directly dealt with in this Bill, is very much implicit in it because of the additional remuneration and pension provisions that are provided. They, of course, are terribly important in terms of attracting people to that selection process.

I also want to add a word of support for those recommendations with regard to pension improvement, the continuation of the survivor's pension to a widow or widower of a judge after the widow remarries. Obviously, this is an important and significant provision which we support. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the House Special Committee on Equality Rights recommended that a similar bar to pensioners who remarried be repealed throughout the federal jurisdiction. I hope that the

HHHnUHHH

December 11, 1987

Government will give serious consideration to that recommendation at the earliest possible date.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by commending fellow Members on all sides of the House for recognizing the importance of supporting this Bill and improving it if necessary.

I also share my colleague's view that we have a very good judiciary in Canada. However, reform is fundamental in Liberal principle. Anything, no matter how good, can be improved. Let us try to improve our judiciary. This Bill is a step in that direction.

Mr. Gauthier:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the Bill before the House, Bill C-88, and follow up on the point made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston), that we should try to improve the situation, especially with respect to pensions.

I support this Bill because I believe it not only embodies recommendations made by a commission of inquiry-the Guthrie Commission which made recommendations with respect to the salaries of judges-but also deals with the important point of pensions and the right of the surviving spouse to continue to receive the pension of the deceased spouse upon remarriage.

Mr. Speaker, this provision is of particular interest to me because it affects about 200,000 federal public servants. It affects the military, the RCMP and probably all Crown Corporations, where the existing legislation provides that the spouse of a deceased pensioner loses, I repeat loses, any rights to pension benefits if that person remarries.

Bill C-88 is being used to create a precedent, to me a very important precedent, and I am referring to the provisions contained in Clause 2,

We support Clause 2 of Bill C-88 which provides for the continuation of survivor's pension to a widow or widower of a judge even after the widow or widower remarries. We see this provision as a humane step, a step forward. It is a small step which should apply to all public servants, be they federally employed under the Public Service Employment Act, employees under the RCMP Act, Armed Forces personnel or Crown corporation employees.

There are hundreds of thousands of people whose pension entitlements are cut because they have remarried. I believe that every Member of the House would want to see the Government, when it brings forward the pension reform we have been promised, give consideration to a proposal that

Judges Act

would allow Canadian public servants in the categories I have just enumerated to have the same privileges as the judges.

I accept this Bill as being a good first step. 1 say to Government Members that we will look very closely for action on this front. I believe Members of the House would care enough to give the Government full control over this issue at this time so that we will see in forthcoming months provisions dealing with Public Service pensions.

I know that many members of my caucus would like to make a few comments on this question because it is a very important first step. I rest my case on the fact that it is a just measure. It is equitable and something that I will support. I hope the Government acts on it.

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-88, a Bill that is long overdue. A review of judges' salaries was done by an independent committee which compared judges' salaries with the incomes of those who are in the legal business today. In all fairness, we cannot expect to get good judges out of the legal system if indeed they will be paid far less than they can make in their regular occupations.

The position of a judge should not be one of status. It must be one of solid judgment. A person sitting on the bench must be fair minded, objective and dedicated if the people of Canada are to receive just and fair decisions.

Much has been said about judges over the years. A number of judges in Canada had political careers before being appointed to the bench. Many people in the legal profession across Canada have participated actively in one form or another in politics for several years before being appointed to the bench. Many people have participated actively in their communities before being appointed to the bench. Those activities in the early years of a judge's life are what determine whether or not a person will make a good judge.

Apart from politics, the moment a judge is appointed to the bench, we must understand that his or her whole life changes. Judges may no longer belong to groups or organizations in their communities. They can no longer participate in any political activities and even membership in fraternal organizations comes into question. A judge must be seen to be and must indeed be purer than the pure. As I said, a judge must be objective and honest.

If we are to ask all this of our judges, we must be fair to them. They cannot lobby for themselves because they cannot participate in politics. The only way we will have fair minded people on the bench is by providing that they will not lose income and that they will have a stable future. It is indeed a very important career and must be recognized as such.

A part of this Bill which has already been mentioned by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is the clause dealing with pensions going to the surviving spouse. We support this clause in principle. Before this Bill, if the spouse

December 11, 1987

Judges Act

of a judge remarried after the judge had died, he or she would lose part of the pension. In fairness we must remember that that spouse has worked over the years beside his or her partner, beside that judge, and has earned that income together with the spouse. We would like to see that taken one step further.

I have seen cases where members of the Armed Forces have passed on, and the surviving spouse loses the benefits of the pension or annuity if they remarry. That means by remarrying they are giving up that very important income that they have spent their life working towards with their previous partner. Indeed, perhaps it may prevent people from remarrying for economic reasons. That is unfair.

I support the cases of public servants who have paid into these pensions over the years, members of the Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Crown corporations where it applies and indeed all those throughout the federal jurisdiction, that when a surviving spouse remarries their part of that original pension from their first spouse will be retained and carried on. That is an essence of fairness. It has to be looked upon as part of their income, an income that they have worked towards with their partner during the first part of their lives. Why should they have to pay a penalty because they want to remarry and live a continuation of a happy life? Surely we do not have to pay for happiness. It has always been my understanding that happiness comes from true love and understanding, and one should not have to give up their monthly income in order to remarry.

Together with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier I wish to conclude by stating that, in the future, we want to see public servants, members of the Armed Forces, RCMP, Crown corporations, and others under federal jurisdiction included in this principle. If a spouse dies and sometime afterwards the surviving spouse wants to remarry, that spouse should not have to give up his or her share of the original pension from the original marriage.

It is a fair element in this Bill today that the surviving spouse of a judge would continue to retain that part of the pension earned during the marriage to the judge. We want to see that continued on a scale across the board in all fairness to those who have worked toward that pension, and that it really is part of their income for life.

Mr. Gauthier:

The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) has made some interesting comments in regard to the rights of deceased judges' pensions and the rights of the surviving spouse to that pension. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I have just received some facts from the report of the administration of the Public Service Superannuation Act for the last fiscal year, 1986. The figures indicate that in the fiscal year from April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986 there were 97 widows and 12 widowers who

were deleted from the list of pensioners because they remarried. Last year, that is, 109 people were deleted.

The point to be made in passing Bill C-88, is that if we want to be humane towards pensions of judges' spouses, we should try to be as humane to those 109 people who in one year lost their income because they remarried.

I do not know if the Hon. Member has the figures from the Armed Forces, although I know the Petawawa base is in his riding and he has a preoccupation for Armed Forces personnel, but I do think we should look into of the Armed Forces and RCMP spouses who lose their entitlement to pensions because they remarry. Does the Hon. Member have any comments in respect to that?

Mr. Hopkins:

Mr. Speaker, an Hon. Member has just said, "Who makes the laws?" In fairness to him, I would say who develops the law? The law is ongoing all the days of our life and during our time here. From time to time we revise those laws. When issues come before Parliament, we have to take a good look at those laws, and we are doing so in a fair light today.

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier mentioned that in one year 97 widows and 12 widowers from the public service had given up their share of a pension because they remarried. The Hon. Member has simply verified the fact that this is no great expenditure for the Government of Canada. The pension fund is there, they have paid into it, and other people are continuing to contribute.

I am sure that all other members of the Public Service, members of the Armed Forces, RCMP, and others in Crown corporations do not mind continuing to pay into a fund because they too some day may need that benefit. It is like an insurance policy, it is there when you need it. We are not talking about a great big drain on the treasury as some might interpret it. If the 50 per cent share of the pension of the 97 widows' and 12 widowers had been continued, it would be peanuts in the over-all context. But it will create an element of fairness in their minds that they have been fairly treated. It will also provide a better economy for that new marriage. We well know, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes a lack of income becomes a big problem in a marriage.

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has hit a key point, because of the small numbers involved I think it is something that Parliament should address seriously and not only talk about today. I hope we will see this coming forward in future legislation.

Today in the Armed Forces of Canada there are approximately 84,600 members. We are not talking about large numbers here either. They have their own pension fund, and it would be no drain on that fund to continue this process. Indeed, the marriage may take place between two people where the new partner is also in the Public Service or in the Armed Forces which means that they are still continuing to

December 11, 1987

contribute to the very fund from which the other spouse is drawing.

I wish to thank my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for raising that point. It certainly verifies the practicality of the suggestions that we are making.

On the recommendation of all Members of the House, the Government has brought this principle forward in the judges Bill. 1 congratulate them on that. I hope we will continue to even out the other inequities which still exist for spouses who remarry and are receiving pensions in part which were earned while their now deceased spouses were working in the government service of Canada in whatever area of activity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak for a few minutes on the customs tariff Bill. Bill C-87 is an important piece of legislation. It has become more important in the last little while than we had realized. It is a revision and updating of the customs Act, but it also provides for the harmonization of tariffs between Canada and its trading partners. The major trading partners of Canada include quite a number of countries. Among others, we do approximately 80 per cent of our trade with the United States of America.

The routines involved in the trade process are important to both importers and exporters in Canada. This updating is necessary. It will allow for computerization of the process, to some extent, so that the system will work much more effectively and we will be much more able to control the movement of

Customs Tariff

trade and the amount of trade between Canada and its many trading partners.

When Bill C-87 was brought in a few months ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made a suggestion that it would be a routine Bill. However, when we started looking at it we found a number of very important clauses and powers being given, including the power to levy a surtax, the power to put on import controls, the power to suspend trading rights which Canada has granted by agreement with other countries, and the power to levy surcharges on certain types of imports.

It also includes an extremely important power which will be given to the Governor in Council. For example, Clause 62 reads as follows:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of

Finance, by order,

(a) reduce or remove customs duties on goods imported from any country by way of compensation for concessions granted by that country or any other country, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order; and

(b) extend the benefit of any order made pursuant to paragraph (a) to any country as may be required by Canada's international obligations, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.

Parliament is being asked to authorize Cabinet to approve new tariffs in Canada's trade with the United States. Cabinet would then be able to use this power without reference to Parliament. That in itself has changed Bill C-87 from a fairly routine one, which most of us probably would have passed a couple of years ago without really looking at it, to a very important Bill which can have real impact on how Canada acts and reacts in the next while.

We must recognize that the Governor in Council having this kind of power is actually the way things in respect to customs have worked for a long period of time. We are really talking about a traditional position of the past. However, what is important now is the fact that a free trade agreement is in the wind and the Bill would allow the federal Government great latitude in making decisions about the tariff structure of Canada without reference to Parliament.

As I said, it has been the practice of previous Governments to operate this way, but if the free trade pact becomes part of the relationships between Canada and the United States particularly, or becomes, as Reagan put it, the new economic constitution for North America, it will make a difference. We must remember that this is being carried forward without little chance for Canadians or Parliament to be involved in the decision on how free trade will work. We have just received the final copy of the legal terms of the agreement, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will sign it on January 2. It will commit Canada to an agreement without Canadians having had time to look at it. Consequently this Bill which would give authority to Cabinet is much more important than it has been. We had hoped that report stage and committee stage would result in some changes to the Bill. Of course we put forward a number of amendments.

December 11, 1987

May I call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and continue after twelve o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the Elouse will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, under the title Pesticides in Canada the Law Reform Commission has published an important study which recommends that the law controlling pesticides be amended to allow the public to petition the Minister to investigate pesticides when new evidence has come to light regarding health or environmental effects.

In addition, it is recommended that the legislation be amended to provide a public hearing to review whether a pesticide should be removed from the market and, finally, that the legislation be amended to give public access to pesticide health and safety information on active and inert ingredients.

The study asks the the Government to produce for public discussion a cancer decision-making policy dealing with birth and mutagenic effects of pesticides and other toxic chemicals.

The protection of public health demands that changes to the regulation of pesticides and toxic chemicals be made urgently.

Again we urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to launch a public review of present laws and practices, adopting Pesticides in Canada as the foundation on which to build an up-to-date law.