Bill C-12 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another Act in consequence

Judges Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-12.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member has raised this point of order before. I did state very clearly that there is a lot of latitude given by the Chair in terms of the content of speeches. Obviously hon. members must respect the debate before the House. It is Bill C-12 we are discussing.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-12. It is a bill that is somewhat technical in nature having to do with compensation for judges.

Many of my colleagues have explained the remuneration part of the bill in terms of the issues we have with the bill. I will focus a bit on one part of that and then I will talk a bit about judicial activism. I will make reference to a creation of the bill, having to do with the ability of the government to appoint individuals, thereby having another outlet for some possible patronage jobs being created. I will also talk about some local issues happening in Dewdney—Alouette.

The bill deals with about 1,000 individuals, those who are federally appointed judges. As my colleagues from the Alliance have pointed out, there have been several increases over the last number of years for individuals serving in this important position.

At the same time there have not been the same kinds of significant increases for those law enforcement agents and guards in our prison system that are on the frontlines providing good service, protection and security for our citizens. My colleague from Wild Rose touched on this issue and my colleague from Crowfoot just asked a very good question about it. It is something that needs to be raised.

We realize that the government does not have an endless supply of dollars. It is actually taxpayer dollars held in trust by the government. The government is called upon to use those hard earned tax dollars in a wise way. We have pointed out over the last number of months and years in this place some areas where the government could do better in managing taxpayer dollars.

We have explored lots of opportunities for the government to look at its expenditures to see where it could save some dollars in wasteful spending, such as the areas having to do with the now infamous billion dollar boondoggle. We have not heard that word for a while, so I thought I would throw it in. There is also the file on Shawinigan, Shawinigate.

We have explored those areas and approximately $13 billion is allocated from the government to grants and contributions across government departments. We have become very aware, because of what happened in human resources development, of how the money is allocated. Some work needs to be done in all government departments in terms of how they are using their resources and their dollars.

If what is happening in the area of human resources is indicative of how the government is managing the hard earned tax dollars of our citizens in all departments, there is cause for concern. There is a possible pool of taxpayer dollars held in trust by the government that could be used for law enforcement, providing the resources the RCMP needs to do the job of fighting organized crime on the frontlines.

Police officers from across the country came to speak to us this week. Officers who have been working on the frontlines in our communities told us what has been happening and how they feel limited in what they can do because of their lack of resources.

It is incumbent upon us to provide law enforcement officers with the proper compensation and the proper resources to be able to do their job properly. As has been raised by other colleagues as well, we know that those individuals the government and the police forces are fighting have an unlimited pool of capital.

Our forces must be equipped to combat those kinds of activities, which cause so much harm to our communities and to the safety of our country. That is something we need to touch on here in the debate today.

Part of Bill C-12 allows for the creation of the judicial compensation and benefits commission. As I indicated in my opening remarks, this provides the government yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments.

There are a couple of appointments about which I and many of my constituents have questions. We are not saying all individuals appointed by the Liberal government fall into this category. However there needs to be a higher degree of accountability and scrutiny of individuals appointed to important positions by the government.

A former colleague in this place, Lou Sekora, the former member for Coquitlam, was recently appointed by the government. He was given a patronage position as a citizenship judge. It was a bit alarming because in the history of his dealings in the House, he often acted in a very partisan manner and resorted to name calling in regard to racial comments, comments which were recorded in Hansard . He even made such comments in his own community after he was defeated in the election.

Despite that, he was appointed a citizenship judge. It does not make sense that he was chosen for that job based on his prior experiences, performance or public record of having said things that were in many ways inflammatory to the issue of new citizens and immigrants. That is an example of an appointment that needed more scrutiny and that the government was remiss in making.

Many other positions could have been chosen. The government showed a lack of sensitivity in putting that individual in that position. The opportunity to scrutinize such appointments is provided for in this part of the bill.

We have had debates in the House in the last couple days about related issues having to do with the minister for multiculturalism and her circumstance. I will not go into detail on that. It is on the record and it is circulating out there.

When there is a lack of sensitivity on important issues like this, we must look at the actions and deeds rather than just the words of individuals. That is a cause of concern for us.

We are attempting to work together with members of parliament from all parties to build alliances and common ground on all kinds of issues. A committee has just been struck on parliamentary reform. That was an idea brought forward by the government House leader and other members of parliament, and I think it was a good one. It is time for some changes.

Signalling an intention to work well with each other is a good thing. The government can demonstrate that intention through its actions. In the case of the minister for multiculturalism, the government could show its good will by taking action regarding the minister for what transpired in the last couple of days.

I will move now to the whole notion of judicial activism and how it has evolved in the last several years through the way the government has handled particular issues. There are many sensitive issues in the public domain, ones the government might hesitate in approaching when they bring forward legislation.

We had the supreme court decision on child pornography. We are well aware that the Alliance brought forward a motion and that about 63 government members wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to use the notwithstanding clause. When that vote happened they did not support it.

The supreme court took about 18 months to rule on that decision, and we support the decision made by the court. However there was a window of 18 months where the government had an opportunity to act and did not.

During that time the government's lack of action resulted in specific activity in British Columbia and across the country that was not beneficial for children. It provided those who would be involved in the child pornography industry the opportunity to do so. It sent a message to—

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that was just a ploy so that I could lose a couple of minutes. I hope you will allow me to add the couple of minutes that were wasted so I can tell the member that we are discussing serious issues in this place which are absolutely relevant to what we are talking about.

What we are saying is that we need to discuss important issues. Yes, yesterday's debate was an attempt to bring forward important issues because, under this government, important issues seem to have gone out of the window.

The government does not listen to members in committee. This bill does not even deal with the issue of bringing judges before a committee. It is all patronage and it starts from the PMO's office, which appoints the judges, the senators, the heads of corporations and many board members. This then creates a concentration of power in one place. We just have to look at the situation this afternoon in the House of Commons with respect to the Prime Minister's role in the golf club. This concentration of power can give rise to abuse of power.

I would like to talk for a moment on another subject. My name was selected to present a private member's bill that would address a very important issue that the government has totally neglected. It is the issue of break and enter or home invasion, a crime that has been rising across the country, according to statistics, and a violation of personal privacy.

If anyone wants to know what is happening with break and enter offenders, they need only ask any law enforcement officer or look at the records. Repeat break and enter offenders are receiving conditional or suspended sentences, which creates a cycle of break and enter offences. Why? The simple reason is that they know that if they are caught they will be brought up in front of a court and will probably be on the streets within three weeks to a month committing the same crime. Those who do not believe that should ask any law enforcement officer in their ridings. I request that all 301 members of parliament here talk to their law enforcement officers.

The Canadian Police Association and the Calgary Police Association have endorsed my private member's bill which calls for a minimum sentence of two years for repeat break and enter offenders. The idea is to take these people off the street and put them into a system where they can be rehabilitated. With my break and enter bill, we would be looking at assisting people and, at the same time, removing these habitual offenders off the streets.

Does anyone know what the current sentence is for break and enter? It is life imprisonment. However, we can forget about a life sentence because that is too far out. Most of these offenders get off with suspended or light sentences. That is the reason for the rise in crime. It also raises the concern that there will be more violence. It leads to home invasions, which have the potential of getting violent.

We need to address this issue. We cannot brush it under the carpet. We cannot say that our current legislation is going to meet this rising threat. I do not see the government addressing this issue in any way; hence, I brought in my private member's bill.

One issue that comes out of this bill is the appointment of judges, which I alluded to when I was making my remarks. I have mentioned the concentration of powers in the Prime Minister's Office. One of my colleagues asked this question as well. There is a need for serious consideration in regard to the appointment of judges. The question is whether the appointment of judges should be under one individual's hand, as it is now, or whether it should be under a committee, a committee made up of members of parliament. We can discuss the issues. We can discuss who can be on the committee. We can discuss who can look at the judges who are appointed and make recommendations for appointments and so on.

This brings transparency to the judiciary system and leads to more respect for the judiciary. It is extremely important that we have an independent judiciary system. There is no question about it. We have seen what happens around the world to the populaces of countries where independent judiciary systems do not exist. The populace pays the ultimate price.

No one will ever argue in a democracy that we need separation of powers between the legislation and the independence of the judiciary.

Where the problem arises is with the appointment of judges being done by the PMO, by one individual. What is so difficult about moving this to a committee to make it more transparent? I am sure the judges who are on the benches today would probably all be appointed again. That is fine. That is not the issue I am talking about. I am not talking about the competency of judges. I am talking about a process that should bring transparency. Why can we not have that? I fail to understand why we do not address that issue. We can. Maybe we should. Hopefully it will be on the agenda. This is a bill about judges.

There is a need for change in parliament. There is a need for us to address this and to talk about our constituents. It is true. Yesterday we had a debate on these issues. It is true that a lot of points came out, but are we going anywhere? The answer is no.

The throne speech talked about electronic voting. Great. Electronic voting is the great reform that will take place in this parliament. Give me a break. Is electronic voting why we come here? No. We come here to debate and to stand on votes so that our constituents can see what we are doing.

I have read reports saying that the government is backtracking on electronic voting now, after the hue and cry. I had the pleasure of meeting members of the German parliament who were visiting us and I asked them a question. As we all know, with the unification of Germany a new parliament has been built in Berlin. I asked the visitors for their views on electronic voting. They said no way to electronic voting. The committee that they set up to look at it has totally disregarded it. I asked them why. They said they want their ministers, the people who are in power, not to get it into their heads that they are above ordinary citizens. They said their ministers are part and parcel of the process and they want to see them stand up with them in their parliament. They felt that with electronic voting they would have less access to those in power. I thought about it and I agreed.

Of course a lot of my colleagues from the other side are now joining in the debate and are opposing the electronic voting notion. My friend on the other side is part of this thing and I am sure will join in the debate when he gets time to address this issue.

What is the relevance of what I am talking about? It is accountability. We are asking for transparency and accountability.

Here is an opportunity under Bill C-12 which could have addressed transparency and accountability of judges. However, I have been in committees and I have heard time after time from that side, from parliamentary secretaries and ministers, a reluctance to change. They have a total reluctance to change the system, to better it. We have all heard that change is for the better. We are now in the 21st century, yet this system is what was here 30 or 35 years ago. It is the same system with the same rules. There has been no change. Can we not move forward? Can we not learn? Can we not build on what we have learned?

However, there is this reluctance. Time after time, in the committees and everywhere, I have heard from that side that this is the way the system is and it is fine. Yet there are people asking questions.

This afternoon my colleague from the Conservative Party brought up a fantastic example of what is wrong with the system. It was a fantastic example of a job posting under the federal government, from someone supposedly representing Canada and the unity of Canada, the residence of the Governor General. At this point I must say that I have the highest respect for the Governor General and the comments I will make have absolutely nothing to do with Her Excellency, whom I hold in very high esteem. I am just talking about the process of the government.

Here is the Government of Canada advertising a job situation that is applicable only to a few Canadians. It bars everyone else. If that is not discrimination, what is? Why are we paying with the tax dollars of all Canadians for a job that is restricted for certain Canadians? If people inside this region want to apply and it is convenient for them, so be it. The job should be open to anyone. However, How can a job with a salary paid by taxpayer dollars be restricted to only certain Canadians? It boggles my mind.

We are in the 21st century. These are the issues that we need to debate and to talk about. This imbalance that keeps taking place eventually may become—and I hope never—the threat to our unity. We are all working hard to maintain our nation. As we all know, when we travel abroad we are all proud of the maple leaf. We are proud of what we have achieved and of what other people have achieved, including the immigrants who have come into the country, those who were born here and the first nations. We are proud of everything that has been built here, but there also comes a time to build better, and if we have seen errors, we should learn from them.

All I get from the other side is a total reluctance to change the procedure or change anything, even if it is glaringly in front of our eyes that it is wrong. That advertisement I mentioned was in front of everybody's eyes and was glaringly wrong, but who has the guts to stand up and admit it is wrong? The minister of the treasury today could not admit it was wrong or that she would look at it. She threw the blame on some other government out there in question period, but at no time did she say that she was going to address the issue, that here is a glaring example of what is wrong. When are we going to learn? When are we going to say that we need change? When can we adapt? When can we heal?

Perhaps these members sitting over there can start pondering it and talking about it. If the people over there do not listen, members can stand up in the House of Commons and talk about it. They can talk about what their constituents are saying and represent them properly. It is not only east or west in here. I do not represent only the west. I am here as a Canadian standing in the Canadian House of Commons. I am standing here as a Canadian. Issues of Canadians are being discussed here which are applicable to all Canadians across the nation.

When we see something like that, it makes us angry. When we see the government refusing to address the issues, then we are not proud. How is it possible that the ruling party, supposedly considered one of the most successful ruling parties of our time, as its members say themselves, had to set up a task force and send it to that region of the country to see what is wrong? There was a government that did not even know why people in one half of the country were upset. Why? Because that region has a smaller population, that is why. Those government members are supposed to represent Canada and the government sets up a task force and sends it out there to figure out what is wrong.

There is something amiss. Those individuals are supposed to be in government. Do we know why there is this problem? Because it is the reluctance to change the system that has been entrenched instead of the demand for change. The government members are reluctant to change, so they cannot pick up on the currents taking place in the other regions of the country. They cannot. Their ears are closed because the system allows their ears to be closed.

They sent that committee out there, and lo and behold, it was a joke. Even the members of the committee were not from that part of the region. I do not know what happened. What happened to the committee's report? I do not have a clue as to what happened to that committee. They are still talking about it.

Of course our nation has its great potential, but its great challenges is regionalism. There are challenges and regional challenges and aspirations and regional aspirations. That does not mean that we can stand in the way here.

In conclusion, when I am talking about the Judges Act, I am talking about transparency and I am talking about accountability.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of Calgary East to talk to Bill C-12, the Judges Act.

I share my colleague's view. This is the second time that I have risen in the House to talk about the Judges Act, an act that only talks about raising the salaries and benefits of judges. We have heard over a period of time, both in Alberta and here, that independent commissions have been set up. We have also heard the judges say that they need more compensation so they can be independent and not fall under pressure.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today to Bill C-12. It is discouraging when we see another amendment pertaining to the Judges Act. I have been here since 1993, and I believe it is the fourth time the Judges Act has been amended. It is the fourth time I have risen to speak to the legislation.

It is legislation asking for raises for judges across the country, which I believe will amount to $19 million. I do not know the salaries of judges. I would almost bet that if I were in a bank depositing my cheque as a member of parliament and a judge was in front of me and we compared cheques, he or she would probably make me look like I was on welfare. I would suspect that they get paid very well.

I found it surprising that the judges would ask for a 26% raise in pay. I see that the government accepted a recommendation from the commission of 11.2% and that is after already receiving 8.2% in the last three years.

I would much rather be rising in the House of Commons to address legislation other than the Judges Act. I would rather debate legislation that would have some real teeth in it to deal with serious problems such as crime or the need for judges to continue working hard. I know they work hard and I will be as kind as I can to judges, although I question their judgment at times. I am sure all of us do.

Not too many years ago, perhaps three or four, we had a motion put forward creating a victims rights bill. It passed in the House of Commons. The majority supported it from both sides of the House. I cannot say how delighted I would be, after four years, if I could stand to speak about legislation that would create the victims rights bill that we approved some four years ago. What a pleasure it would be, but no, here I am again rising on the fourth occasion because we are making another amendment to the Judges Act.

We have difficult problems. We understand, through the media and through other sources, the seriousness of organized crime and of a number of other issues. There is a cry from the public to do something with the Young Offenders Act, and yet here I am again speaking about judges.

When will this place become a place that really takes its job seriously enough to get busy and create the kind of legislation that we all agree on? I can see where it might be difficult when there is disagreement, but we agree on victims rights.

We all agreed that we should have a sex offender registry. It was unanimous. Not one member of the House of Commons did not agree that we must develop this registry. It was legislation that I was glad to vote on and see passed. It is a tool we need that will hopefully provide a lot of safety for individuals.

If you were a betting lady, Madam Speaker, I would bet you a dime to a donut that four years from now I will be standing here and we still will not have a sex offender registry. Are we so dysfunctional in this organization that we cannot even carry through with the things that we all agree on? What is wrong that we constantly need amendments to the Judges Act? Is it because these fellows and ladies who make pretty good money are underpaid?

I was the solicitor general critic during the last session of parliament. I visited many penitentiaries across the country. Prison guards had been on a pay freeze for nine years, if not longer. For the last six years, before they finally got a pay raise, I raised the issue in the House many times. However, the fact that these lower paid public servants were in a pay freeze did not seem to attract any interest from the government.

It had ample opportunity over those years to do something, to help those guys who were at the lower end of the stick. Prison guards were fairly equal in salary to the RCMP. RCMP members moved ahead at no great speed, but the salaries of prison guards did not.

Some people would argue that a policeman's job is more dangerous than that of a prison guard. I would question that. I believe they are both very dangerous jobs. Most police officers that I have talked to have said they would not be a prison guard for all the tea in China because of the circumstances.

We do not talk about lower level people who work for the public providing the safety we require and whom we need so desperately. Negotiations were held and, lo and behold, the RCMP got a 2% increase in one year. It was followed up the next year with 1%. Prison guard salaries are at a lower level and now a group of people who make a lot more money are asking for 26%.

We will talk about this issue again for the fourth time. Maybe we ought to take the $19 million that this will cost, put it on the table in the middle of the House, and have a serious debate on how to spend the money on behalf of those in poverty across Canada. Maybe we should take the $19 million and give it to farmers who were denied extra money just the other day. Maybe that money could go toward helping out a few.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act.

I would like to talk about the purpose of the bill, which is to implement the federal government's response to the 1999 report of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges.

The bill amends the Judges Act to: increase judicial salaries and allowances; modify the current judicial annuities scheme; and put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges.

Let me speak about the details of the bill. The government accepted the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2% for over 1,000 federally appointed judges, retroactive to April 1, 2000. The salary increase will cost Canadian taxpayers approximately $19 million.

The judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%. It had maintained that the federal government must compete with high paying law firms in order to attract superior candidates to the bench. However, federal representatives told a hearing into judges' pay earlier this year that there was no shortage of candidates for the bench, with about eight applicants for each federal job over the last decade.

The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998, when they received 4.1%. In 1997 they also received an increase of 4.1%. In other words, judges received an 8.2% increase in two years. Additionally, judges' salaries are indexed so they receive an annual cost of living increase as well.

In the 35th parliament, the government introduced two bills amending the Judges Act. In the 36th parliament, one bill was introduced. All of these bills, including Bill C-12, have been administrative in nature.

Or have they been merely administrative in nature? We do not know.

Canadians can be assured that the official opposition will closely scrutinize Bill C-12. In particular, we will review the provisions of the bill that change the annuities scheme.

The Liberal government has made amendments four times to the Judges Act. The big question is why. We have seen time and time again where the government has tailor made legislation to fit certain individuals and certain situations.

We will also assure the House and Canadians in general that Bill C-12 will not be tailor made to any individual. That is the job of the official opposition: to hold the government accountable. If it were tailor made, it would definitely compromise the impartiality of our judiciary, so we will be investigating that.

For example, the changes being made to the Judges Act allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge to collect, after the death of his or her spouse who also happened to be a judge, two survivor benefits upon the death of the spouse. One can only guess why the government is contemplating such a rare and highly unlikely situation.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, which provided the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments.

The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council. It should be noted who nominates these three individuals. One is nominated by the judiciary. One is nominated by the Minister of Justice. The third one, who acts as the chair, is nominated by the first two people nominated.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the patronage system. The Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable.

One option would be to strike a committee that would review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister. The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in these matters.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal government is prepared to grant to the lower paid civil service employees. Lately it has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, to senior bureaucrats and now to judges, while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

The question here is about fairness. All the hard working employees of the public service and the armed forces need raises in comparison to the cost of living. Why is the government only focusing on top executives or top officials and not on the other employees? While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed judges and others should generally be in line with the private sector, it is apparent that the staff on the lower echelons of our justice system are being ignored.

What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However, it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

The bill does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system, therefore my colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill. We will see what adjustments or amendments the government is willing to accept at the committee stage.

While we have no position on the exact level of judges' salaries and pensions, we generally favour salaries that are comparable to those in the private sector. However, we would like to see an overhaul of the process of patronage appointments in the judiciary to make it more transparent and publicly accountable.

The Canadian Alliance declaration of policy, section 69, states:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on qualification and merit.

Public servants should only be given salaries in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner. The government has awarded judges and senior bureaucrats with large pay raises and bonuses, while frontline police officers and lower level public servants receive little or nothing.

It should be noted that on March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They received a second increment of just 1% on April 1, 1998, and an additional .75% on October 1, 1998. RCMP officers have had their wages frozen for five years.

Since my time is almost up I have just a few more comments.

Both of the Liberal justice ministers since 1993 have failed to introduce a victims bill of rights or to address important issues pertaining to drinking and driving or even to pass a new Young Offenders Act. Instead they occupy the justice committee with administrative matters at the expense of more important issues. For example, the country is experiencing a high degree of backlog in the courts and many criminal trials must be put on hold in the meantime, yet the government tinkers with salaries of judges.

In conclusion, I hope the government will entertain amendments during the committee hearings. I regret that the judges themselves are somehow caught up in the legislation. I would like to acknowledge that there are judges who are very hard working and very much want to contribute to making our judicial system fairer and faster and to making Canada a better country.

We are talking about mismanagement by this weak Liberal government. The unfair treatment handed out by the Liberal government to Canadians working or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system knows no boundaries. The inequitable treatment of Canadian workers extends all the way to our federal court benches.

We know the government does not treat the victims of crime fairly and today we are debating a bill that does not even treat judges fairly.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in debate to speak to Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

I first must state how disappointed I am that once again the government is going to great lengths to look after what some refer to as the elite of our society. At the same time, what it is doing for the ordinary citizens, other than taxing them into the ground, is unclear.

Those who occupy the upper echelons of our public service are well looked after. Meanwhile those in the trenches, the clerks and receptionists who comprise the first line of contact between the government and citizens, are again expected to do without.

Everything I have just said is almost word for word what I said in March 1998 when I rose to debate Bill C-37. It appears the more things change around here, the more they stay the same.

Judges, for some reason, attract an inordinate level of attention from the Liberal government. It seems that with every new parliament we debate and pass legislation to look after the interests of judges. It is unfortunate that the government is not as keen to address the problems of our young offender legislation or the creation of a national sex offender registry.

I note that farmers were once again demonstrating here on Parliament Hill this week. Thousands of family farms are lost each year as debts rise, but the government does little to address the problem.

I also note, once again, the vast number of RCMP officers who will be seconded to provide security at the Quebec City summit of the Americas in late April. Entire crime fighting units will be stripped of their top investigators. Since most of the personnel will come from Quebec and Ontario, I foresee organized crime having a field day with its drug operations, commercial frauds, stock market manipulations and smuggling operations. I mention only federal areas of police jurisdiction because, as we all know, when the cat is away the mice will play.

When the RCMP is required to take on additional responsibility of the nature of this summit for VIPs, the force gets further and further behind in its battle against crime. However the government will look good because it is hosting such an important event. It will be our citizens and victims of crime who pay for enabling the Prime Minister to play on the world stage. The government looks after the elite but often conveniently forgets the ordinary citizen.

With respect to Bill C-12, I note that the Constitution Act of 1867, formerly the BNA Act, is part of our formal constitution. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as we know, includes the Constitution Act of 1867. It was, after all, the document that set the stage for the country. Section 100 of that document states:

The Salaries, Allowances, and Pensions of the Judges of the Superior, District, and County courts (except the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the Admiralty Courts in Cases where the Judges thereof for the Time being paid by Salary, shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada.

Some of the names of our courts have changed over the years. Some have even been replaced. This section of our constitution requires salaries of superior court judges to be decided by parliament. That is partly why we have had the Judges Act for the past many years. By constitutional law, parliamentarians have the power to fix the salaries and pensions of superior court level judges.

On the inside cover of Bill C-12, in the summary of the legislation, it states:

This enactment implements the federal government's response to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges. It amends the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and allowances, improve the current judicial annuities scheme and put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges.

What I am seeing is the derogation of power, at least to some extent, in that the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission is making a report to which the government must respond. I fully appreciate that the commission has been set up because of Supreme Court of Canada decisions concerning the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

However what has not often been stated is that Supreme Court of Canada judges are in a conflict of interest when they try to change the law regarding the pay and benefits of the judiciary, which of course includes them.

Having slammed the supreme court judges for causing changes to our laws while they are in direct conflict with those changes, I fully understand that this is the fix the government has put us in. We have acceded to the use of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, but it merely makes recommendations, with all due respect. We parliamentarians must retain full control over what is to be provided to the valuable portion of the administration of justice within the country.

I note that Chief Justice Dickson, as he then was, stated in the Supreme Court of Canada case of Regina v Beauregard:

Nothing would be more damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and the administration of justice than a perception that judges were not shouldering their fair share of the burden in difficult economic times.

Following his works, I point out that for a number of years the country faced severe economic times. I recall the Prime Minister stating time and time again that Canadians must be patient and essentially bite the bullet a little longer until the economy has recovered and Canada has returned to a better financial state.

I urge members of the Chamber to carefully consider the 11.2% increase in salary for these judges, especially in light of the far less significant salary increases the government has been providing to our civil service, our federal police force and all other employees of the federal government.

I fully understand the government being hesitant to open the vaults to reimburse all of its employees to the fair and equitable level in comparison to the public sector, especially when this country has had such a debt hanging over us from years of Liberal mismanagement.

In any case, 11.2% as a raise in salary, plus a very generous pension plan, is obviously creating just the situation anticipated by Chief Justice Dickson. It damages the reputation of the judiciary because it creates at least a perception that judges are not doing their fair share in getting this country back into financial balance. I am paraphrasing the words of the chief justice here.

I may not be the first person to recognize the value of our judiciary, but I will certainly not be the last. I have spent much time in our courts witnessing day to day administration of justice.

A government argument for such excessive salary increases for judges has been that we must pay well in order to attract capable and experienced people. Surely this is just another argument for having the judicial appointment process more open and accountable. As far as I can determine, it has not been that difficult to attract capable individuals to apply and sit on the benches of our superior courts. I often wonder whether this is just not a case of some individuals wanting everything: the prestige, the opportunity to channel legal cases down particular paths, or more regular working hours. Then, after getting the position, they are now politicking for extraordinary salaries.

If members of parliament had the opportunity to become involved in reviewing these appointments, perhaps they would have a better chance to see just what is required to ensure that capable and experienced individuals are encouraged to continue to apply for judicial appointment.

It is difficult to accept pay raises beyond the norm when we are dealing with salaries in the $200,000 range, when we are dealing with, in some cases, sheer patronage, and when the whole process is deliberately kept from parliamentary scrutiny.

As I have stated, it is the responsibility of parliament to decide on the salaries and benefits of our federally appointed judges. Without sufficient information to determine whether such a significant jump in pay is necessary to maintain and/or enhance the judicial personnel, it is difficult for me to accept the proposals of this legislation.

In light of the meagre percentage raises given by the government to so many other needy and deserving employees of the federal government, 11.2% is particularly hard to swallow. I keep hearing about our military personnel using food banks to survive between paycheques. I become concerned about our RCMP members working two or three jobs when their families have trouble paying the bills, especially when we see how rich and powerful organized crime is becoming in this country. When I see these things and others I cannot have quite the same concern for federal judges who are not nearly so badly off financially.

I will be opposing this legislation. I urge other members to have a serious look at what the government is proposing here.

Something is seriously wrong when the government continues to look after the top officers within the Department of National Defence and gives peanuts to the lower ranks. Something is seriously wrong when we have thousands of farmers losing their farms because we are reluctant to provide sufficient help in their time of need. Something is seriously wrong when we have hospital shortages right across this country because the government cut back to balance the budget. Something is wrong when the government continuously brings forth legislation in a timely fashion to look after the financial interests of judges.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the weekly business statement and to indicate to the House that I intend to do my utmost to have order paper questions answered as rapidly as possible.

This afternoon we will resume debate on Bill C-12 respecting compensation for judges. We will then continue with Bill C-18, the equalization bill, which we started this morning. That will be followed, if there is time, with Bill C-17 respecting the innovation foundation.

On Friday we will consider report stage of Bill C-4 respecting the sustainable development foundation, and any time left will be used on second reading of Bill C-7, the youth justice bill.

In an effort to complete consideration of the youth justice bill, we will continue discussing that bill on Monday next.

Next Tuesday we will commence report stage of Bill C-8 respecting the financial institutions legislation. Should that be completed, we would then continue with Bill C-22, the income tax amendment. As previously announced and as adopted by the House, in the evening there will be a special take note debate on the summit of the Americas.

Next Wednesday, March 28, we will debate Bill C-2, the employment insurance amendments, at report stage and hopefully have third reading on next Thursday, March 29.

That is the agenda of the House for next week.

Judges Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the words put forward by my colleague, the House leader for the New Democratic Party. He has put forward a number of pearls of wisdom and some provocative issues that add to this debate. This is a debate that could be very far reaching should we choose that route.

Bill C-12 is a fairly focused piece of legislation when it comes to remuneration for judges. It speaks to process and speaks of a committee that will and has made recommendations on the issue of remuneration.

There are a number of important elements to this bill and members have discussed some in great detail, such as the shortcomings of judges, their decisions and the appointment process. All of that is worthy of debate. To quote my friend from Winnipeg—Transcona “parliament is certainly well healed, well versed for that to take place”. Parle, meaning to speak, is what we are here to do.

This particular subject matter is one that has been very controversial for not only members of the House but for Canadians generally. People are quite rightly concerned about the ever increasing, some would say ever expansive, role of judges in challenging laws. The charter plays a great deal in that.

There is specific concern about the resources to which individuals working in the justice system are sorely in need of support, whether it be legislative support or resource support. This is another huge expansive topic that we could speak to at this time. This particular legislation is aimed at trying to make a distinct difference between the political process of appointment and process of remuneration, or the salary structure that is in place for judges.

The Conservative Party is supporting this bill. We look forward to having it come before committee where some of the other issues that might stem from the bill can be looked at. I have some limited experience in the judicial system, but for the most part, I believe the majority of judges in this country are hardworking. I believe they perform an incredibly important task. Arguably, members of the judiciary, whether at the provincial court, or appeal court or supreme court level, have more individual discretion over a person's life than members of parliament or other officials in Canada. They have incredible discretion in their hands.

The Conservative Party also believes in being responsible to taxpayers. We support the government's acceptance of the recommendations which were made by the independent Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. This is now entrenched by virtue of Bill C-12. This is another important aspect of consideration when it comes to better pay for judges. The compensation that is being put forward is coming about on the recommendation of an independent commission.

The first reading of this bill on February 21 set forward that the Judges Act will implement the government's response to recommendations made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. That came about historically as a result of a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 that established new constitutional requirements for determining judicial compensation and requiring every Canadian jurisdiction to have an independent, objective and effective commission. If there is to be credibility and accountability, it is extremely important that it is arm's length from government and that it looks at the issue of compensation.

Delving into that further, it also amends the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and allowances. Let us be very clear about what the bill does. It raises judicial salaries. It is intended quite clearly to improve the current judicial annuities scheme, to put in place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges and to make other consequential amendments to the Judges Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. It is certainly well intended to give judges the security they need.

In recent years there has been a lot of concern about criminal activities in the country. That has led to much of the controversy and frustration on the part not only of victims but of those who work actively in the legal system.

Some of the decisions we have seen judges make lead people to question whether the system is working. However let us question the decisions rather than the personalities and the judges themselves. Let us look at the decisions in isolation, based on the facts from which judges made those decisions. If criticism is then merited, it is fair game. There is a forum and a way to appeal. There is also ample discussion in the general public about the wisdom of judges' decisions on occasion. That is fair game. Once again, that is healthy. That is democracy.

The separate and important issue is not to let that criticism and discussion permeate the issue of whether we should compensate judges fairly or whether we should look at their salaries as a separate issue from their performance on occasion.

Let me put it another way. The issue of judges' salaries is important, but we must ensure judicial independence is always maintained, that judges are not tempted by any outside influence that could compromise any ruling from the bench. What I am getting at quite clearly is that with some of the elements of organized crime in the country, and I hate to raise the spectre, there is the real possibility of bribery, judicial interference and temptation if our judges are not being compensated fairly.

Let us also put this into perspective in terms of salary ranges in Canada. We must look at other functionaries and their pay scales, for example heads of corporations, doctors and athletes.

Certainly performance is one issue, but the function judges perform is also something we must take very seriously. The performance a judge puts forward in his or her daily exercise is crucial to the preservation of justice. It is an absolute cornerstone if the system is to function properly. Judicial compensation and benefits very much preserve the independence of judges and their ability to do the job.

The compensation commission is appointed for a four year term. Its mandate is to consider the compensation and benefits for judges and to make recommendations to government. It does so every four years. It reviews the situation and takes into consideration factors including the salaries relative to the role they perform. It must report to government within a nine month period. It talks of modernization and talks of keeping pace with other current pay scales. It calls for setting a certain priority relative to other professions.

I refer once again to the comments of my friend from Winnipeg—Transcona. There is ample evidence that there are problems in our justice system with crown prosecutors, legal aid, lawyers, court officials and police, those who administer the day to day meting out of justice. Those who are in the trenches, in the MASH unit of the judicial system, similarly must be compensated fairly.

Perhaps there is a methodology or a system in place where we could have some sort of association between reviewing judges and their pay scales and those of the functionaries that perform the very important day to day tasks before the judges which allow the judges to make their decisions.

Crown prosecutors and legal aid lawyers are under such terrible constraints of caseloads and backlogs that they are not able to put forward to a judge crucial information to enable him or her to make those decisions. Perhaps there is wisdom in broadening the discussion and perhaps even broadening the legislation at some point in the near future.

Turning back to the commission itself, the commission makes a recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2%. I note this is significantly less than the 26.3% increase proposed by the judiciary itself. Clearly that would not be appropriate. Clearly we could not have judges themselves making recommendations on what their pay increase should be. That would be akin to what we do as members of parliament, and we know how the public feels about that.

At least the bill does not go down that road. At least the bill respects the fact that there is a judicial committee, arm's length from government, that is making the recommendation. Once again perhaps we in this place should be learning from that caution.

The commission's recommendations were based on research comparing judges' salaries to those of private sector lawyers. I would suggest, and I challenge others to talk to some high ranking lawyers who work for big firms, that there are many who literally would be taking a pay cut if they were to take a judicial appointment.

If we want to put the cream of the crop on the bench, if we want the very best litigators and lawyers to be sitting on the bench making these crucial decisions, we must be prepared to compensate them fairly, and in some cases comparable to what they could make in the private sector.

The salary performances and bonuses of senior federal deputy ministers, for example, also bear scrutiny and comparison. The importance of salary and benefits in attracting outstanding candidates to the bench cannot be understated. Quality is an absolute necessity. It is too important not to strive to have the best of the best on the bench. What an important function it is that judges perform. I reflect on that.

The Judges Act will also officially establish the compensation committee for the long term. It will be required, as I stated before, to convene every four years, make recommendations and come forward with those recommendations nine months after they have commenced. Its mandate is to inquire into the adequacy of judicial compensation and benefits.

The committee's mandate consists of three important considerations: the economic conditions of the country, cost of living, overall economic position of the federal government vis-à-vis budget surpluses, et cetera; the financial security of the judiciary to ensure judicial independence; and the need to attract outstanding candidates. Those are the basic criteria for which the committee would meet. They are certainly important criteria.

The recommendations, I think it also bears noting, are not binding, but the supreme court decision requires that the government publicly justify any decision of acceptance or rejection of the recommendations. This response is reviewable in the court and must meet the legal standard of simple rationality.

A common sense strain runs through the commission and the government's use of the information it provides. It would be measured by the reasons and evidence offered in support of the government's decision. There are some checks and balances within the bill that are laudable and that meet the objectives it seeks to address.

The salary regime, the pressures and independence are also very important. The pressures that judges feel is also a consideration when they decide whether they would accept an appointment. We have talked a bit about the appointment process but salary is certainly a factor. Financial security is certainly a factor for an individual to accept an appointment.

I would like to put on the record the yearly salary of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. The basic salary for chief justices is $230,000. The puisne judges make $213,000.

The yearly salaries of the federal court judges are as follows: the chief justice makes $196,000; 10 other judges of the Federal Court of Appeal make $179,000; the associate chief justice of the federal court makes $196,000; and judges in the trial division make $179,000.

The current salaries in accordance with section 11 of the act and the adjustments in section 25 are also as follows: the Tax Court of Canada chief judge makes $196,000; the associate chief judge similarly makes $196,000; and other judges in the tax court make $179,000.

The yearly salaries in the provincial court of the province of Nova Scotia are as follows: the chief justice, $196,000 and the court of appeal judges, $179,000. I am putting these salaries on record because it is important that we keep the figures in mind when we look at salaries of other occupations, other heads of corporations.

Those are undeniably large numbers for the average Canadian to consider. They are significant and yet appropriate rates of pay must be put in place if we are expected to get the highest quality of individual into those jobs. Judges are undeniably the cornerstone of democracy and defenders of fundamental rights from the bench. If they are to have that respect, ability and prestige they must be remunerated.

The bill is a good one. We may need to have a look at some of the specifics and potentially a look at the tie-in to the shortfall in other areas of our judicial system.

The priorizing of this bill in returning to parliament is one we might question. However I suspect it is because there will be speedy passage. One would hope that the bill will go to committee and will be dealt with quite quickly.

The bill is something that is necessary to get in place quickly. If there is any anxiety or pressure brought to bear by delaying Bill C-12, it will not be healthy for our current judicial members.

There is also reason on occasion to recite some of the atrocious and ridiculous decisions that have come out of the courts, but I would not suggest there is merit in doing that in the context of this debate.

My final point is that there are ways to correct some of the shortcomings. There are ways to approach the remuneration of judges. We can review some of the shortcomings. We can cite chapter and verse some of the decisions we take great umbrage with, great outrage as to what the findings might have been.

We can then question the quality of the judiciary. We can try to make the argument that we should not reward judges by increasing their salaries based on perceived performance, or lack thereof in certain instances, and that therefore judges should not get a raise. That would be the rationale in simple terms.

Or, we can look at it in terms of how we make sure it does not happen with greater frequency, that we do not continue to have substandard individuals in positions on the bench where they would make poor decisions. How do we attract the very best? How do we ensure we will have individuals who will let their names stand and who will come forward to serve, which is a great privilege to do in that capacity?

How do we do that? We compensate them fairly. We ensure that they will be given salaries on par with other important positions in society and that they will be given the financial respect they deserve.

Most judges have served with great distinction under difficult circumstances and are forced to make real gut wrenching decisions on a regular basis. Quite clearly they struggle with those decisions. They do not always get it right. I am not here to defend the judiciary at great length. I suggest the system itself, although not perfect, is the best in the free world.

We must clearly ensure that we attract those with the greatest ability. On the whole judges perform their task quite adequately. The legislation has led to an interesting debate of the various philosophies of how the judiciary and the appointment process and the politicization of it should work. However Bill C-12 is exactly what we need in attempting to distance politics from remuneration. The appointment process is something we should look at next.

The Conservative Party will be supporting it. We look forward to having it at committee where we can discuss it further.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the observation that I appreciate that the member who just spoke has reservations about how efficiently the court system operates. He certainly, as we all have done, encountered occasions when he has felt that judges have ruled in ways in which we might not agree.

My problem though is that he fails to appreciate that the courts, like our democracy, are not perfect. They make mistakes just as parliamentarians make mistakes. However, the very basis of our belief in the rule of law is our faith that the court system and the judges in that court system will exercise their judgments without interference, will exercise those judgments impartially.

As the minister said, when she made the opening remarks for this legislation, the whole point of this legislation that we have before the House, Bill C-12, is to provide a salary regime for the judges, which once provided for, ends the kind of interference or pressure that might be put on the judges politically.

This is a very important principle. This separation of the courts and the government is absolutely vital. I find it a little bit discouraging to hear the member take what in fact is a fundamental principle in the separation of powers in our society and turn it into a dissertation about his disenchantment with the rulings of various judges.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that judges are fallible. Laws are fallible. Members of parliament are fallible. However, the one thing we must protect, and this legislation does that, is we must protect the impartiality of the system, be it the House of Commons with its privileges or the courts with their separation from the government. I just wanted to say that.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

Before I begin this opportunity to address government legislation for the first time, I should like to thank my constituents in the riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for having granted me the opportunity and honour of representing them in this notable House.

Bill C-12 proposes an 11.2% salary increase for 1,013 federally appointed judges retroactive to April 2000. No one can be faulted for requesting a pay raise. Let us be honest. Who would not like a pay raise? What bothers me is our federal government's willingness to grant substantial pay increases to individuals who are already making what most Canadians would see as a very good living.

In the meantime, one of the mainstays of our Canadian economy, Canadian farmers, including many in my own riding, time and again have to come to the federal government for the funds needed simply to stay alive.

Back in my home province of Saskatchewan, the 2000 net farm income is projected to be 35% of the five year average taken from 1995 to 1999, and that was a bad five years. That is a 65% decrease. For 2001, total net income is projected to drop further, from $251 million to $141 million. This is only 20% of the 1995 to 1999 average, or an 80% decrease in income. The five year average, as I mentioned, already has two bad years of income included in it.

The government's attempt to get support to farmers, the AIDA program, has failed the majority of our farm families. This is why the farmers have and will continue to come to have their voices heard on the Hill. Only 60% of that emergency aid has even reached the farmers. Over a quarter of the claims for 1999 remain unprocessed by the federal government and the farmers want to know why it is taking so long. The money promised over two years ago by the minister of agriculture for losses in 1998 and 1999 needs to be delivered, but they still do not have their money. Because of the years of farm policy failure by the Liberal government, farm families need an immediate cash injection. They demanded this. The funds that were given were merely an insult to them.

I know it seems that I have wandered from the topic as I mention the farm crisis, but Bill C-12 seems to reward some people who are already doing very well and are not in a crisis at all. We are able to easily come up with money to hand to them. The apparent contrast of these two issues begs the question: where are the government's priorities?

Many constituents of mine in the riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre are disillusioned with the government due to its uncanny ability to make decisions that fail to address the real issues affecting real people.

I want to be clear. I am not saying that judges are not real people, that they do not have real needs and that they do not have a right to have the government's attention for their real and often valid concerns. What I am saying is that to the majority of my constituents and, I would venture to assume, to the majority of Canadians, granting federal judges a salary increase of almost 20% in a three year period is not an important priority.

How can the government justify giving its federal court judges an additional salary increase of 11.2% over and above the already given 8.2% increase that they received in 1997? How will this proposed pay increase help fix the current backlog in federal court cases? Will the federal court be 11.2% more efficient in dealing with the current backlog of court cases?

The Auditor General of Canada recently stated in his February 2001 report that government departments must do a better job at providing value for money. In other words, the auditor general is asking government departments if taxpayers are getting true value for the government's spending of their tax dollars.

This very day I attended on the Hill a symposium in which we were told that value for money would be a valid criteria by which we should judge government actions and government programs. I ask this question of the government with respect to proposed Bill C-12: how will this pay increase provide value for money for Canadians and for their taxpayer dollars? How will giving the average judge an increase of approximately $19,000 to $20,000 in salary address the roots of the problem the federal courts are facing today?

Although I am no economist, I did a little math to try to shed some light on the amount of dollars being spent on this legislation. If one takes the salary of the lowest paid judge, according to Bill C-12 itself, and adds an 11.2% increase, it means a minimum salary increase of nearly $20,000 to every federal court judge. If we multiply $20,000 by the number of federal court judges whose salaries will be increased, there is a total salary increase of over $19 million. Is this money, $19 million for only 1,000 people, well spent?

There is a need for an improved judiciary system. As my colleague has mentioned already, there are plenty of lawyers to fill these positions; the Prime Minister has a list. Yet all he can think about is increasing their salaries. The problem requires more imagination than simply adding money. More money in the hands of judges does nothing to address any of the problems.

In closing, I do not support Bill C-12 on the basis of four points. First, it fails to address the vital questions of integrity and honesty regarding the appointment process used by the Prime Minister and the government. Second, it fails to meet the reasonable expectations of Canadians in regard to how their judicial system should serve them. Third, the bill fails to address any backlogs presently being experienced. Fourth, it fails to meet the taxpayers' demand for a reasonable return on their hard earned tax money.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend other acts in consequence. I find the bill to be an interesting one, especially in the light of some of the contradictions I see between the bill and other similar issues over which the government has jurisdiction.

It is my understanding that the purpose of the bill is to implement the federal government's response to the report of the 1999 judicial compensation and benefits commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges. Implementing the commission's report seems reasonable enough, but let us not forget that the creation of the judicial compensation and benefits commission provides the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments.

The government's response to this issue is to introduce this bill to amend the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and allowances, modify the current judicial annuities scheme, and put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges.

It is imperative that the independence of judges be maintained. The independence of the judiciary cannot be called into question. What is important is to determine the fairness of the commission's report. With this bill the government has accepted the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2% for 1,013 federally appointed judges, retroactive to April 1, 2000. The implementation of this increase would cost Canadian taxpayers alone approximately $19 million.

It is my understanding that during this process the judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%. Their rationale for the increase was that the federal government must compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. While I believe that a competitive salary is required to ensure good candidates, I fail to see any great shortage of candidates for the bench.

Over the past decade there has been an average of eight candidates for each opening on the bench. I can just envision the application office for judges absolutely crowded with prospective candidates, waiting in line, filling out all the applications, and in the back of their minds there is this wonderful salary and compensation package. Surely out of every eight candidates for the bench there must be at least one well qualified applicant.

The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998 when they received 4.1%. The previous year they also received 4.1%. In other words, over a two year period federal judges had received an 8.2% increase. According to Statistics Canada, the consumer price index from 1996 to 1998 rose 2.55%. Mr. Speaker, I presume that your salary, my salary and indeed the salaries of most Canadians across the country would be somewhat governed by that statistic. However let us remember that these are judges we are talking about and that the salaries of judges are already indexed. They receive annual cost of living increases as well as particular salary increases.

To be fair, I must say that I favour competitive salaries. If there is a major disparity when comparing a peer position in the private sector, either the quality of candidates or the number of qualified candidates will diminish. I do not believe that this is in anyone's best interest. Yet to date I do not see that the bench is short of applicants.

While we have the bill before us I would also like to draw attention to one of my major concerns regarding the judiciary. I would like to see an overhaul of the process of patronage appointments in the judiciary to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. The Alliance policy by which I am guided states:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on merit.

The key words are based on merit: who will do the best job and who is the most qualified to do the best job.

While there has been much talk of late regarding parliamentary reform, I believe that by extension the reform should also include the public service. This is an opportunity to show the government's sincerity for true reform. The process should be completely open and accountable, and accountable in this case includes fairness.

I am somewhat alarmed that the proposed increase in pay is higher, for instance, than the federal government is reportedly prepared to grant the much lower paid civil servants in general. It has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, senior bureaucrats and now judges, while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

I think one of the most appalling situations in this regard is the amount of wages paid to entry level members of our armed forces. Privates, corporals and others often have to moonlight at jobs to make ends meet. This is simply not acceptable. There is no way that the people involved in our military who stand on guard for us should have to go to food banks. There needs to be a requirement of fairness in the whole issue.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that these very important and high paying positions will essentially remain part of the patronage system. Members only need to look around for a moment to see the level of patronage that already emanates from the Prime Minister's Office itself. The Liberal Party has floated a few trial balloons about parliamentary change and reform, but it is time to walk the talk. It is easy to talk about change but it takes real courage and true leadership to implement it.

Change is never easy for any of us. We are getting older and we know that in old age it is harder to change. However, if the government introduced real change, real parliamentary reform and real accountability, I believe it would have the support of many members on this side of the House and of all Canadians. Perhaps it should try it. The bill provides a golden opportunity to begin the process.

I am also reminded about the way that salaries, expense accounts and pensions are set for members of parliament. I do not believe that members of the public would deny parliamentarians a reasonable salary and pension. What the public begrudges is the current manner in which MPs' salaries are adjusted by the MPs themselves. Again there would be an opportunity for change as submitted by members of the opposition, namely an independent body outside the House made up of qualified members of the public would bring in recommendations that would be binding upon members of the House.

The public is simply not willing to continue to have a government act unaccountably. As a critic for Indian affairs I constantly hear from grassroot band members who are literally crying out for accountability from either their own chiefs and councils, the department or both. What hope could the government offer grassroots aboriginal people, or any Canadian for that matter, that accountability is important if it will not live by the same set of rules itself?

We can do better and we should do better. We as members of the House have the opportunity to do it even in this parliament, but too often Liberals opposite take the easier road. For instance, they occupy the justice committee with administrative matters at the expense of more important issues. The country is experiencing a high degree of backlog in the courts and many criminal trials must be put on hold in the meantime.

Let us take the time to make positive change. There is a general feeling in Canada that this Chamber has virtually no real power, but Canadians could be told by parliament, by the House, that we are interested in real reform if we really want it. Let us start it by making the necessary changes to Bill C-12.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this bill will be brief.

In past parliaments I had the opportunity to comment on raises to our high court judges. What I said at that time was that, given the financial situation in Canada and the cuts that were being made all over the map, there should not be any increase, or at least not to the extent being proposed.

Today, I announce a change in tune. On the one hand, there are far more means available to us now for paying our judges. We have far more financial leeway than we did then.

I have listened carefully to the previous speakers, the Minister of Justice and certain members of the Canadian Alliance. I have to say that there comes a time when there must be some straight dealing in such a matter, as in any other. No more hiding one's head in the sand or talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

In this House we have already heard certain parties claiming they wanted no pensions, felt MPs were overpaid, did not want any limousines, did not want to live in the residence of the leader of the official opposition, and then a few years later here they are accepting these benefits, and rightly so. I feel they go with the territory, but there must be no doublespeak here.

The public wants to see us with the best judges, the most competent people. We want our MPs to be highly competent, to be available around the clock if possible. In the workings of government the best people are needed. People expect those who manage billions of dollars to be very good managers. They are entitled to demand that, but we cannot say that we want the best ones and not pay them.

I will give an example. I am digressing a bit, but this will illustrate my point of view on this issue. Let us take Hydro-Quebec. This has little to do with judges, I know, but I simply want to give an example. The president of Hydro-Quebec may earn $300,000. If he worked in the private sector, he would make two, three or even four times that salary.

Getting back to the issue, I know judges who earn a lot less than they did when they practised law. They agreed to become judges for all sorts of reasons. In some cases, it was because they had a very demanding practice as lawyers. Others, given their experience and expertise, wanted to give something back to society. These are not bad people who only think about themselves, on the contrary. We have very good judges in Canada. We have a system that works well. There is always room for improvement.

We must not antagonize them the way some parties are trying to do today. Rather, we must ask ourselves why we now have before us a bill to increase the salaries of higher court judges, of federally appointed judges. Let us not make this too complicated. On the contrary, we must make it simple, so that people will understand why we are faced with this issue.

On November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the whole issue of salaries for the judges of one province, namely Prince Edward Island. In this reference, the justices of the supreme court in their ruling established new constitutional requirements for setting the salaries of judges.

In a country justice has to start from some point. It happened that it was the justices of the supreme court, Canada's highest court, that ruled on this matter. Yes, at first glance, we might say there was a conflict of interest, since judges handed down a ruling concerning other judges. Who should do the judging? Who decides? Parliament?

We have an institution, the Supreme Court of Canada. We have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think that, since the charter was passed, since the Constitution was patriated, some of the powers of the House of Commons have been taken over by others, including the Canadian charter. In my opinion, parliamentarians have lost some of their jurisdiction under the umbrella of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada is rendering decisions with all of its powers. It handed down a decision on November 18, 1997. I know, I was here in the House. This decision led the House of Commons to introduce an amendment to the Judges Act in order to establish an independent, and in my opinion, effective review board, the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, far more capable than I to consider the salaries judges might earn, whether they were at the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court, a trial court or an appeal court, in Quebec or in the other provinces, or the judges of the higher courts of each of the provinces.

This commission looked at what went on in the private sector and where judges came from. It concluded that their salary should be increased by 26%, according to my notes here. I think 26% is a bit much, and this is where the minister has the discretion to justify not giving 26%, and this is what she has done today.

The increase is 11.2% which I do not consider unreasonable, instead of the 26.3% proposed by the commission.

The commission's mandate was to consider what would be the best remuneration for these judges, as well as to look into whether salaries and benefits for judges were adequate, with regard to three points: existing economic conditions in Canada, including the cost of living and the economic position of the federal government as a whole; the role of the financial security of judges in maintaining the independence of the judiciary; and the need to attract top notch candidates.

I mentioned that, when we do a comparison and look at where judges come from, we see that 73% are from the private sector, 11% are from lower courts and 16% are from government or other fields of legal practice and from universities.

When we look at the remuneration of 73% of appointees from the private sector, we see that the average pre-appointment salary of those from Quebec was $209,000 a year. We certainly cannot appoint people without the required training or specialization. In any event, as everyone knows, there are appointment criteria, such as years of practice and so forth.

As for benefits, a pension and the level of remuneration, this committee looked into the matter and decided to recommend a 26% increase.

Bill C-12 before us today sets the increase at 11.2%. Compared to earlier bills, I do not consider this unreasonable.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-12. I am sure the minister is paying careful attention and will come to the realization that the Bloc Quebecois supports the government when it presents bills that are reasonable and in line with the interests of the people of Quebec.

As much as I have an attentive ear for this bill, I would like to see the minister lend an equally attentive one to the demands from Quebec, including those relating to the young offender legislation. I cannot help commenting that I hope the minister will also listen to what Quebec is calling for in this connection.

As for Bill C-12, this is a bill we are going to support. I have two comments, however, that are a little more on the negative side, although not jeopardizing our support for Bill C-12.

The first relates to retroactivity. I realize that the commission's report was tabled on May 31, 2000, and we are now in March 2001. When this bill is passed, however, there will be nearly a year's retroactivity. I have trouble accepting that.

This being said, I understand the issue of retroactivity, and this is my second criticism is, but why did it take so long for the government to introduce this bill?

I read the commission's report, which is very well made and very well detailed. I did not take a whole year to read it. That report was tabled on May 31, 2000. What has the minister been doing since? She could have introduced a bill, long before the government called the election in October 2000, to follow up on the commission's report. Had the minister done so, we would not be stuck with retroactive payments of this magnitude.

My two negative comments, therefore, have to do with retroactivity and the government's slowness to act regarding an issue like this one. I do hope there were reasons other than an election call for the minister to postpone the introduction of this bill. I do hope the minister cares enough about the justice system to not have unduly waited until after the election to introduce a bill that provides an 11% increase for our judges.

These are my only two negative comments at this point. The Bloc Quebecois will definitely support the bill. We will keep track of it. We will follow all the debates on Bill C-12. We will certainly be there to ask questions to the witnesses appearing before the committee to express their views on this bill. If people submit briefs, I will take the time to read them.

That is about it at this stage. Bill C-12 will get the support of the Bloc Quebecois and it should get the support of all parliamentarians. I agree with the minister, and I will conclude on this note, that in Canada and in Quebec we have extremely qualified and competent judges. I have no problems backing the judges by supporting this bill, so that they can get fair compensation and remain totally independent from the political system.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

The bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations made by the 1999 judicial compensation and benefits commission. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for 1,013 federally appointed judges. The bill is purely administrative in nature, but that is the problem.

This is the fourth time the Liberal government has sought to amend the act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, all of which were minor pieces of legislation or of little significance to Canadians.

While we all recognize the need for housekeeping bills, there have been no significant initiatives by the current Liberal government to address the serious concerns of many Canadians with our judiciary. It appears more and more that the issues parliament may address when it comes to the judiciary are merely administrative in nature.

Under the guise of the charter the courts have appropriated for themselves the right to deal with substantive policy matters. The courts have in addition appropriated for themselves the right to effectively control the ability to set their salaries, a matter which the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically left to parliament.

The decision of the courts purported to find a new constitutional obligation to require the legislatures to set up a commission to establish the salaries for provincially appointed judges. The supreme court, which was called upon to confirm this process, not only did so but included a newfound constitutional obligation requiring parliament to follow a similar process when it came to setting salaries for federally appointed judges.

Although the fiction is that parliament can exercise its own judgment in respect to the salaries recommended by the committees, in reality the judges simply overturn those legislated decisions where they disagree with them. One need look no further than the Alberta legislature for a very practical demonstration of the court's powers.

This is simply a case of judges discovering new constitutional principles that benefit themselves financially without political accountability or, as one of my constituents observed in describing the case, “the judges paying the judge's case”.

This newfound constitutional process that the judges discovered further decreased parliamentary responsibility for the expenditure of public funds and moves toward the creation of an economically independent judiciary with its own political agenda.

A recent letter to Maclean's magazine by a Mr. W. J. Jack of Innisfil, Ontario, noted:

It seems to me that members of Parliament no longer want to or can't make laws that work, so they let appointed judges do that job. If the Supreme Court is going to legislate, we won't need elections, except to vote for one person who would then appoint the members of the court. This would save taxpayers a lot of money, and we'd still have the one-man-rule system that we have today.

Coupled with the self-granting powers under the charter and an executive appointed judiciary as we now have, I would argue the courts can be and often are used to advance the political agenda of a government in a particular direction without consultation with the members of parliament who are accountable to the people of Canada and who represent their interests.

Judicial activism is all too common in our courts. Many if not most Canadians would agree that it must remain the responsibility of parliament to debate and ultimately resolve the political, economic and social issues that govern all our lives.

However over the past two decades judges supreme court justices in particular have to varying degrees engaged in a frenzy of constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary substituting its legal and social preferences for those of the elected representatives of the people in parliament and the legislatures.

A leader in this judicial activism was the former Chief Justice of Canada, Antonio Lamer. Although he is now retired, the decisions he wrote or participated in will continue to impact on the principles and institutions of our democracy. Unfortunately that impact has been at an alarming cost to our democracy and to the public safety and security of our citizens.

Another member of the court has recently added his concern to the direction of the supreme court and the judicial activism of the former chief justice. Mr. Justice Bastarache has warned the nation of the dangers of the judicial government favoured by the former chief justice. In contrast to the former chief justice, Justice Bastarache has committed himself to an interpretation of the charter of rights and freedoms that pays respect to democratic principles and institutions.

The House and the people of Canada should commend Mr. Justice Bastarache and other jurists who recognize the dangers of the legal and constitutional anarchy reflected in the judgments of the former chief justice. Our democratic principles and institutions are too important to be hijacked by a non-elected political judiciary.

Let us consider for a moment a recent high profile supreme court decision that typifies the issue. In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court in effect removed the justice minister's parliamentary prerogative of choosing whether or not to seek assurances before extraditing alleged criminals facing the death penalty in another country, the United States or otherwise.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of capital punishment, the court has attempted to deprive parliament of debating the issue further. The court has overridden Canada's law as written by parliament and has chosen to push its political agenda to the forefront by opening Canada's borders to violent criminals.

That is not just my characterization. The day after the Rafay and Burns decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada the lawyers for the Minister of Justice, in another related case, stood before the court and said that the impact of the decisions was to create safe havens for criminals.

According to the precedent set in previous supreme court rulings, the minister had only been required to seek guarantees when the possibility of the death penalty would shock the conscience or otherwise outrage standards of decency.

In this decision, the supreme court has attempted to reconcile its new position with its 1991 precedent. However, in actual fact it has rewritten the law. The recent ruling stipulated that the Minister of Justice was required to seek guarantees prior to the extradition of Rafay and Burns and in the future on all accused of such crimes.

Our extradition treaty with the United States has also been effectively rewritten. One might think that the practical effect of extraditing these individuals, if they are convicted in the state of Washington, is that they would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. That is only technically true. If they are convicted and all appeals are exhausted, they become automatically eligible for the prisoner exchange program. They then come back to Canada where the maximum sentence is 25 years before eligibility for parole and, with the faint hope clause, they can apply for parole after 15 years.

Taking into account that these individuals have already been held for six or seven years, if they were successful under the faint hope clause they would be on the streets after eight years. If in fact they are the people who brutally killed three American citizens for insurance money, the practical consequence of their crime would be eight years.

This is not an issue about the death penalty. This is the circumvention of parliament by refusing to allow parliament to have a say in the laws that govern crime in Canada. This is an abdication of our responsibility. Our responsibility has been taken away by the Supreme Court of Canada which has its own political agenda when it comes to criminal law.

In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court has prevented any legislative attempt to reintroduce capital punishment in Canada. This is regardless of where one stands on the issue. Our party does not have a position on capital punishment. The court's decision effectively says that the elected people of Canada can never make the decision because it is constitutionally prohibited. The political reason given was that the practice is unjust and should be stopped. That is not a legal judgment. That is a political decision.

Again, regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is a decision for parliament and its elected representatives to make. Regardless of the convictions of the court, amending Canada's laws and treaties for policy reasons should be the responsibility of parliament and not the courts.

Former Chief Justice Lamer's judicial activism is not in harmony with the democratic principles of Canada, regardless of whether we oppose or defend the cause that the court may support. People might say that it is a good decision regardless of it being a political one.

The decisions of the court on political matters short-circuit the process, undermine the authority of parliament and bring the institution of parliament into disrepute. It is not that it insults parliamentarians, it insults the people who elected parliamentarians to make these decisions on their behalf.

While this issue is a major concern, it is far from being the only problem in our judicial system that requires the attention of parliament. Another such issue is related to the appointment process.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates these three: One is nominated by the judiciary; one is nominated by the Minister of Justice; and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by the first two persons nominated.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the patronage system.

The Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee that would review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister. The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in these matters.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal government is prepared to grant the much lower paid civil service. It lately has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, senior bureaucrats and now judges while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed judges and others should generally be in line with the private sector, it is apparent that the foot soldiers of our justice system are being ignored.

What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

This bill, like its predecessors, deals solely with the administrative aspects of the courts and does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system. Therefore, my colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill.