Bill C-12 (Historical)

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

Canada Labour Code

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few minutes left. It is a very short time and it is also sad because ultimately this debate will not take place.

However, I wish to thank the members of the other parties and of the Canadian Alliance, which showed an open-mindedness I was not expecting. I congratulate the members of this party. It was very important for me to have the opportunity to debate this bill. I congratulate the members of the New Democratic Party, and my Progressive Conservative colleagues, who showed themselves to be very open-minded as well.

Some of the things that have been said by the government in this House are incredible. When we are told that this concerns only 10% of Canadian women, that is already too many. It is unbelievable that we would be told something so ridiculous, that it is not serious because only 10% of the population is affected. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee.

The government approves legislation, and talks about progressive legislation and being open-minded. It is approving bills to legalize marijuana, but it cannot allow women to remain healthy through a pregnancy, to give birth to a healthy child and to ensure that that child will enter the world without harm to itself or its mother.

I even saw a female member opposite object to having this bill made a votable item. This is incredible. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that the government would engage in petty politics, in cheap partisan politics when dealing with such an important bill.

The hon. member asked questions and I will reply to him in writing. I will not give up on this bill. I can assure members of this House that this issue will be brought back. Pressure will be put on the government, because there are young women who want healthy children. There are young women working in the prison system who are fed up with having to go to court to say that their work endangers their pregnancy.

It does not make sense for a pregnant woman working in the jail system to be followed by a family doctor from the beginning of her pregnancy only to be told by a doctor from Health Canada, a doctor who does not even know her and is not familiar with her file, “No you are not entitled to preventive withdrawal”. It is unacceptable that such a situation still exists in 2001.

I was asked if there were costs associated with this measure. Costs are not an issue when it comes to giving birth to a healthy child, to ensuring a normal birth. They are not an issue when it comes to the health of the mother who must raise her child for the rest of her life.

I can assure hon. members that we will bring this issue back in the House. The government will only have itself to blame. It was up to the Liberals to agree to make this bill a votable item and to accept the amendments that I proposed regarding Bill C-12. We worked really hard for days to amend the bill and also to follow up on the government's requests. We compromised on a lot of things, but we will never compromise when it comes to ensuring that women can give birth to healthy children. Costs are not an issue when it comes to that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-340 on behalf of the NDP caucus. As the labour critic for our party I sat with the member for Laurentides for months as we reviewed part II of the Canada Labour Code. I can personally attest to the hard work that was done by the hon. member for Laurentides in trying to get this issue to the forefront of the national agenda or even onto the table of the national agenda. She demonstrated a great deal of compassion and was a very good advocate on behalf of working women everywhere in this country in the degree of passion she demonstrated for the issue.

The hon. member pointed out in her speech that this issue has been before the House of Commons for a decade or more. This is not new to today's debate nor was it new when we debated Bill C-12 or Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code that we have dealt with recently. She points out that as long ago as 1990 there was a motion before the House of Commons where like-minded people argued aggressively that the workplace was changing and that we had a duty to accommodate those changes and certainly to accommodate the growing number of women in the workforce.

We have finally reached equality, virtually, in terms of the labour market share. We have not reached equality in the labour market conditions for women. Women might make up 50% of the workforce, but they have not achieved equality in terms of compensation or the terms and conditions of their employment or the accommodation of the special circumstances facing women in the workforce, such as perhaps one of the most obvious, the issue of pregnant and nursing mothers.

When the bill was brought before the House I expected a higher degree of sensitivity for this issue from the other members of the House of Commons. I am appalled, frankly, at the lack of sensitivity demonstrated, especially by the spokesperson for the government side.

We believe, and the point was well made by the member for Laurentides, that we have a duty and an obligation to strive to achieve the highest common denominator in this country. If the federal legislation is to be considered a national standard, we then have an obligation to seek out the best conditions in the country, not to sink to the lowest conditions in any aspect of labour legislation. In the case of the province of Quebec, it has had the foresight, the political capital, I suppose, to achieve an element of fairness that goes beyond what we enjoy in the federal jurisdiction.

Therefore, it is only fair, and in the interests and the well-being of the people living in a jurisdiction where the terms of employment provincially exceed the terms of employment enjoyed in the federal jurisdiction, that a person should have the right to avail himself or herself of the terms that are more favourable for the worker, especially in the instance of a pregnant or nursing mother.

This should be one thing that we can all feel generous enough in our hearts to allow. Perhaps it could then serve as an example of how we might harmonize the jurisdictional differences in the workforce on other issues as well. However, we could start here. I argue it was a missed opportunity when we reviewed part II of the Canada Labour Code. We dropped the football in this case because we had a chance to introduce an element of fairness into the Canada Labour Code and we chose not to. It was not for lack of trying because the amendments were made at both stages where amendments are possible in the development of the bill. The hon. member worked very hard.

The only argument that was put forward by the Liberal side as to why it cannot support the bill was the weak and tired old warhorse that it is somehow a unity issue. Not only is that untrue in this case, but I believe it is 180° opposite from the truth.

Let us think of the example of a worker, a pregnant or nursing mother living in the province of Quebec who availed herself of the possibility of opting out of a certain workplace because she thought it was unsafe. If that happens we will have created two classes of worker in the province of Quebec. We might have two sisters who live in houses next door to each other, one who works for the province of Quebec under Quebec jurisdiction and the other who works for the federal government under federal jurisdiction. They live in the same city, in the same community. One will now be given full compensation for the period of time she has off and the other will be penalized by getting 55% of her income just because she works for the federal government instead of the province of Quebec. That would breed hostility. That would breed disunity. That would cause animosity among the working women in the province of Quebec.

If the only argument that can be raised here is the fact that it is somehow a unity issue or a constitutional or jurisdictional issue, let me say that in fact it is unnecessarily creating an environment of hostility and resentment among the working women of Quebec. We do a lot of things differently in our dealings with the province of Quebec. Even if for the time being the only advantage to this small amendment would be for the working women of Quebec, why is that a reason not to do it, if it introduces an element of fairness for those people?

It would also have the effect of pulling up the conditions in the other provinces, those provinces that are not fortunate enough to have such good terms and conditions. Were this in place, the best terms would have primacy, or in other words we would always gravitate to the highest common denominator and it would pull the other provinces along. We would then really be using federal legislation to its highest purpose, I believe, which is to elevate the standards right across the country from coast to coast.

Anyone who speaks against the motion is speaking for the status quo, which I believe is patently unfair. The status quo penalizes pregnant and nursing women when they opt for the right to refuse dangerous work, work that is dangerous either to themselves or to the fetus. We believe this is the only example in which when workers use their right to refuse unsafe work they suffer any kind of monetary setback. Why is it we have selected pregnant and nursing women to be the only group of workers who, when they exercise the right to refuse unsafe work, suffer a monetary penalty? That is unfair. I presume that is why the province of Quebec decided many years ago to change that situation: because it is patently unfair when these women are doing something that is best for their babies.

It borders on negligence to first open up the workforce so that more women are taking part and then not accommodate or take every step to accommodate women in the workplace. Out of ten provinces and three territories one province chose to rectify that and to remedy that unfairness. We believe that should stand as the highest common denominator and it should have primacy over any lesser piece of legislation as it affects working women.

Therefore I speak strongly in favour of Bill C-340 and I thank the member for Laurentides for giving us the opportunity to have the debate. I regret that it is only a debate. It should be a vote. It could have been an important first step to introduce an element of fairness into the working conditions in the Canadian workforce which we forgot to do, we neglected to do. No, we did not forget to do it: we chose not to be fair in this case and it is to our great shame.

We are given the opportunity to fix that today. Some members of the House are speaking against remedying that. I suppose they will have to defend their stance and be judged in some higher place than this.

In closing I would say that in other areas of legislation, in other contracts and in other legal documents, there are things called non-derogation clauses. In other words, nothing in the work we are doing today should erode what the person currently enjoys. Not having an amendment like that in Bill C-340 has the same effect as derogating the terms and conditions of employment that Quebec women currently enjoy. By going into the federal civil service or any federally regulated jurisdiction, they will diminish the rights that have already been created in their home province. We have an obligation to respect, acknowledge and allow people in Quebec to have those rights that they have earned.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

moved that Bill C-340, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a lot of emotion today.

This bill, which is unfortunately non-votable, because it was decided otherwise—perhaps it is a little too forward looking for the government—deals with preventive withdrawal of pregnant or nursing women.

We must realize that more and more women enter the labour force every year. Women now account for 45% of employees in general. Consequently, the number of women involved in occupational accidents has also risen.

These new realities beg the question of not only reconciliating family and professional responsibilities, but also of adapting working conditions to the presence of mothers and pregnant employees.

The labour market is also facing other new realities. Indeed, pregnant women tend to stay at work longer than before, because of their often uncertain financial circumstances.

The statistics are eloquent: 82% of single parent families are headed by women; 83% of these families live under the poverty line; 91% are on welfare; and 61% of workers receiving minimum wage are women.

When it comes to preventive withdrawal, Canada has a two tier system and it is women in Quebec, whose jobs are governed by the Canada Labour Code, who are footing the bill. We in the Bloc Quebecois have made countless efforts to remedy the situation, including moving an amendment to Bill C-12.

In May 2000, during debate on Bill C-12, which amended part II of the Canada Labour Code, we proposed an amendment that would have entitled Quebec women who were pregnant or nursing and whose jobs were governed by the Canada Labour Code to benefits under the Loi sur la santé et la sécurité du travail du Québec.

I would note that, during the debate on this bill, we worked very hard and brought in an incredible number of witnesses to appear before the committee. And I do not think that the Bloc Quebecois was alone in its efforts.

We asked all the unions to appear, including the CSN, the FTQ and even a lawyer specializing in the area of preventive withdrawal for pregnant or nursing women. This lawyer has also written a book and teaches at the University of Montreal. She has worked on specific cases involving preventive withdrawal for pregnant or nursing women.

She appeared before the committee and told us horror stories about how women in federally regulated jobs, jobs governed by the Canada Labour Code, were not entitled to the benefit of preventive withdrawal. It is so complicated that it is ridiculous.

When one is expecting a baby is often the most important period in a woman's life. It is incomprehensible to me that, in this day and age, a woman is not allowed to go through her pregnancy with peace of mind, knowing that her child will be born healthy and that she will be able to raise it herself and give it everything it needs.

I feel obliged to give a historical overview of the repeated calls that have been made for changes since 1991, and not from my party or even this side of the House.

First, Joy Langan of the NDP introduced Motion M-147 on May 13, 1991, which read as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should pass a bill for the protection of pregnant or nursing employees from workplace hazards, guaranteeing them continuity of employment in a hazard-free environment.

Again that year, 1991, the same NDP member introduced a similar motion, Motion M-143.

On May 17, 1990, the hon. member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, who is still sitting in this House, but at that time was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, also introduced a motion, M-655, calling for the same thing.

The current leader of our party, the hon. member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie, also called for changes to Bill C-101, on June 1, 1993. My colleague the member for Québec also introduced a motion along the same lines once again, in March of 1995.

I could go on. For instance, during the revision of the Canada Labour Code, part II, I personally proposed major amendments to protect women workers

There are two points relating to that. I was told that when the Canada Labour Code, part II, was revised, as it was last year, amendments would be made to protect female workers, to ensure that women working under federal jurisdiction would have the same rights to preventive withdrawal as women under provincial jurisdiction.

When we came to carry out that revision of the CLC, part II, we presented some major amendments and these were rejected by the minister. Her response: “We will reach a decision when we revise part III of the Canada Labour Code”. This makes no sense any more. This has been going on for ten years.

I have proof of this. They did not want this bill to be votable. That is very disappointing. It is disappointing for women who decide to become pregnant and whose workplaces are not necessarily safe during pregnancy.

Yesterday, a woman named Annie Poirier came to my office. For a while now she has been fighting and working for precautionary cessation of work. I would like to congratulate her for what she does. Her task is certainly not an easy one, because she works in a detention center. Such a working environment is not friendly, especially at the federal level. The employees are not dealing with angels, they are constantly in direct contact with prisoners incarcerated for two years or more.

These women work with prisoners all day long. They occasionally face very problematic situations and, in some cases, situations that can be dangerous for their own health and their baby's health. They live under permanent and very heavy stress. I do not know if you ever visited a federal prison, but it is quite difficult for a woman to work in such conditions. Those who do are not allowed precautionary cessation of work, and that is incredible.

I asked the Quebec department of labour—the CSST in fact, because we are enforcing the legislation with the CSST—to conduct a study in order to see if the CSST could manage the precautionary cessation of work program at the federal level if ever the federal government made commitments in that regard. I was told that it was possible, that the only requirement was that we come to an agreement with the federal government and that the legislation could very well be enforced at both levels of government.

All we need now is some political will on the part of the present government, but it is not forthcoming. Do not tell me that something will be changed in part III of the Canada Labour Code. It is not true.

When part II of the labour code was revised, we invited non political witnesses to appear before the committee because we wanted the minister to understand that it is crucial that living conditions of women be improved. She did not do anything, and it is very disappointing, all the more so because the minister is a woman. She knows what it is like to be pregnant, and what the risks are.

I wanted some action, but nothing happened. I introduced this bill, but it cannot be put to a vote. What is going to happen? I know all my colleagues are going to speak on this issue.

I am deeply disappointed, but I swear I will not give up. Things will change. We will find a way to bring about some changes, because,this situation is unconscionable.

I would like to tell the House about what happened to a young woman who is a flight attendant. Flight attendants are under the Canada Labour Code. If they want, female attendants can withdraw from work, but they must have worked a total of 600 hours, and they will only get 55% of their wages, because they will be receiving employment insurance benefits.

If they could avail themselves of preventive withdrawal, they would get 90% of their salary without having to rely on employment insurance benefits. This is something altogether different.

This young woman, a flight attendant, was on an airplane and a problem occurred. At one point, she had to remain on board four extra hours because of a mechanical breakdown. She could not avail herself of preventive withdrawal, and she lost her baby in her seventh month of pregnancy.

It is unacceptable that such things still happen in our modern society. The employment insurance fund has a surplus of $37 billion and yet we are unable to use a small amount of money to allow women to avail themselves of preventive withdrawal. This is a ridiculous.

However, I believe it is wonderful to see young women like Annie Poirier out there creating coalitions so that women can benefit from what I call a natural basis, a normal basis to survive and give birth.

Giving birth is the most wonderful thing in the world. If one cannot do it in total security, in total health, I wonder in what kind of country we are living. We spend money for all kinds of useless things but we are unable to address particular circumstances to allow women to give birth to healthy babies.

This measure would not cost a fortune. Let us look of our birth rate. The problem is not there. The problem is the absence of will on the part of the government at this time. This is something I cannot understand.

I hope that members who are here will give serious consideration to this bill. I know that I will not be able to introduce it again under its present form. However, I do hope that we hold this debate, because it addresses a critical issue. It has been under discussion for ten years now.

The Bloc is not alone. As I said earlier, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party also took initiative in that regard. I am sure that there are many backbenchers who would like to see this happen one day, but they do not dare to speak out because of the party line. That is part of the political game.

I hope that the rules of the House will change because I find it unacceptable to introduce such an important bill—I consider it important, as important as any other bill introduced here—and then to be unable to vote on it.

However, I would like to see my colleagues, and all the women in this parliament, vote on this bill. There is a lack of will in this regard, because they made sure that we could not vote on Bill C-340.

We work here in the House and also at the committee. We work hard. We invite people to appear before the committee; there is a FTQ-CSN coalition—we can name them all—and they all agree that things have to change.

Do members know what excuse was given by the government the last time? I was told “This is all fine and well, Ms. Guay, it is done in Quebec; we admire you for that, but it is not done in other provinces”. My goodness, let us lead by example. Let us do it here at the federal level.

Let us take our responsibilities toward women, toward our children and toward our families. Let us support them. Let us pass a bill at the federal level. This will force the provinces to do the same in their jurisdictions eventually.

But no, here we never make the first move. We cannot do that; it would be dangerous. We must not speak out too much. There is a lack of political courage. The government has proven to me that it lacks political courage to an incredible extent.

And they had better not talk about the cost, because this will not cost much. In Quebec, we would even agree to have such legislation entrusted to the CSST.

I will listen very carefully to what my colleagues have to say about this bill and I will come back at the end of the debate to draw my conclusions.

Criminal Code

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope more colleagues will be interested in this very important matter.

Before I get into the gist of my speech, I take this opportunity to tell men, women and children who lost loved ones in New York or Washington that our thoughts are with them, and that the thoughts and the prayers of people in my riding of Laurentides are with them.

To start with, we agree with the principle of the bill I said to my friend from Churchill it is time we brought major changes.

In the context of Bill C-284, it bears repeating because we need some background, we know that other members introduced bills that did not make it to third reading and were dropped from the order paper.

I hope that this one will make it, that we will be able to discuss it fully and to amend it as needed, and also that we will get unanimous support to bring about major changes.

As everyone knows, or will know, on May 9, 1992, an explosion at the Westray mine, in Nova Scotia, killed 26 miners.

Then, on May 15, Mr. Justice Peter Richard was appointed by the Nova Scotia government, under the Public Inquiry Act of Nova Scotia, to head a public inquiry into the circumstances of this tragedy.

In November 1997, Commissioner Richard released a 650 page report and this is no short story, which includes, among other things, findings on the criminal responsibility of Curragh Resources Inc., the company responsible for the operation of the Westray mine, and of its management. This very important report confirmed that the company was guilty, but it came out of this pretty well unscathed.

There is a problem with our legislation. I will talk about the Canada Labour Code, because I worked with it and I am sure the hon. member knows about this.

I had proposed major amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with health and safety in the workplace, to impose stiffer penalties on companies when negligence was involved, or when a company was charged. We had also proposed to increase fines and jail terms rather significantly. This was under clause 14 of Bill C-12, and I can provide a copy to the hon. member for Churchill so she can take a look at it.

We had put so much hope in all this, we had worked relentlessly to significantly improve the part on health and safety in the workplace. It had already been ten years since that part of the legislation had last been reviewed. We had proposed major amendments, including amendments to protect women in the workplace. None of our amendments were accepted. At the time, during the last parliament, the political will was not there. I hope the government will be more serious and positive regarding the bill introduced by the hon. member for Churchill.

A great deal of work was done and this should be pointed out, because it was not negligible, by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. He tabled a motion that also died on the order paper when the House prorogued. His was a very important motion, which also sought to review the criminal code. It would have been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and it sought to allow the amendment of a recommendation to ensure the protection of people and make sure that such a tragedy never happened again.

I believe the hon. member had almost managed to get unanimity, but we never knew the government's position, because consideration of the motion was never completed.

As I said earlier, we on this side are obviously in agreement with the bill's principle, but there is the whole issue of amendments we might wish to make—I do not know which yet, I will be talking with my colleague—because there are provinces, including Nova Scotia, for example, which at the time was not particularly well protected by provincial legislation for mine employees.

In some provinces, work is already being done. It is serious work. In Quebec, with the CSST, we protect our employees. It is not perfect, but we in Quebec already have a very good system, which is working very well. Care must be taken not to penalize people who are already doing their job well, not to penalize a government that already has plans and is doing an extraordinary job with its employees and its employers. We already have a tribunal that can hand down rulings against companies that are not doing their job well. We can also fine them.

We have all this in Quebec and I am a bit worried. Will this bill interfere in our jurisdiction? If so, we will have to make the necessary amendments. If not, so much the better.

I would like to point out, and this is not just to mention the fine work we are doing in Quebec, but when one does something well, one should say so, that lately the CSST has been running a wonderful prevention campaign on television. Of course, when we watch these images and ads,paid for by the government and the CSST, showing a woman falling and injuring herself, or a man who, through carelessness, seriously injures his arm, it makes for some hard viewing, but it is what happens.

As my colleague pointed out, there is a work accident every nine seconds. It is therefore essential that people be made aware, and work remains to be done. I know that we are doing that work now. So far, I have seen a few ads. I hope that this will continue in Quebec and that it will serve as an example to other levels of government, to other provinces, that they will use this form of prevention because it is wonderful, and that we can use it to bring the message home to the public and to businesses. Businesses have responsibilities and they must not shirk them.

We obviously need to tighten certain rules. As I was saying earlier, we have tried and I have personally tried, through Bill C-12 dealing with health and safety, to include preventive withdrawal for pregnant or nursing women. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about. I introduced a bill on the subject, but it did not go all the way. I have another one coming and I hope the government will take it into account.

Quebec has been protecting pregnant or nursing women for a very long time. They have access to preventive withdrawal without being penalized financially, something that does not exist under the federal system. Women who cannot afford to live on employment insurance benefits that would cut their income in half will keep on working in conditions that may be hazardous to their unborn child or to the child they are nursing.

The federal government must change its mentality with regard to this issue. It is so sad to see, in the same building, two female employees, one working under federal jurisdiction and the other working under provincial jurisdiction, who do not have the same rights. We need to modernize our federal legislation and we must be able to make amendments that are not costly. We are not talking about huge costs here. I will even be able to give specific figures when we study the bill.

My heart goes out to all those who lost a loved one among these 26 miners who had to work in difficult conditions. Need I remind members that working in a mine is working in the dark. Their quality of life is just as bad as the quality of the air they breathe. My heart goes out to those families.

I hope that, in the end, those responsible for this tragedy will be made to pay. As legislators, we will bring in legislation to ensure that these people, as well as their families, are protected.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence—Chapter No. 7.

Bill S-24, an act to implement an agreement between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting governance of certain lands by the Mohawks of Kanesatake and to amend an act in consequence—Chapter No. 8.

Bill C-8, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions—Chapter No. 9.

Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act—Chapter No. 10.

Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997 and the Financial Administration Act—Chapter No. 11.

Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act—Chapter No. 12.

Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter No. 13.

Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Canada Cooperatives Act and to amend other acts in consequence—Chapter No. 14.

Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act—Chapter No. 15.

Bill C-26, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of tobacco—Chapter No. 16.

Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act related to the Excise Tax Act—Chapter No. 17.

Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act—Chapter No. 18.

Bill C-18, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act—Chapter No. 19.

Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act—Chapter No. 20.

Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act—Chapter No. 21.

Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter No. 22.

Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology—Chapter No. 23.

Bill C-29, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002—Chapter No. 24.

Bill S-25, an act to amend the Act of Incorporation of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada.

Bill S-27, an act to authorize The Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada to apply to be continued as a company under the laws of the Province of Quebec.

Bill S-28, an act to authorize Certas Direct Insurance Company to apply to be continued as a company under the laws of the Province of Quebec.

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, June 13, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 17, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.

(The House adjourned at 5.26 p.m.)

Parliament Of Canada Act

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to a number of the questions raised by the hon. member.

He is advocating that we base ourselves on other formula for establishing what the salary increase of members of parliament should be. It gives me a good occasion to raise something which I had not before. I draw to the attention of all hon. members page 12 of the Lumley commission report, table 3.1.

The consumer price index between 1991 and 2000 has increased by 21.6%. The average industrial wage increase was 23.6%. The general public wage settlement was 15.2%. The general private wage settlement was 22.4%. The Conference Board survey of wage increases was 31.9%. Members of parliament increases were 6.0%.

I do not know if the hon. member had an opportunity to read that table. If he had, he would know that what he is saying would probably result in a greater increase than the one we have now.

Second, let us look back at a few things historically. I shared some of this with a few colleagues across the way, albeit not all of them but a few. I will give an example, and it is not the be all and end all of examples, but it is certainly one.

In 1963 a judge of the federal court earned $21,000 a year and an MP earned $23,700, 12% more. In 1971 a judge was up to $36,000 and an MP at $33,000. These are the MP salaries grossed up, assuming that everything would be taxable, so that we can compare apples and apples. In 1980 a judge was at $70,000 and an MP was at $66,000. We were still reasonably close. In 1992 a judge was at $155,000 and an MP was at $106,000. In 2000 a judge was at $179,000 and an MP was at $108,000. From 1992 to 2000 the MP's salary had gone up $1,900 a year and the judge's salary had gone up $25,000.

In response to a question from the hon. member from Calgary, I indicated that Bill C-12 was retroactive to April 1, 2001. That is not correct. It is April 1, 2000 that the retroactivity provision of Bill C-12 applies. What that does is it gives a salary now, April 1, 2001, of judges at $204,600 and MPs at $109,000. Today an MP earns 45% of the salary of a judge. Even with this so-called generous increase, MPs will still only make 55% of the salary of a judge. That is how far the salary structure had fallen behind.

Yes, we could say that the amount is excessive. We can say all these things. They are easy to say, a lot easier than defending the bill perhaps, but it does not mean they are right. What is proposed in the bill I believe is right. The Lumley commission proposed the amount. We did not deviate from the 20%. We did not say that it should be 25% or 30%. Using some of the indices it should have perhaps been higher. Using the index that the hon. member wants to propose perhaps would have been lower, but we used the objective one produced in the report. That is why we used that one.

Why are we offering chairs and vice-chairs greater remuneration than others? They are positions with greater responsibility, as are the positions of the House leaders, the leaders of each party and anyone else who holds some of these offices. It is not a matter of whether the Prime Minister appoints them. I could turn around and ask the member about his leader appointing the vice-chairs, which would be equally silly.

What about the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party then allegedly appointing the chairs and vice-chairs in the Senate, and so on? We could spread that nonsense all over the place. It does not accomplish anything. The fact still remains that a chair and a vice-chair of a committee are positions that are, according to the commission, worthy of further remuneration, which is something that exists at the provincial level in many if not most of the provinces in Canada.

In terms of the opt in clause, hon. member wants to know if that means that some members are not deserving of the salary? No. I think all colleagues in the House deserve the salary. That is why I said a while ago, and I do not know whether the member was in attendance when I said it, that I hope everyone will opt in. I also hope that all members will vote for the bill. However, I repeat that even if they vote against it I hope that they opt in anyway because in my view they are still worth the salary.

On the retroactivity, the hon. member asked why we used that date. I answered that in a previous question. It goes back to January 1 because in past reports it went back to the date of the last election. I did not go quite that far back because it was only a few days prior to the beginning of the calendar year and it caused probably greater aggravation than it was worth. So I stopped after January 1.

This report is about the present parliament which started after the last election. That is why that date was used.

Finally, if members do not opt in, they remain opted out. It does not change after the next election.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer the several questions that have been asked. Arguably not all of them were on clause 1, but nonetheless I think they are of considerable interest to members of parliament.

On the issue that some hon. members raise as to what they believe to be an April 1 retroactivity clause in this, it is not in the report. Perhaps the mistake, if I can call it that, has occurred by some misreading that Bill C-12 will come into force retroactive to April 1. Maybe that is where it comes from.

In terms of why the date of January 1 was utilized for this bill, hon. members who were here last time, particularly those who were in House leadership positions and so on, will recall that the last bill took effect the date of the election prior. That is the way it was done before. We could have done exactly the same thing this time. That would have made it retroactive to November 27. It would have given retroactivity of one more month but would have essentially meant adjusting everybody's tax returns for last year. I felt it would be quite a burden, given the small change that it would make. In fact, the tradition would have meant to back it up further, not less than what it is now. That is the reason for that.

Again, I am using the last question first because I did not note and I am only going from memory. How does the bill apply to someone who does not opt in? I will preface my remarks by saying that I hope everyone does opt in, even those who feel obligated for whatever reason to vote against the bill, although I hope there are no one does.

I said that yesterday, I said in media reports and I repeat it again before my colleagues, because I think it is an important consideration. The new bill would not apply for people who did not opt in. In other words, they would remain at where they are now: the old cost of indexation formula, the old salary structure, the old tax free portion, the old accrual rate and everything that exists now.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-11, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 51 with the following:

“Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years;”

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's usual courtesy. They want me to be the first one to talk. We are now discussing the third group of amendments accepted by the Chair to improve Bill C-11. I am forced to admit that the government is convinced that Bill C-11 is nothing short of perfect.

However, this is not what we heard when we went to the big cities that receive immigrants and refugees. Ninety-nine per cent of those involved said that people are very concerned about how this act will be applied, even more so because there are no regulations associated with the act. Regulations will be drafted later on.

Fortunately, we managed to obtain that the bill would stipulate that the regulations will be tabled in the House and referred to a committee. It is a start. However, as for the amendment that the government should not adopt any regulations before obtaining an opinion, it seems that it has not been accepted since the governor in council will have the power to give effect to the regulations as soon as they are tabled.

There are three amendments in the last group, since one was not accepted. The first amendment, the one I am proposing, is designed to put pressure on the Liberal government.

We know that it takes a lot of time to deal with refugee cases. People have complained about it. Some refugee claimants have to wait for months and sometimes for years before they know where they stand.

I think the federal government is like most people: a bit of pressure helps. If no decision has been made on a claim 90 days after it has been filed, my amendment would require the federal government to assume the social and medical costs.

We know that Quebec is generous. Members need only look at the number of people who decide to live in Quebec when they claim refugee status. It is clear that the future mirrors the past.

However, on the one hand, we hear the minister say that the process should be more rapid and, on the other, the measures in the bill include, for example, the elimination of the appeal or a second refugee claim. We might also need a penalty of some kind. When a contractor does not abide by a contract, there are penalties. Essentially, that is what we are suggesting, a kind of penalty for the government.

I also tend to agree with the second amendment, which has been moved by my Progressive Conservative colleague. He proposes that part of the bill not apply and that a claim for refugee protection “be referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination, or specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination”.

I do not think it will be hard for me to convince hon. members that an individual's circumstances can change very rapidly. We have recently learned of the terrible shooting in Nepal, which wiped out the entire royal family. What is going to happen there now? We do not know, but a week ago things in Nepal were relatively quiet, according to our viewpoint from this side of the world. This is therefore a recognition that, in the real world, individuals' circumstances can change dramatically. The amendment by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party is aimed at acknowledging this.

Can we believe that the government is going to support this amendment? If it does what it usually does, I think it will say no. That is its specialty, moreover. If one is convinced that what one already has is total perfection, why say yes to any changes? Yet we are told that the purpose of the opposition in a debate is to improve bills. That is all very fine on paper, but in reality we have trouble proving it.

The last amendment I presented is what certain of my Liberal colleagues would term a cosmetic amendment. It is not really that, for it states as follows: b ) is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years;

The bill speaks of a term of imprisonment of at least ten years, but here we are speaking of a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years. Hon. members will grasp the difference. To us it is a very important one, as we do not, of course, want to keep major criminals in this country, yet we do believe that a minimum of justice needs to be applied, and that the terms must be clear. Amendment No. 12 is intended as a clarification to clause 112(3)( b ).

Clearly, Bill C-12 is going to be passed before the summer recess. It is also clear that summer in the House of Commons will begin before June 21. I think it a great shame that this is preventing us as parliamentarians and as individuals from taking decisions which could make the Immigration Act, which, let us remember, is already 25 years old, this being its first overhaul, a piece of legislation whose purpose would truly be to help hundreds of thousands of people, many thousands of families. Yet the government wants to pass the bill as is.

I find this disturbing. One wonders whether the government listened to the various stakeholders who shared their views with the committee. The people who appeared before us are competent individuals.

Those who testified included the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council for Refugees. We also heard from academics, researchers, and community groups, who are daily trying to meet the basic needs of people who have applied for refugee status, immigrants who are arriving in a new environment and who need help in getting properly settled in Canada and in Quebec.

It is as though the government had decided, from its lofty perch, that all these fine people knew nothing, had seen nothing, and were incapable of analyzing a situation or showing any logic.

If this bill is any indication, logic which is coupled with a sense of humanity must frustrate this government. We on the opposition benches believe strongly in logic, but we believe just as strongly in a sense of humanity, generosity and openness to the world at large.

It is not too late. If, by chance, the government were to pass the 11 amendments under consideration today, that would already be a step forward. Right now, I will not be able to take such a step. I must take my seat.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some remarks with respect to Bill C-12, the Judges Act, which deals specifically with the compensation and remuneration of judges.

We have had an opportunity to review some of the technical amendments. These amendments correct some of the language in the bill to ensure that there is parity, that the French and English versions correspond exactly.

Some of the minor amendments are very technical in nature, for example: clause 12, line 9, removes the language “plus $2,000”; clause 23, section 44.01(6), line 9, amends the English version with “takes effect on the day this section comes into force”.

The Conservative Party supports these amendments and any attempt to ensure consistency in legislation. These amendments would affect approximately 1,000 federally appointed judges. When it comes to the issue of whether it is deserved, I would make the case that judges deserve a fair compensation package given the stress that is involved, the important work, and the ongoing and increasing complexity of the law.

It is also necessary to note the importance of independence when it comes to our judiciary. Some individuals have talked about comparing judges' salaries to those of others in the public sector. There is some danger in doing that. Judges play a very unique role, as do other public servants. However, to try to somehow bring into play the underpayment of armed forces personnel, the need to give greater compensation to the policing community, those in the administrative justice community, leaves the wrong impression and tries to diminish the importance of what judges do. It is a very complex melee that is somewhat like the pay equity argument we have embarked on at various times in the Chamber.

The complexity of the law, the way in which the law has evolved and the interpretation that goes on daily in the courtrooms across the country, is something that is very onerous for judges. We had a comprehensive bill yesterday on organized crime. It is a step in the right direction, but it is legislation that would probably lead to a number of court challenges. That emphasizes the impact of changes in legislation. It also emphasizes the necessity for judges to deal with it and to put in place a proper judicial interpretation of the legislative initiatives that are taken here.

Fortunately, in Canada we have not seen any active attempts, at least that have been reported, to influence the judiciary by organized crime, but we must be vigilant. We must maintain the scales of justice and ensure that justice continues to be blind to outside influences on decisions made by the judiciary. We must ensure that it never happens. Part of this, I would suggest, comes from a fair compensation package.

We must ensure that our judiciary is independent, at arm's length and is feeling secure in their occupation. Thus, our party would support an attempt for a fair salary to preserve judicial independence. The Conservative Party has a long standing interest in the administration of justice and in ensuring that the judiciary are given support. Much of that support must come from financial stability.

The government accepted the recommendations that came from an independent Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The board made recommendations after broad consultations and examinations of all economic factors that should have been considered.

First reading of the bill occurred on February 21, 2001, and the Judges Act would implement the recommendations made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The legislation does not come out of thin blue air. It came about from recommendations of an independent commission. It also followed a 1997 supreme court decision that established new constitutional requirements for determining compensation, requiring every Canadian jurisdiction to have an independent, objective and effective commission. It takes away the normal allegations that we often see pertaining to interference and an unfair process.

The bill would also increase salaries and allowances, improve the judicial annuities scheme and put in place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges. It would make consequential amendments to the Judges Act and Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.

In recent years, because of the increasing complexity of the law, although there is no shortage of applicants, many judges weigh heavily the decision to leave private practice and enter into a new form of service to the law. That decision, I am sure, is one that many members can appreciate for many members of parliament have left behind other careers to come and serve their country in this Chamber. It is very much analogous to the decision that judges take when leaving their profession to serve a higher calling, to serve the courts and their country in the form of interpretation and administration of the law.

In recent years there has been growing concern for some decisions made by judges. However, I would suggest that this is not reason enough to deny that judges play a crucial role. Organized crime is on the rise in Canada. It was addressed somewhat yesterday with the introduction of a package of changes to our laws. New legislation, such as this one, goes some distance to addressing this very serious matter, but it is crucial that judges would now be required to interpret this law.

Like many other institutions, we have seen judges in recent years come under attack for their salaries and the compensation they receive when compared to the low end of compensation. It sometimes seems somewhat askew, but I would encourage people to keep in perspective the salaries that are received at the high end, that is, the salaries that are sometimes paid to athletes and movie stars, and the role they play and the return they offer to society. It is important to look at the entire scheme when one considers the pay scale.

The judicial compensation and benefits commission has been appointed to a four year mandate. It is required to consider all these factors in arriving at its recommendations. When one considers the private sector scale in the area of the law, many judges take a pay cut upon assuming a role on the bench. There are many lawyers who are making modest salaries, for example those who continue to strive to administer the law in crown attorney offices.

Legal aid is often not mentioned in these deliberations. There are many legal aid lawyers who later go on to make significant contributions in courtrooms in their current occupations. They also go on to serve the country nobly as members of the bench, as judges.

Arguably it is the best training ground. I have often compared it to a MASH unit when it comes to triage and the medical profession. Legal aid lawyers and crown attorneys who are working in provincial and supreme courts across the country go on to become fantastic judges. I have borne witness to that myself. I had the opportunity to work with some individuals who later were elevated to the bench.

Referring back to the commission, its recommendations were based on research comparing judges' salaries to lawyers' salaries in the private sector and to performance bonuses of senior federal deputy ministers. It looked at the importance of salary and benefits in attracting the best of the best, the outstanding candidates that we require to administer the law.

The Judges Act would officially establish the judicial compensation and benefits commission, requiring the commission to convene every four years and report its recommendations within nine months. There is a very strict mandate and timeframe within which it must review the adequacy of judicial compensation. The commission would also consider the economic conditions at the time, the cost of living, overall economic position of federal judges, the financial security of the judiciary to ensure judicial independence, and the need to attract the best of the best.

Recommendations are not binding but the supreme court in its decisions requires the government to publicly justify any decision and acceptance of recommendations. These salary changes have already been put on the record. They range in the area of $200,000 for the Chief Justice of Canada, the puisne judges, and various federal court judges across the country.

The increasing complex legal malaise that faces judges and lawyers is something that we must consider when weighing the question of compensation. There has been quite a lengthy commentary about the need to compensate members of the RCMP, members of our armed forces and other public servants.

It is not to deny in any way that those salaries must be reviewed and elevated as well. It is not to suggest that if we compensate judges fairly we should not be focusing attention on these areas as well, or to deny that there are other very important pieces of legislation in the legal field that we should be examining.

Other members have mentioned the need to bring forward a youth criminal justice act and the important fact that after seven years it has not happened. There is also a need to examine a plethora of other legislative initiatives. We have seen the government's failings and shortcomings when it comes to addressing issues of the day.

Our party supports the concept that we must move on a number of areas in the near future. It is not to suggest that the bill should be given any great priority. It is the government's decision to set the priorities in terms of the legislative timetable. It is in everyone's interest to move the legislation before us forward and to get on to other important issues of the day. When that happens it would allow some of these other fields to be considered. When the legislation receives passage we can then look at other areas in terms of compensation.

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

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

Before I begin my remarks I would like to congratulate the chief opposition justice critic, the hon. member for Provencher, who has made excellent comments and explained very eloquently the official opposition's position on the Judges Act.

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. It would 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.

Bill C-12 makes other consequential amendments to the Judges Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The commission is appointed for a four year term and mandated to consider the compensation and benefits of judges and to make recommendations to government.

The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates the three persons. One is nominated by the judiciary, one by the Minister of Justice and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by the first two members.

The government accepted the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2% retroactive to April 1, 2000. The salary increase will cost approximately $19 million. The 42 page bill contains nothing but amendments, replacements or additions to previous clauses changing the salaries of 1,013 federally appointed judges. There are also amendments to compensation benefits, early and special retirement provisions, pro-rated annuities, et cetera.

The judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%. It had said the federal government must compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. However federal representatives told a hearing into judges' salaries earlier this year that there was no shortage of candidates for the bench, pointing out that there had been 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 received another 4.1%. The judges received more than 8.2% in increases over two years. Judges' salaries are also indexed so they receive annual cost of living increases. While we have no position on judges' salaries and pensions we favour generally that they be comparable to those in the private sector.

In the 35th parliament the government introduced two bills, Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, amending the Judges Act. In the 36th parliament there was Bill C-37. All these bills, including Bill C-12 which we are debating today, have been said to be administrative in nature. Four times the Liberal government has come forward with amendments to the Judges Act.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the pay increase for federally appointed judges is higher than the increase the federal government is prepared to grant much lower paid public 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.

While we do not dispute the salaries of appointed judges and others, they should generally be in line with the private sector. It is apparent that staff in the lower echelons of our justice system is being ignored. Public servants should get salary increases in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner. The government has awarded pay raises and bonuses to judges and senior bureaucrats while frontline police officers and lower level public servants receive little or nothing.

On March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They received a second increment of 1% on April 1, 1998, and an additional 0.7% increase on October 1, 1998. RCMP officers had their wages frozen for five years.

The official opposition will review and closely scrutinize the provisions of Bill C-12, including the annuities scheme.

It seems the government has tailor made legislation to fit certain individuals and situations. Legislation tailor made to fit an individual would compromise the impartiality of our judiciary. The changes proposed to the Judges Act would allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge after the death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect both or two survivor's benefits upon the death of his second spouse. One could only guess why the government would contemplate such a rare and highly unlikely situation. We will be investigating that and we will be vigilant while debating the bill.

We propose an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would safeguard 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.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 in the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal government yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The failure of the current bill to introduce changes to the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain part of the patronage system.

However the Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process in the judiciary overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee to 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 such matters. At the moment there is no input from the provinces in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Section 69 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy, which is always dictated by the grassroots members, 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.

In conclusion, both Liberal justice ministers since 1993 have failed to introduce a victims' bill of rights, address important issues pertaining to drinking and driving or even pass a young offenders act. Instead they occupy the justice committee with administrative matters at the expense of more important issues. The country is experiencing a backlog in the courts and criminal trials are being put on hold, yet the government tinkers with the salaries of judges.

I regret that judges are somehow caught up in the legislation. We acknowledge that judges are very hard working and want to contribute to making our judicial system fairer and faster as well as to making Canada a better country. We are talking about Liberal government mismanagement.

The government's unfair treatment of Canadians who work or are otherwise involved in the criminal justice system knows no boundaries. Its inequitable treatment of Canadian workers extends all the way to the federal court benches. It does not treat the victims of crime fairly, and today we are debating a bill that does not even treat judges fairly.

The bill does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system. My colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill unless it is amended.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to lead off the debate on the third reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

The bill would make certain amendments to the Judges Act that would ensure appropriate and fair compensation for the federally appointed judiciary in Canada. It is intended to implement the commitments made by the government in its response to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.

I would like to emphasize that the chair of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, Mr. Richard Drouin, who appeared as a witness before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, expressed his satisfaction with the government's decision to implement most of the recommendations enumerated in the commission's report.

The strength of Canada's judiciary is a key factor in our prosperity and health as a nation. As the guardians of the constitutional right of Canadians to have peace, order and good government, judges form an important pillar in our democratic society.

An independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law. Judges must be free from undue influence of any kind, be it from those with money or power. There is a growing recognition that stability, human security and the rule of law are necessary preconditions to economic growth, and there is a growing appreciation that an independent judiciary with the proper resources is the first step down this path.

The Government of Canada is committed to the principle of judicial independence, as it is a fundamental precondition to ensuring the vitality of the rule of law in our democratic system of government. The three constitutionally required elements of judicial independence are security of tenure, independence of administration of matters relating to the judicial function, and financial security. It is in direct support of the principle of judicial independence that section 100 of the constitution has conferred on parliament the important task of establishing financial security of a federally appointed judiciary.

I am very happy to report that during the second reading debate the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party indicated their support for Bill C-12.

The Canadian Bar Association has also expressed its support for Bill C-12. In fact, in its written submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Canadian Bar Association expressed the view that Bill C-12 not only enhances judicial independence in promoting financial security for members of the judiciary but also helps to attract high quality candidates to the judiciary.

I would ask all members of the House for their support. This bill would ensure that our judges are compensated fairly and appropriately in order to maintain the quality and independence of Canada's judiciary.

I want to make reference to the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, who has proposed an amendment for Bill C-12. His proposed amendment to Bill C-12 would require that the transcripts of testimony heard before the Supreme Court of Canada be made more accessible to the public.

More specifically, the proposed amendment, an addition to section 75 of the Judges Act, would require the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that testimony heard before the court in open session be recorded in electronic format and made accessible to the public in the same manner as the Debates of parliament.

With the greatest of respect for the member, we cannot accept this proposed amendment as it is not within the scope of Bill C-12, nor is the Judges Act the appropriate place for such an amendment.

Any matter relating to procedure before the Supreme Court of Canada would fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada Act. Section 75 of the Judges Act applies solely to administrative matters relating to the judiciary.

Further, as members know, Bill C-12 would make amendments to the Judges Act that would ensure appropriate and fair compensation for the federally appointed judiciary. It is intended to implement the commitments made by the government in its response to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.

I thank the hon. members of the House for their attention today and ask for their support in the passage of Bill C-12.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer what is undoubtedly the most thoughtful question asked thus far today.

This afternoon we will continue with Bill C-22, the Income Tax Act amendments proposed by the very excellent Minister of Finance. Then we will deal with Bill C-4, the sustainable development foundation legislation. Tomorrow we will do report stage and third reading, hopefully, of Bill C-12, the Judges Act.

On Monday, April 23, we shall call Bill C-13, the GST technical amendments. We will then follow this with the organized crime bill, introduced earlier today.

Tuesday, April 24, will be an allotted day at which time members could raise such issues as softwood lumber, as they perhaps should have last Tuesday when it was an opposition day and other less significant issues were raised.

On Wednesday, April 25, we will begin with third reading of Bill C-9, the Canada Elections Act legislation.

Committees Of The House

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 26, 2001, the committee has considered Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence, and reports the bill with amendments.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Given the motion that has just passed and the unanimous consent, I would like to clarify the business of the House because it has been changed. In any case, there have been consultations about future business which I would like to share it with the House.

After completing the debate on Bill C-2 at report stage, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-8, the financial institutions bill. After this we will call Bill C-18, the equalization bill; Bill C-17, the innovation foundation; and Bill C-22, the income tax bill, in that order.

Tomorrow shall be an allotted day, as already announced.

Wednesday shall be the day allocated for third reading of Bill C-2. I understand there will be some co-operation to ensure that all parties have a spokesperson on Wednesday. I intend to do my part on this side of the House in that regard.

On Thursday we shall resume the list from today, adding at the end Bill C-9, the elections bill. We shall continue the list on Friday, adding Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue consideration of Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill. We will then return to the second reading of Bill C-18, the equalization bill. That will be followed by Bill C-17 respecting the innovation foundation.

On Friday we will consider third reading of Bill C-8, the financial institution, and if necessary we will return to Bill C-18.

On Monday, we will return to Bill C-2. If it is completed at report stage, we will return to Bill C-18, C-17 or C-22 on the Income Tax Act, depending on which of these bills requires further consideration.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and I believe it is the Canadian Alliance's turn. On Wednesday, we will return to Bill C-2. We will also try to complete third reading of Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendments, and Bill C-9, the elections bill. If we have the time, I will also suggest completing Bill C-4, respecting the Sustainable Development Foundation, before adjourning for Easter.

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.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, shortly after the federal election, I was going through an Ottawa Citizen article which mentioned that Canadian judges would be receiving a $19 million pay raise that would boost their income 11.2% on average to more than $205,000.

The 11.2% awarded on December 13, 2000, was according to that news article quoting a justice department lawyer a compromise between the 26.3% that the judges were asking for and the demands of taxpayers to keep costs down. Government justice lawyer Judith Bellis had taken the view that the 11.2% was in the range of reasonable.

Bill C-12, the subject of today's debate, enacts that 11.2% pay raise, thereby raising the salaries of approximately 1,013 federally appointed judges who sit on provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, as well as the tax courts and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The increase, retroactive to April 1, 2000, will raise the base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the chief justices in those courts will rise to $217,000 from $196,500. The same rates will also apply to federal court judges.

The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada will remain the highest paid. The eight regular judges will see an increase to $235,700 from $213,000, while Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's salary will jump to $254,000 from $230,200.

It is important to note that while the government considers this raise reasonable, the official opposition views it as extremely generous considering senior public servants have received raises of no more than 5.7%. As well, the pay of public servants is not indexed, while the pay and salaries of judges are. We on this side of the House, therefore, are opposed to Bill C-12.

For the information of other new members of the House, I would like to point out this is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to amend the Judges Act. In fact, this is the fourth time the Liberals have come forward and made changes to the act.

Originally in 1996, Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, both if I may paraphrase a former member of the House, were described as being nebulous, inconsequential pieces of legislation with little significance to Canadians who were genuinely concerned about their safety, as opposed to the simple administrative matters that these bills brought forward.

In April 1998 Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the judicial compensation and benefits commission. The compensation commission was set up as an independent advisory body after the supreme court ruled that judges' salaries were constitutionally protected and the previous system of setting pay was inadequate.

Bill C-37, increasing judges' salaries retroactively, provided them with an 8.3% pay increase over those two years. Translated into dollars, this meant an average $13,000 pay increase for federal judges with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over $172,000.

I do not know of any other federal public servant, or any hard-working Canadian citizen, who received a $13,000 pay increase in 1998. While the Liberal government and the Tories were voting in favour of the huge pay increase, Canadians' incomes were on a steady decline.

Members on this side of the House, with the exception of the Progressive Conservative Party, opposed the bill. Members on the other side of the House wrongfully insisted that our opposition to the bill was “the ravings of ill-informed and ill-prepared men of parliament who contributed to the ill-repute of the justice system”. The truth is that my party holds the judiciary in high esteem. We were opposed to Bill C-37 and we are opposed to Bill C-12, based on the fact that other senior public servants, lower level public employees and other Canadian workers had not and will not be awarded such generous increases.

In the same year that federal judges were being awarded these huge salary increases, comparatively Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, who had had their salaries and wages frozen for five years, were granted an increase of 2% in March 1998, retroactive to January. A second pay increase was given to them in April 1998 and toward the end of that year they received another three-quarter per cent increase. Over the five years that they had been frozen, and in the next year of 1998, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police saw an increase of three and three-quarter per cent. They are on the front lines putting their lives in jeopardy. The average three year constable received less than $2,000 over those years.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the former member of Crowfoot put forward an amendment to Bill C-37 that was supported and passed in the House during report stage. That amendment ensured that every four years the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had the opportunity to review the report of the commission on judges' salaries and benefits. The task would not be left solely to the Minister of Justice as was originally contemplated by the Liberal government.

It would be negligent of me if I also did not recognize the thorough job the Senate did in reviewing Bill C-37, the pre-emptive bill to Bill C-12, and the substantive amendments that it brought forward at the upper house.

In particular, I would like to single out the efforts of Senator Anne Cools for her diligent efforts in revealing the many inadequacies of Bill C-37. Senator Cools apparently exposed the fact that Bill C-37 would effectively allow judges to set their own wages, salaries and benefits and in so doing would set up the possibility of there being a show down between parliament and the judiciary. It would allow judges to appeal parliament's decision regarding a recommendation of the salary increase put forward in the courts. Essentially the judges would have the final say over whether or not parliamentarians were giving them a sufficient raise.

Although former judicial pay commissioner David Scott said it was unlikely that judges would ever be setting their own salaries, he would not rule out the possibility of the judiciary challenging parliament's response to the commission's recommendations for a pay increase or for reducing pay.

The judiciary would have to prove, however, in a court that the refusal to increase salaries or a decision to lower them was motivated by a wish to diminish the independence of judges. Mr. Scott said that even if the judges won in such a case, the court could only declare parliament's motion on the issue void and that would result in a stalemate. As pointed out by the Liberal senator, this would “deprive Canadians of their undoubted constitutional right to parliament's control over the public purse in respect to the judiciary”.

Clearly, the control of the public purse rests with the elected members of parliament and not with the unelected members of the judiciary.

Section 100 of the 1867, Constitution Act, states in part that the salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada. Clause 6 of Bill C-37 potentially abolished parliament's role in fixing judges' salaries.

Obviously we must question why the Minister of Justice at that time was so willing to bestow such potentially wielding powers on the judiciary through Bill C-37. One can only surmise, and again I use the words of Senator Cools when she said:

The real intent (of Bill C-37) is to remove parliament from the process.... There is a problem in that certain particular judges seem to crave a closeness to certain individuals in the Department of Justice and are trying to cling, closer and closer, to the executive rather than to parliament.

She went on to say to the Senate:

In other words, honourable senators, what is happening here is that 200 years of history are being turned on their head, and we are being told in this judgment that, quite frankly, judges prefer their fate to be in the hands of the executive rather than in the hands of parliament. It is a most curious and interesting subject matter.

It is more than curious and interesting, it is fearful.

Bill C-37, which was also an act to amend the Judges Act as it was originally drafted by the Department of Justice, had another problem. It created a legal right for a judge to have two spouses. The two spouses clause was meant to deal with circumstances in which a married judge, who was separated from his or her wife or husband and was living common law with another person, died. It would have allowed a judge to have both spouses, married and common law, to be eligible for the lucrative pension. In addition, the common law spouse would collect a one time payout of one-sixth of the judge's annual salary at the time of his or her passing.

Former supreme court Justice William Estey said that this particular section of Bill C-37 would “give his former colleagues on the bench the right to a kind of homemade harem. It would effectively create two separate sets of family law, one for the judges and one for everyone else”.

During debate on this legislation it was noted that the situations such as the contemplated one in Bill C-37 were rare. Therefore, questions arose as to why such a clause was put into Bill C-37. Critics suggested that this particular clause was tailor made for Chief Justice LeSage who was separated from his wife and had resided for about a year with Judge Lang. If Chief Justice LeSage were to die, the new amendment would have allowed both Judge Lang and Mrs. LeSage to qualify as his surviving spouse and share his pension.

As pointed out by Senator Cools during the debate, Bill C-37 appeared tailor fit to particular individuals. Senator Cools said “We have a situation in this country where individuals have access to the legislative writing machine”. Senator Cools said that it was very bothersome. Again, that is more than bothersome. That is a huge concern.

I understand that Bill C-37 was not the first time that the government has tailor made legislation to amend the Judges Act. Bill C-42, as mentioned earlier, also amended the Judges Act. It changed the pension scheme and working conditions of the federally appointed judiciary. In particular, it set out the terms on which Canadian judges could participate in international activities.

Although it was never explicitly admitted by the House or by the government, it was no secret that these amendments to the Judges Act arose due to the 1996 appointment of then Madam Justice Louise Arbour to the United Nations as a prosecutor for its special war crimes division.

Apparently opposition members naively agreed in June of that year, just before the House recessed for the summer, without any debate in the House, without any debate at committee, to pass Bill C-42 after being assured by the former justice minister that it was a simple innocuous housekeeping bill. It was not until the amended bill was returned from the Senate and the testimony of witnesses that appeared before the Senate committee were made known that my colleagues realized that Bill C-42, as claimed by legal experts, had “the appearance of transgressing the vital principle of judicial impartiality”, the very principle that our Minister of Justice has just spoken on.

In particular, I refer to the testimony of Professor Morton:

The government is concerned, as well it should be, with the current status of Justice Arbour and the implications of her status for those responsible at justice. The government seems to hope that by passing Bill C-42 as quickly as possible it can retroactively legitimate apparent indiscretions by Justice Arbour and possibly others—

It would appear that Justice Arbour agreed to the appointment before it had been approved by the Minister of Justice (or any other officials), thereby forcing the minister to react to a fait accompli. Furthermore, it then appears that the minister, rather than recommending to Justice Arbour that she postpone her new activities (at the Hague) pending necessary amendments to the Judges Act, sought to temporarily legitimate her actions by an order in council; and then (because the order in council is conceded to be insufficient) sought to retroactively legitimate Justice Arbour's new employment with general amendments to the Judges Act, Bill C-42, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament.

Professor Morton added:

No doubt some will say that this is nit-picking. My response is simple. If the justice minister and appeal court judges cannot be expected to comply with the letter of the law, then who can?...Indeed within the last month the justice minister himself pronounced on the meaning and the importance of the rule of the law. The rule of the law is “a living” principle that is fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance it means that everyone in our society, including ministers of government, premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike, is governed by the same law of the land.

While one section of Bill C-42 at that point in time appeared tailor made for Arbour, another section of that very same bill was apparently designed for the then chief justice of the supreme court in that it offered an unprecedented pension benefit to the chief justice and his wife at the very time when the top court was considering the most politically sensitive case of the decade, perhaps of confederation, whether Quebec had a constitutional right to secede from Canada.

The proposed changes did away with the prohibition on judicial double-dipping. Previously a retired judge received a pension equal to two-thirds of his annual salary; on average, about $104,000. When he died, his spouse collected a survivor's pension worth one-third of his salary or $52,000, provided that she was not a retired judge.

Under the new law retired judge spouses will collect both, thus receiving a total pension equivalent to their salary before retirement. The most obvious beneficiary of the change was Chief Justice Lamer and his wife, Federal Court of Canada Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer.

With regard to this section of Bill C-42, Professor Morton said:

Without imputing any illicit motive to anyone involved—the timing of this proposed change could not be worse.

Morton also said that sceptics would claim:

It is unacceptable that a chief justice who is about to benefit from the minister's proposed pension policy change now sits in judgment of the minister's Quebec reference—the most politically sensitive constitutional case of the decade.

In closing, I would assure the House and Canadians in general that the official opposition will closely scrutinize Bill C-12. In particular, we will review the provision of the bill that changes the annuities scheme.

I am not a financial expert. I am not an expert on annuities or the pay schedules that are put forward in the bill. Without the advantage of expert advice at this stage, what appears to happen is that the changes being made to the Judges Act allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge after the death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect both or two survivor benefits upon the death of the second spouse. One could only guess why the government is contemplating such a rare and highly unlikely situation.

As we have already mentioned, four times the Liberal government has come to make amendments to the Judges Act. 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 is not tailor made to any individuals. If it were, it would definitely compromise the impartiality of our judiciary.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence. I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the Canadian Alliance justice critic from Provencher.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin second reading debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act.

The bill would make certain amendments to the Judges Act to ensure appropriate compensation for the federally appointed judiciary in Canada. It is intended to implement the commitments made by the government in its response to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.

The strength of Canada's judiciary is a key factor in our prosperity and health as a nation. As the guardians of the constitutional right of Canadians to have peace, order and good government, judges form an important pillar in our democratic society.

As Peter Russell, a respected constitutional expert, has observed, following John Locke some two centuries before him:

If government is to be based on the rational consent of human beings, adjudication by impartial and independent judges must be regarded as an inherent requirement of political society.

An independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law. Judges must be free from undue influence of any kind, be it from those with money or power. There is a growing recognition that stability, human security and the rule of law are necessary to economic growth. There is a growing appreciation that an independent judiciary with the proper resources is the first step down this path.

Canadians are envied around the world for the quality, commitment and independence of our judiciary. Increasingly our court system and our judges are looked to as models of integrity and impartiality by developing democratic nations as they strive to implement fair and effective systems of their own.

We need only open the papers or listen to the international news to be reminded of the importance of a courageous, independent and impartial judiciary in ensuring the basic elements of a free and civil society. Like so many of the rights and advantages enjoyed by all Canadians, the importance of an independent judiciary cannot be underestimated or taken for granted. Without it our country would be a very different place.

It is with real pride that I note that Canada's experience and expertise has been sought in the development of judicial and court systems in such diverse countries and regions as the former Soviet Union, including the Ukraine and Kosovo, as well as South Africa and China.

In fact, during a recent visit to China the Prime Minister commented on the five year co-operation project on the training of judges which has been successfully undertaken by our two nations. Canada's contribution toward the training of the Chinese judiciary on issues such as ethics and independence of the judiciary will be integrated into ongoing judicial teaching.

The importance of an independent judiciary was succinctly captured by our Prime Minister when he stated:

For no matter how well the laws are written, there can be no justice without a fair trial overseen by a competent, independent, impartial and effective judiciary. A judiciary that applies the law equally for all citizens, regardless of gender, social status, religious belief, or political opinion.

The Government of Canada is committed to the principle of judicial independence as it is a fundamental precondition to ensuring the vitality of the rule of law in our democratic system of government.

The three constitutionally required elements of judicial independence are security of tenure, independence of administration of matters relating to the judicial function and financial security. In his seminal study on judicial independence and accountability, Professor Martin Friedland observed:

If a judge's salary is dependent on the whim of the government, the judge will not have the independence we desire in our judiciary. If salaries could be arbitrarily raised or lowered in individual cases, or even collectively, the government would have a strong measure of control over the judiciary.

It is in direct support of the principle of judicial independence that section 100 of the Constitution has conferred on parliament the important task of establishing financial security of the federally appointed judiciary. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians, all of us, to ensure that our judges are compensated fairly and appropriately in order to maintain the quality and independence of our benches.

In 1981 parliament established an independent judicial compensation and benefits commission to assist in its task under section 100 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of Canada explained the purpose of the independent commission process in the following words:

—financial security for the courts, as an institution, has three components which all flow from the constitutional imperative that, to the extent possible, the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government be depoliticized—this imperative demands that the courts both be free and appear to be free from political interference through economic manipulation by the other branches of government, and that they not become entangled in the politics of remuneration from the public purse.

In 1998 parliament amended the Judges Act in order to further enhance the commission's independence, objectivity and overall effectiveness in support of the principle of judicial independence.

The new commission process builds on the strength of the former commission. The independence of the new commission has been enhanced through the nomination process and the tenure of its members. In terms of their selection the judiciary and the government each nominated one member of the commission. Those two members nominated a third member to served as chair of the commission.

The commission is required to conduct an inquiry every four years and to make recommendations as to the adequacy of judicial compensation. Parliament further reinforced the commission's objectivity by establishing criteria which guide the assessment of what constitutes adequate judicial salaries, benefits and allowances.

These objective criteria include: the prevailing economic conditions in Canada, including the cost of living and the overall economic and financial position of the federal government; the role of financial security of the judiciary in ensuring judicial independence; the need to attract outstanding candidates to the judiciary; and any other objective criteria that the commission considers relevant.

The care with which the commission undertook its preparations and deliberations is evident in the quality and thoroughness of its report. While the government may not share all the commission's conclusions, it is clear that the commission made a great effort to offer reasons that are carefully explained and supported by evidence to the extent that evidence was available. I recommend that all members take the opportunity to read both the commission report and the government's response to it.

It must be remembered that the commission's recommendations are not binding. It is on parliament that the constitution has conferred the exclusive authority and responsibility for establishing judicial compensation. However, where parliament decides to reject or modify the commission's recommendations, it is legally and constitutionally required to explain publicly a reasonable justification for this decision.

In conclusion, Canada is fortunate to have a judiciary renowned internationally for its competence, commitment, independence and impartiality.

We are confident that all members will appreciate the particular importance of this first formal response to the new commission process in ensuring public confidence in the legitimacy of this process.

Through Bill C-12 the government is proposing implementation of most of the recommendations of the judicial compensation and benefits commission, including proposed salary increases and some modest improvements to pensions and allowances. In light of all the factors considered by this independent commission, including trends in both the public and the private sectors, the government is of the view that the proposals in Bill C-12 are within the range of what is reasonable and adequate to meet the constitutional principle of financial security.

That said, the government is not prepared to implement all the commission's recommendations. Specifically we will defer a proposal that would increase numbers of supernumerary or part time judges pending the outcome of important consultations with my colleagues in the provinces and the territories.

In addition, the government has not accepted the commission's recommendation with respect to legal fees. In our view the commission's proposal does not establish reasonable limits to these expenditures. Instead we are proposing a statutory formula designed to provide for a reasonable contribution to the costs of the participation of the judiciary while at the same time limit their scope.

In conclusion, Canada is fortunate to have a judiciary renowned internationally for its competence, commitment, independence and impartiality.

The constitution has entrusted parliament with a duty to fix judicial salaries, pensions and allowances at a level sufficient to support judicial independence. We will act to fulfil our obligation. Again, as the Prime Minister noted during his visit to China:

No one can be above the law. And no one can be forgotten by the law or denied its protection. And to be implied impartially, the rule of law means that there should be a clear separation of the prosecutor from the person who will ultimately pass judgment.

It is precisely to safeguard the principle of judicial independence, reflected in this statement, that the government has brought forward Bill C-12. I commend it to parliament for consideration.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, immediately after this statement I will be seeking consent of the House to revert to introduction of bills for the purpose of introducing a bill on shipping conferences. I discussed it with other House leaders on Tuesday.

This afternoon we will continue with the allotted day. Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-13, the GST technical amendments.

On return from the break, we will debate the Canada Shipping Act amendments to be introduced later this afternoon if the House gives its consent. This would be followed by Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendments.

I am consulting widely with a view to finding a suitable time in the immediate future to complete second reading of Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. Hopefully that will get done very quickly.

Tuesday, March 13, and Thursday, March 15, shall be allotted days.

As I said, although we are still negotiating, my intention at this point would be on the March 16 to commence the debate on Bill C-4, the sustainable development foundation bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the opposition will co-operate to ensure that we pass all the meaningful legislation that we have. I will take the comments of the opposition House leader as representation to his own colleagues to do just that.

This afternoon we will debate second reading of Bill C-9, the administrative amendments to the Canada Elections Act brought by a decision of the courts.

On Friday it is my intention, following Bill C-9, to debate Bill S-2 respecting marine liability.

On Monday we would like to commence consideration of the very important and excellent piece of legislation Bill C-11, the immigration bill. This would be followed by Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendments and Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation which is equally important.

Thursday, March 1, shall be an allotted day.

I am presently discussing with counterparts in other parties a proposal to reaffirm the powers of the Speaker to select for debate amendments at report stage in a manner that is fair to members and in the manner that it was intended when that procedure was adopted. Subject to consultation, I hope to be able to ask the House to consider this proposition some time next week, possibly early next week.

Judges Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another Act in consequence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)