Bill C-17 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts in relation to courts

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Judges Act to implement the federal government’s response to the report of the most recent Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salaries and benefits of federally appointed judges. Included is a mechanism to divide judicial annuities upon breakdown of the conjugal relationship.
Part 2 makes certain amendments to the Federal Courts Act and a number of technical amendments to other Acts in relation to courts.

Judges Act

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the member for Ottawa South, but being a veteran in dealing with the member for Nepean—Carleton, I think I can manage.

Briefly put, Bill C-9 concerning conditional sentencing was saved by the Liberal Party on this side, including crimes that deal with gang violence. Bill C-10 involving mandatory minimums was in fact an extension of a Liberal program first instituting mandatory minimums in 1995. Finally, the three strikes legislation is based on a Republican model, sadly, and the Republicans went down to defeat. We can only wish the same for the members on the other side. This legislation is clearly unconstitutional.

That brings me back to the substance of this bill, which is constitutionality, judicial independence and judicial integrity. Where are the members on the other side? Where was the Minister of Justice at committee yesterday, for instance, to answer this very simple question, “Do you have respect for Canada's judiciary?” Conservatives are not answering the questions the way they should be answered, questions about whether they believe in their country, whether they love Canada, and many other things, and whether they believe in an independent judiciary.

The answer from members on this side to all of those questions is yes, we do.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, because I thought his remarks were very helpful in illustrating for Canadians the merits of this bill.

If I may, I would like to go back to a few points he made that I thought were really telling in terms of his views of how this bill should be treated in Parliament, and also to some of the remarks he made around aspects of partisanship in particular.

I recall from back then that the remarks of the then justice critic and now Minister of Justice were particularly spurious in regard to the appointments process for judges. In fact, I sat with him on a subcommittee at justice for some six months, and during that time his comments were probably classifiable as irrational.

I am trying to get a sense now from my colleague, the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. Could he give us some understanding of what he has been seeing in the past 10 months from Canada's new government in terms of its partisanship and appointments process?

I would like to point out just one thing to him. Several months ago, the Minister of Justice appointed Bruce McDonald, a very well known Conservative fundraiser and organizer, as a federal judge. He donated over $11,000 to the Reform, Alliance and Conservative Parties for 12 straight years. I am having a hard time reconciling this with the--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member, whose time is running out, is also failing to be topical in his remarks. He complained that I was talking about the criminal justice system and now he has gone off to talk about individuals who happen to have given donations to political parties. This has nothing to do with the legislation. He is way off topic. He should get back on topic and he might take the opportunity to explain his soft on crime positions.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, because of the rule of 80 the issue of judicial vacancies does arise in this debate. The fact that Bill C-51 was not copied essentially and Bill C-17 omits to talk about unified family court nominations, the issue of judicial vacancies and the administration of justice, or the delivery of justice, is very pertinent. I thank the member for Ottawa South for his question.

We believe in impartiality with respect to the delivery of justice. We know across the country that there are committees in each province made up usually of chief justices, members of the bar et cetera, who recommend names to an attorney general to make recommendations to cabinet. That is the way it has been and it has served us quite well.

The dog and pony show that the other side would like to see is to have hearings and probably elections for most judges. We stand against that.

Last night our neighbours to the south, who we speak very fondly of despite the rhetoric of the other side, chose wisely a government that rejects its republican principles in general. I do not think we want seep toward republican type principles with respect to the appointments of judges. I will however refrain from talking about specific cases because it would belie what I said before, that we cannot talk about specific cases once elevated to the bench. These people are judges.

What is disturbing is the evidence from the Minister of Justice yesterday, and the parliamentary secretary from Albert County will know, that it is wrong to infiltrate provincial committees across the country that make recommendations regarding judges. That is happening and that is a sad fact.

The infiltration and interference with the independent nomination process is taking place in the country. It is a shame and the parliamentary secretary for justice, as a proud New Brunswicker, should be ashamed of this intrusion into the democratic process.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his mention and I am definitely proud to be representing Albert County and proud to be representing my constituents of Fundy Royal.

Is there anything he can do to encourage the Liberal dominated Senate to pass the federal accountability act, so that we can bring and restore some sense of transparency to the appointments process, and so that we can have a director of public prosecutions, and the member is aware of how important that is, so--

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope you will continue to enforce the relevance provision.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I think the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was talking about the appointments process although it was under the guise of a different bill. The hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe was talking about appointments in his speech, so I think it is a fair question to allow. Does the hon. parliamentary secretary need to finish his question?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our government has in every way followed our constitutional obligations and our obligations to the taxpayers by putting forward a very reasonable proposal. I am very pleased that we followed those constitutional obligations. I would certainly encourage the member to support this legislation, but also, in the area of transparency and accountability, urge him to use all of his influence as the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe to get that federal accountability act passed.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that I will use every influence I have in this place to assure that true accountability is actioned upon this House and the Canadian public. The member will know, interestingly speaking of constitutionality and legal issues, that his government with Bill C-2 tried to introduce provisions that were found to be unconstitutional which would have meant opening up the Constitution with respect to the independence of Parliament.

The Library of Parliament submitted a brief. It was found that the Minister of Justice and presumably the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada did not do their research and they would have posited a law that included unconstitutional provisions. It is shameful. I know we can do better.

I look forward to the cooperation of the hon. member for Fundy Royal and I look forward to being didactic in showing him that unconstitutional laws should not be presented by attorneys general or parliamentary secretaries.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hochelaga has two minutes before the division bells ring.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unless there is consent to call it 5:30 p.m.—

[An hon. member]

No.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No? If the House really wants to hear me, Mr. Speaker, I will proceed. I will do anything to please the Conservatives.

Bill C-17 proposes an increase in the salaries of the judiciary of 7.25%, whereas a commission appointed in 2003 recommended an increase of 10.8%.

There are three extremely important principles concerning the judiciary: judges must be independent, that is to say free from any partisan interference; judges must be well paid to avoid any inclination to corruption where they might be tempted to do anything other than their duties as magistrates; and judges must be irremovable, except for misconduct, in which case a mechanism for dismissal involving both houses is provided. From 1999 to 2003, judges and members of Parliament were linked by a common mechanism for salary adjustment.

The problem with this bill, is that the previous Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, abandoned that principle and established a very unfortunate precedent. That is repeated in this bill, so much so that if the bill were adopted, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would have a higher salary than the Prime Minister. With all due respect for the judiciary, there is a principle of democratic legitimacy which holds that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, deserving as she might be, should never have a higher salary than the Prime Minister.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the member for Hochelaga but his time has expired.

The House resumed from November 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts in relation to courts, be read the third time and passed.