Debates of March 30th, 1998

Petitions

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition bearing 567 signatures from residents of Saskatchewan has to do with firearms control and specifically with Bill C-68 which the petitioners say would be a major unnecessary burden on law enforcement officers.

The petitioners further state that the search and seizure provisions of the bill would constitute a breach of traditional civil liberties and an affront to law-abiding Canadians.

Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated regulations with respect to firearms or ammunition and to pass new legislation designed to severely penalize the criminal use of any weapons.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a petition signed by thousands of residents of my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The petitioners indicate that incidents of violent crime, particularly among youth, are becoming more frequent, that the incidents of violent crime cause harm to the public and that there should be fewer such incidents.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to repeal the Young Offenders Act and to replace it with an act that will provide penalties for violent crime committed by young people and which will act as a deterrent to such actions and provide safety and security to the general public as well.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition to the House concerning the MAI.

The petitioners indicate that the most recent draft of the MAI, if adopted, will have a major impact on many important areas of Canadian life, including environmental protection, employment, wage levels, social programs and culture. They also note that little information on the MAI has been provided by the government and that little public discussion about the treaty has yet taken place.

They also request that parliament impose a moratorium on the ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians will have an opportunity to express their opinions on the MAI.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition containing the names of some 285 citizens who are calling on parliament to remove the goods and services tax from all books, magazines and newspapers.

The petitioners cite the taxing of reading material as being not only unfair and wrong, but also as imposing an impediment to the promotion of literacy in Canada.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, because of its extreme importance.

As with all bills relating to justice, I am going to try to examine it as in as cool and level-headed a manner as possible, and I will make a particular effort to avoid descending into the demagoguery I heard this morning from several of the Reform Party members, or the complacency the government party members seem to have with respect to courts and to judges.

This is a special bill in that it addresses an essential aspect of our democratic system: judiciary independence. This is a concept we often hear referred to, without always understanding exactly what it is all about. I believe it is important to take a few minutes, or seconds, to examine the principal aspects of this principle, in order to be able to assess and criticize the bill in a properly informed manner.

The basis for asserting that judiciary bodies responsible for interpreting and enforcing the rules of law must have a minimum of independence from governments and parliaments is the separation of powers concept. The expression institutional independence will be used in relation to the judicial system as a whole, while individual or functional independence relates to the judges sitting on the court. The bill before us today, Bill C-37, deals with the latter aspect.

The process by which judges are appointed must be considered in dealing with the individual independence of judges. The Constitution and parliaments recognize that the power to appoint judges is vested in the governments. The federal government appoints superior court judges and federal court judges, while provincial governments appoint provincial court judges.

The Constitutional Act, 1867 requires a single condition be met to become a judge and only for superior courts: judges must be selected from the bar of the province where they are being appointed, in accordance with the provisions of sections 97 and 98 of the Constitutional Act, 1867.

The federal lawmaker imposes an extra requirement on the central government. Judges must have at least 10 years standing at the bar of the province. Section 3 of the Judges Act deals more specifically with this additional requirement. The federal government therefore has considerable leeway in exercising its power to appoint judges. No other criterion limits its discretion regarding applicants' competency or qualifications.

As constitutional experts Henri Brun and Guy Tremblay pointed out in their book “Now that judicial independence has become a formal constitutional principle, one may wonder about the appropriateness of the process for appointing judges, particularly in the federal government”.

Before going any further, I would be remiss if I did not repeat once again in this House that it is also out of respect for judicial independence that the Bloc Quebecois opposed, and continues to oppose, the reference on Quebec's right to be the only one to decide its future. By imposing its reference to the supreme court, the Liberal government is seriously jeopardizing that tribunal's credibility. It is sad to see the government stubbornly forcing supreme court justices to be part of its despicable intimidation tactics toward Quebeckers.

When members opposite claim that their government is acting out of respect for the law, I am not convinced, far from it. In fact, I am convinced of just the opposite, particularly when I look at the statements made by the federal Minister of Justice and by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

But let us go back to the legislation before us, Bill C-37, to take a good look at it and determine its purpose.

Bill C-37 amends the Judges Act to, among other things, increase judges' salaries and change eligibility criteria for an annuity. The bill also establishes the judicial compensation and benefits commission. Finally, Bill C-37 seeks to increase the number of judges on appeal courts and provincial family courts.

In her March 18 release, the Minister of Justice told us that the bill was in response to the recommendations of the 1995 triennial commission on judges' salaries and benefits. In its report, the Scott commission—named after the chairperson of the group which conducted the review of judges' salaries—recommended a gradual salary increase of 8.3%. The Liberal government accepted the recommendation and is proposing in its bill a 4.1% annual increase, over a two-year period.

In determining what was reasonable, the Scott commission recognized that a complex range of factors should be taken into consideration in setting an appropriate level of compensation, including the need to offer levels of compensation that will attract and keep candidates for the judiciary, and ensure that they are as highly qualified as possible.

In addition, it should be noted that the report is based on the relationship that exists between the income of a judge and that of a lawyer from the private sector, from which, it must be said, the majority of candidates for the office of judge come.

Section 25 of the Judges Act now provides a legal mechanism by which a judge's salary may be increased, in accordance with the industrial aggregate, by a maximum of 7%. Under the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act, judges' salaries were frozen in December 1992 until March 31, 1997.

There is also the reference with respect to the independence and impartiality of Prince Edward Island provincial court judges. In a September 18, 1997 ruling, the supreme court stressed the importance of such independent commissions, which establish an essential link between two of the government's arms, the executive and the judiciary. The court also emphasized the constitutional obligation to determine the salaries of members of the judiciary.

The court so stipulated, and the following quote is extremely important in understanding the context in which the Bloc examined Bill C-37. The court found, and I quote: “However, to avoid the possibility of, or the appearance of, political interference through economic manipulation, a body, such as a commission, must be interposed between the judiciary and the other branches of government. The constitutional function of this body would be to depoliticize the process of determining changes to or freezes in judicial remuneration”.

In the words of the justices of the supreme court, in order to avoid the possibility of political interference, the court is proposing the creation of an independent body that would depoliticize the decision to increase or not to increase justices' salaries and benefits.

The Bloc therefore is right to worry about the way the Liberal government appoints justices to the supreme court. The justices have said themselves that there could be political interference through financial manipulation. What about their own appointments?

With the flourish of the Prime Minister's pen, a lawyer could be comfortably installed in a judge's chair on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is no fantasy. We have seen it happen just recently.

In addition to the conventional and constitutional criteria of eligibility, there are no doubt certain criteria the Prime Minister alone could explain to us. I will be careful not to head down this path. However, I would like the Prime Minister to list the criteria that guided him in appointing two justices to the supreme court.

Clearly, there is room for political interference in the remuneration of justices. There is certainly room for it in the appointment of justices, especially when the judges are appointed sub judice by the party initiating the reference to the supreme court in the matter of the future of Quebec.

This, less financial aspect of the function of a justice, although important, was not analyzed by the court, and we will limit ourselves naturally to the part on salaries, benefits and pensions relating to Bill C-37.

Although the recommendations of the Scott commission are not binding on the government, the same cannot be said for constitutional decisions of the supreme court, and the Bloc Quebecois is keenly aware of this.

Nonetheless, despite the arguments I have advanced since the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois wants the House to know that it will not be supporting this bill for several reasons.

First, it is important to look at Bill C-37 in context. The bill is proposing many amendments to the Judges Act. These amendments include a salary increase of 4.1% annually over two years. As I mentioned earlier, this increase would give effect to a recommendation by the Scott commission that a progressive salary increase of 8.3% would be justified.

Once again, the Bloc Quebecois decries the fact that the Scott report is based solely on indices of federal economic activities with no regard for the economic sectors most affected since the beginning of the 1993 cutbacks, some of which were the work of the present government.

As lawmakers, as elected officials living in a period of budgetary restraint, the most fundamental question we must ask ourselves in 1998 is therefore the following: Should we be putting books in our schools, or beds in our hospitals, or increasing the salaries of judges which, it should be remembered, stand at around $155,800 annually for superior court judges? To ask the question is to answer it.

The $155,800 salary of a superior court judge is hardly a starvation wage.

Through its leader, the member for Laurier—Saint-Marie, the Bloc Quebecois recently stated its views on salary increases for MPs and senior public servants.

Tabled on January 31, the Blais report, which looked at the salaries and benefits of members of the House, recommended that parliamentarians' expense allowances be abolished and their parliamentary allowances increased by an equivalent taxable amount.

One thing we must not forget is that this report did not recommend any increase in the total value of MPs' compensation. The proposals focussed solely on making this compensation more transparent.

In my opinion, whether one is a superior or lower court judge, an MP, a minister or the Prime Minister himself, we all have an extremely important role to play in the democratic system of Canada and of Quebec, and I sincerely believe that no one should be getting any increases if Canada or Quebec cannot afford them right now.

The Bloc Quebecois endorsed the recommendations of the Blais report, stating its view that an increase in MPs' salaries was not justified at this time. The same goes for superior court judges.>Paradoxically, the President of the Treasury Board, a good Liberal, recently announced an increase in the salaries of senior federal government managers, increasing the budget envelope by 7.96% between 1998 and 2002.

In the view of the Liberal government, the increase is justified by the exodus of senior managers for the private sector and the dearth of experienced and qualified managers that would result. It is great for those that remain, who are extremely competent, to hear that, if they are not paid enough, the good ones leave. Some encouragement for those who stay. But this is the explanation offered by the Treasury Board president.

With the salaries they are paid, and the associated benefits, these public servants are hardly to be pitied either, in my view. Yet, the President of the Treasury Board raised their salaries, but this raise did not affect superior court justices, and that is why the government decided to introduce Bill C-37, among others. As I understand it, this bill is in response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, and as responsible legislators, as I was saying earlier, we have to respond to the remarks of the justices in their decision.

Let us now take a look at what happens in this area, in Quebec, among other places. I am a member from Quebec. I am going to talk to you about my country, Quebec, about what is being done in Quebec in this area.

In a press release dated February 20, 1998, the Quebec justice minister, Serge Ménard, announced the appointment of the members of the committee on the remuneration of justices of the court of Quebec and municipal courts. While this is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada through a reference to it, Quebec responded with its usual professionalism and speed to a decision by this court.

Although this commission has the mandate to evaluate the remuneration of justices, clearly the government is not obliged to accept its recommendations. Indeed, the Quebec government or governments in general must be able to assess the economic context of any recommendation to increase salaries.

It is important to note that, on March 22, 1997, the Quebec government passed a bill which aimed to reduce labour costs in the public sector and which implemented the agreements concluded in this regard. It provided that the salaries of Quebec court judges would be cut by 2.3%. There was no mention in this legislation, as there is in Bill C-37 of a salary increase. In Quebec, legislation was passed to reduce the salaries of the provincial magistrates by 2.3%.

Need we point out that this reduction also applied to the premier of Quebec, to all the provincial ministers, to all the MNAs and to all the employees of the Quebec government.

In Quebec, the entire private sector has been or will be called upon to contribute to the deficit reduction effort. It is a matter of solidarity, as Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard so aptly said.

We are going through difficult times of restraint due, to a large extent, to federal cuts to transfer payments to the provinces. Everyone must do his or her share to help balance the budget. Again, whether one is a judge sitting on a court, a member of Parliament, the Prime Minister, a minister, the speaker or deputy speaker of the House, I think that everyone must contribute to balancing the budget.

To conclude, the federal government has finally achieved its zero deficit, but must I remind you that this objective was achieved on the backs of the provinces and the unemployed. Over the course of two mandates, the Liberal government opposite will have cut $42 billion in social transfers to the provinces. These transfers are used to fund hospitals, higher education and social assistance among other things. Any money the federal government takes away from the provinces is money the provinces cannot invest in hospitals, education and social assistance.

The federal government is spending the money thus saved to increase its visibility, while the provinces are left with the dirty job of implementing the cuts. The Liberal government must not start squandering the taxpayers' money. Accordingly, while the Minister of Justice may want to be nice to judges by increasing their salaries, she should instead convince her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to give back the money cut from transfer payments to the provinces for health, social assistance and post-secondary education.

The Bloc Quebecois does not question the fact that judges play an essential role and that they work hard to create a just and fair society. However, we feel that before increasing judges' salaries, certain other priorities should be met.

We do not think that the state of judicial independence in Canada and in Quebec requires that Bill C-37 provide an 8.2% increase, over a two-year period, to superior court judges. These are prestigious positions and, to my knowledge, no appointee was ever forced to accept the job. There is no arm twisting required to appoint a judge. When a person agrees to become a judge, whether on the supreme court, the federal court, the superior court or other Quebec courts, surely that person knows about the salary that goes with the job and accepts it. The government must not introduce a bill such as this one under the pretence that judges are not adequately paid.

It is for these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to increasing judges' salaries. We support the establishment of an independent commission, but we cannot support a lack of solidarity and vision in an economic context where the fight against the deficit was conducted mostly at the expense of the provinces.

We heard the government say that the most qualified lawyers must be interested in becoming judges. But a magistrate is also part of society, and being part of society means bearing part of the collective burden. Even if the federal deficit is eliminated, as we have seen, the $500 billion debt remains to haunt us. It will continue to haunt us for many years and many generations to come.

With the money we are preparing to inject into this salary hike for judges and magistrates, the government could have enabled the provinces to invest in their hospitals, where they feel the money would be put to better use.

The supplementary estimates tabled last Wednesday also indicate that the Canadian unity group at Justice—within the Department of Justice there is a so-called Canadian unity group, the main responsibility of which is the reference to the Supreme Court—is costing Canadian and Quebec taxpayers $700,000.

Such expenditures are unacceptable. This money could pay for a number of hospital beds. Especially since the Minister of Justice herself has said that the reference was of no use whatsoever to clarify the constitutionality of the potential secession of Quebec.

The government ought to re-examine its budget priorities. Should it raise judges' salaries and spend a fortune on a reference to the Supreme Court, which even the Minister of Justice admits is of no use and whose validity is being challenged left and right, or should it hand over all these millions, these billions even, appropriated from the provinces?

Today I am therefore asking the Minister of Justice to withdraw her bill as drafted and instead to compensate the provinces for the unjust cuts her government and herself have forced upon the governments of each and every province. In our opinion, because Bill C-37 was introduced in the House subsequent to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on this important matter of appointing justices, the Minister ought not to be giving the judges such a gift during these difficult times.

If the government wants the support of the Bloc Quebecois, it must limit its actions to striking what the Supreme Court ruling calls for, a Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, as provided for in clause 6 of the bill. Nowhere in the Supreme Court ruling is there a request that the federal government increase the salaries of superior court justices in this way. On the contrary, the supreme court ruling asks the Canadian government and all provincial governments to establish a commission that would rely on various external, objective factors in determining compensation. The supreme court judges never said that the decision of such a commission would be binding on the government.

Each of us in the House was elected in a general election or a by-election. The government was also elected. The Minister of Justice was elected to administer as fairly as possible. In handing down such a ruling, the judges never thought that the increase would be given automatically, with judges receiving increases when no one else did. Judges are not above everyone else. It is each one of us, all taxpayers in Canada and Quebec, who, indirectly, pay the salaries of judges of the superior court, or, in Quebec's case, of family, criminal or youth courts. Each one of us pays for these judges.

If the public were to be asked, the answer would be immediate. If you were to ask the average citizen: “Do you agree that the judges of the superior court, who are earning only $155,800 a year, should have their salaries increased by 8.2%?” The answer will obviously be no. Is $155,800 a starvation wage? Do they not earn enough to hand down fair rulings? No.

I am a lawyer myself. Before coming here, I was a practicing lawyer and often had to deal with judges. I was frequently in court. One must keep one's distance from judges, but no one who had accepted the office of judge ever told me that they were surprised to be earning only $150,000 for the honour. We all know how federal judges are appointed.

In my office in Joliette, my articling supervisor received a call from the then Minister of Justice, a Progressive Conservative. The telephone rang, and it was the Minister of Justice. He said: “Hello, Mr. Justice” as if he had no idea that he had been seeking such an appointment for years. That is how these things are done. But when he said “Yes, Mr. Minister” he knew what a judge earned, and he accepted the appointment. I think that, nowadays, neither judges nor the Prime Minister—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the measures and the strategies of the previous Conservative government have nothing to do with the current government.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member would like to participate in the debate later on, but as he will recognize, this is a point of debate and not of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa is partly right. The Liberals are not operating at all like the Conservatives. They are worse.

Never did the Conservative government—and I am not a Conservative, I have no ties to this party—never did it appoint during proceedings two judges, who are deciding on the reference regarding Quebec's right to secede. This Liberal government, for considerations known only to the Prime Minister, appointed two judges during the course of proceedings. No Conservative or other government has ever done such a thing.

I will not get into the criteria that might have guided the Prime Minister in making these two appointments. That is inadmissible. I think the member made this comment without really thinking about what he was saying and without considering the history of the Liberal Party of Canada.

That said, if I were to give the Minister of Justice some advice, if she appears concerned about the independence of the judiciary and especially her image, she should introduce a bill in this House to amend the process for appointing justices to the supreme court.

I think there is something much more important than the pay or benefits of justices and that is the principle of the source of our confidence in judges—their training—which is vital in a democratic system of justice. I believe very sincerely that the Minister of Justice should listen to these comments and particularly to the proposals of the Bloc Quebecois on appointments to the judiciary.

Today, we would perhaps have a much fairer system, as far as the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada among others were concerned, if the Liberal government had taken advantage of the two opportunities it had to put in place a transparent process for appointing these judges. It preferred, as it often does, or to put it more accurately, always does, to play politics. It went looking for candidates among the ranks of the Liberal Party. Of course, they were all perfectly qualified to be supreme court judges, I am not suggesting otherwise. I have great respect for the Supreme Court of Canada.

I think, however, that it would have helped the Supreme Court of Canada tremendously, and especially those selected by the Prime Minister for these positions, to have had a much more open system of appointment, in which the House or a parliamentary committee could have taken part.

We made several suggestions. The government has often told us, both when we were in the official opposition and today in our role as the third party, that we never make suggestions and that we are not constructive. Yet, on more than one occasion, we made some very important suggestions as to how judges should be appointed that even had the support of eminent jurists in Quebec and in Canada.

Many journalists backed up our suggestions for an appointment system, and, at her earliest opportunity, the minister should introduce a bill for making the judicial appointment process as transparent as possible.

That having been said, we will be voting against Bill C-37. We will do so not because we oppose the often fantastic and very professional work that judges do, but out of a concern for equity, solidarity, greater fairness for all. I do not think that today is the time to give a raise to judges, either judges of the superior court, or judges reporting to the National Assembly or the provincial legislatures, when, the premier, ministers and members of the National Assembly and public servants saw their salaries cut.

Given that the bill has to do, in large part, with this issue, the House will understand that we will be voting against Bill C-37. We call on the Minister of Justice to go back to the drawing board, to be more realistic, and to realize that the public is against any bill that would increase judges' salaries.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to address Bill C-37 on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I read this bill with some interest. As I went through it, it could not help but remind me a bit of my own family.

When my grandfather came to this country from Italy he was very proud of a sauce he made. As hard as he tried to pass the recipe on to his children, he would on a regular basis taste their sauce and he would say that they got a little bit of it right and a whole lot of it wrong. As I look at this bill I see that the Minister of Justice got a little bit of it right but forgot a whole lot of ingredients that might have made this bill worth supporting in the House of Commons.

Let me start with the few ingredients she got right. It is important to note there are to be some changes which will allow certain parts of the legislation to be treated as matrimonial assets that could be divisible upon separation or divorce by the judiciary. That needed to be done in the act.

It is also helpful to have a unified family court. In the province I come from many people have been very frustrated at the way the family court process works. They have to appear before provincial family court judges to deal with essentially custody, access, division of property and maintenance provisions. Then they have to appear before federal court judges to deal with the same issues. To repeat them all over again is a duplication.

Those issues, the creation of unified family courts and of justices that can deal with those matters, as well as the division of annuities and so on are some of the positive aspects of the bill.

Unfortunately the minister could have taken the opportunity to truly address the concerns Canadians have about the way judges are appointed in this country. There is some reference in the bill to a commission. I believe the bill makes a recommendation that a commission be set up. The commission would be composed of three individuals. One would be appointed by the Minister of Justice and one would be appointed by the judiciary. Then those two individuals would appoint a third member to review judges' benefits and salaries.

There was an opportunity to go further with this legislation. There was an opportunity to open up the way judges are appointed. A special committee or a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights could have been set up to review different proposals to see how the judiciary might better be appointed.

Even with this minute change, it does not go far enough. The minister could have added to this commission a representative of the Canadian Bar Association. Nobody knows better the workings of the courts and the workload of judges than many of the lawyers who appear in front of them.

There is a missed opportunity here. It is a golden opportunity for the Minister of Justice to address some fundamental issues.

Some hon. members have commented on the Young Offenders Act and on young people in the courts. Young people appear before judges every day. Families appear before judges every day. Those people have to ask how the people who make such fundamental decisions on guilt or innocence, on custody or access arrived at such an important position of making such decisions on people's lives. It is unfortunate that Canada's history is a legacy of patronage appointments, appointments to the bench of people who may not have the best legal qualifications and the best legal judgment but who support the right party. There is some relief in sight.

In my province of Nova Scotia there are many Liberal lawyers who in the last few days have seen their chances for judicial appointments recede into the mist as Nova Scotians have made fundamental political changes in their province. When the New Democratic Party takes power in that province, I expect there will be a change in the method of appointing judges.

This was an opportunity to address those concerns. It was also an opportunity to look at the crisis in the justice system. If money can be found to increase the salaries of judges, surely that money could be better directed to the very system which is in crisis right now.

In many provinces in Canada crown attorneys do not have sufficient resources to prosecute the crimes that come before them. In many parts of this country legal aid lawyers do not have sufficient resources to ensure proper fundamental freedoms are met and that trials are done in a proper way. That results in injustice for all, for the accused, for the victims and for those involved in the justice system.

Rather than give those who are among the wealthiest in our society an increase of 8% or more, we could look at funnelling that money back into the provinces through the Canada health and social transfer payments. These have been cut so drastically by the government the result of which has been the very crisis in the courts which has caused the judiciary to say it is overworked.

Today we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice talk about the backlog of cases in provinces like Ontario. I know she is talking about civil cases but civil cases include family cases. Many people, in particular women, cannot afford legal representation when their marriages come undone, when there are questions of custody and there are backlogs of cases.

The Nova Scotia legal aid offices have stopped representing people who are seeking divorces because they simply do not have the resources to fulfil that role. They have stopped representing people in civil cases who do not have the funds or the ability to hire private lawyers. The provincial government says it does not have the money. It has cut back on resources.

That is not just happening in Nova Scotia. When I was practising law in that province, I tried to get hold of a legal aid lawyer in Ontario and it was almost impossible to find one. When I tried to get hold of a legal aid lawyer in New Brunswick to represent a woman in a custody fight whose children had been taken, there was one family law lawyer for almost the whole province.

There is a crisis at the grassroots level in Canada's justice system. Instead of addressing that, instead of providing funding which might better address that issue, the Minister of Justice has decided to give the judges a pay increase. That is the third problem with this piece of legislation.

The legislation does not go far enough in terms of addressing the way judges are appointed. It does not address the flaws in the justice system that are creating the overburden in the courts. It does not help the crown attorneys and the defence lawyers who have to operate in the courts.

At the same time we have to look further at the other public servants who are involved in the justice system. There has not been an increase for the average cop on the beat for so long that he or she probably cannot remember. There has not been an increase for those who work in the prison system, for those who work in the probation offices with young offenders, with the people who are coming out of prisons.

There is very little money for alternate forms of punishment and alternate forms of dispute resolution in the family law areas, the civil law areas and the criminal law areas.

All of those people for the last number of years have toiled with an ever increasing workload and fewer resources and without any kind of pay increase whatsoever.

It is simply unfair to provide the judiciary with an increase of 8% when they already make well over $120,000 or $130,000. It is unfair to provide them with an increase when those who hold the system together and who do much work in the system are suffering because they have had such an increased workload and have had no increase in resources.

That is another thing which is lacking from this piece of legislation. It is another area the Minister of Justice might very well have addressed.

That is not to say that judges are not important. In fact, this government has increased the workload on many of the provincial court judges by downloading on the system, by changes to the Criminal Code, by proposed changes involving things like preliminary inquiries. The government has downloaded on to the provincial judiciary taking work away from the federally appointed judges. It has created more backlog in the provincial courts.

This is not the appropriate way to address the system. The minister had a golden opportunity. Everyone in this House who has spoken on this piece of legislation, my colleagues in every party, have called for a review of the method of the appointment of judges. That is what we are hearing from our constituents. That is what the Minister of Justice is not hearing. However, its time will come and it may come when we have another party governing on that side of the House.

With respect to a crisis in the justice system, if people do not believe that judges truly represent impartiality, then they are not going to have respect for the justice system. That leads to cynicism. It leads to a lack of faith. The minister may well say that she has no choice, that she is bound in trying to keep the independence of the judiciary, that she is bound by the Scott recommendations.

Those recommendations provided the minister with a way to not necessarily implement the recommendations. As long as she could explain that to the public, as long as there was a reason given not to implement those recommendations which was justifiable, then they did not have to be implemented. The reasons we have indicated would provide the minister with some substantial grounds and certainly with public approval had she chosen not to implement the recommendation of the increase in salary but had offered instead to overhaul the entire Judges Act, to open it up to the standing committee on justice for a proper review and to make fundamental recommendations and fundamental changes.

For those reasons we will not be supporting the legislation. It is too bad the opportunity has been squandered but we look forward to better days ahead.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would agree with me. I was listening to his speech.

I have said this before in the House of Commons and I will say it again. The primary purpose of a judge is to bring decisions that are a benefit to this country and that meet the needs of the people of this country. That is what it was in the very beginning. That is what it should be today. That does not happen all that often. I wonder if the member would agree with that statement?

Second, being a lawyer I would like to know his comments with regard to Justice Frank Iacobucci saying that the legal profession's growing preoccupation with making money is a problem. Laws have become more of a business profession than a professional calling. Lawyers are losing sight of their obligations to the public.

In my riding we have an individual who has been charged with drunk driving causing fatality, which can bring a sentence of up to life. He immediately plead guilty following the accident. That accident was in 1996. He plead guilty to causing four deaths. Can the hon. member explain to me any reason why this trial should be in court for the 18th time next month? They have not got around to sentencing that individual.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are actually three questions. I will attempt to answer each one of them in the time allotted to me.

The hon. member for Wild Rose asked is it not the job of the judge to make decisions in the best interests of the country. In essence, as I see it, it is the job of the judge to weigh very carefully the competing arguments and the evidence in front of him of her and to try and best find a just result.

The judge or the justice has to be free from political considerations. In the case of an appeal it would be a panel. Sometimes it may appear that he or she is making a decision that goes against what the population at large might want. The distinction between the judiciary and legislature is well known. It is not the job of the judiciary to make popular decisions. That is very dangerous. That is what happens south of the border in some states where the judiciary is elected. What we have then is a judge perhaps not making a just decision but playing to what the public opinion polls indicate he should do. A just decision, well written, well reasoned and explained to the public would avoid the concern the hon. member raises.

On his second point on the comments of Justice Iacobucci, it was mentioned earlier that one of the reasons salaries for judges are so high is they want to make sure they can draw good people from the law benches. They look at the salaries of private lawyers. There is a fault in that reasoning.

Many of the best legal minds in this country and many of the best lawyers in this country are in the public service. They do not make nearly the salaries those in the private sector make. The average public defender in this country, the average employee of the justice department does not get paid the same as those in private practice. I concur with some of the comments of the justice in that many young members of the bar are finding it incredibly difficult to meet the billing hours as we race toward profit margins.

That being said, many members of the bar I know in private practice have served their communities well, have served their bar societies well, have taken time from their practice to be involved in public and volunteer organizations. Many do work on a pro bono basis.

Unfortunately in this race to profit, for those who might be served on a pro bono basis where the private lawyer does the work for free, their file falls to the bottom which underscores the need for a public legal aid system across this country that is properly funded and can meet the needs of all individuals.

The third question is one that I have not heard all the facts on. I am not suggesting the hon. member would mislead me. I do not know the facts of the case. I do not understand why an individual who plead guilty in 1996 would be before the courts 18 times. It sounds incredible to me and I do not know all the facts and so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a decision in that regard.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and other consequential acts.

Bill C-37 is the government's response to the last triennial commission on judges' salaries and benefits, the Scott commission. Since 1981 Parliament has provided for an independent commission to examine judges' salaries and benefits.

Bill C-37 is also responding to the Supreme Court of Canada's independent decision on judicial compensation. On September 18, 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada released a key decision relating to the constitutional requirements of financial security of judges. That decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence and outlined the broad constitutional requirements for the determination of judicial compensation such as there must be an independent, objective and effective commission that makes recommendations on all aspects of judicial compensation, salaries and benefits.

To be independent the commission members must be appointed for a fixed term and the judiciary must nominate at least one member. To be objective the commission must use objective criteria in coming to its decision.

To be effective the government must deal with recommendations with due diligence and reasonable dispatch. Bill C-37 proposed amendments to the Judges Act that will, following the Supreme Court decision, improve the independence, the objectivity and the effectiveness of the salary and benefits commission process.

Regarding the principles of Bill C-37, there is very little we can disagree with. The bill establishes new rules for an independent commission which has the responsibility to review the salaries and benefits of judges every four years. These rules do seem to ensure in a certain way that the system is equitable and reflects reality.

Where the PC Party of Canada has concerns is in the way these new proposals will be implemented. As parliamentarians we must ensure that the commission will be accountable to Parliament and that the process will be transparent. On accountability, the membership of the commission should not become once again an opportunity for patronage by the government.

Section 26 of the Judges Act, before the amendments proposed in Bill C-37, requires that the minister of justice appoint the whole commission, which means all three to five members. The new provisions certainly improve that situation. While one of the three members will be appointed by the minister of justice, we are encouraged by the provision which makes the other member appointed by the judiciary. Together the two members will appoint a third member as the chair.

One question has to be raised here in favour of improving the accountability and transparency process. Why not have the one member nominated by the minister appointed instead by a committee of the House, such as the standing committee on justice?

Such a process would not only improve the transparency but also avoid patronage appointments. It also appears that Bill C-37 is addressing the important question of transparency. The commission will have to report at regular intervals, which encourages an open process.

The commission's report with its recommendations has to be presented to the Minister of Justice who in turn has to table it in the House of Commons within 10 sitting days after having received it.

This is certainly playing in favour of accountability but a question should be raised in the interest of further transparency. Why not make the commission accountable directly to Parliament? If the report has to be made available to both houses why not then eliminate going through the minister?

For example, government Bill S-5 which the standing committee on justice has just completed studying provides for the human rights commission to report directly to Parliament instead of the minister. If this can be done for the human rights commission, why not do it for the commission on judges' salaries and benefits?

By reporting to both houses, the commission would be more accountable and more transparent than if it has to report to the minister first. Furthermore, the standing orders of the House of Commons provide for the report to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights which completes the public request on transparency and accountability.

With regard to the amendments pertaining to the salary commission, improvements have been made but we could do more in order to have more accountability and transparency.

Bill C-37 supports the creation and expansion for unified family courts across Canada. Bill C-37 will appoint 27 new federal judges for unified family courts in four provinces. We welcome these amendments as they will permit the improvement of legal services given to families and help the provinces direct more resources to the courts and the services themselves.

Finally, Bill C-37 provides for some changes in the criteria for supreme court judges to retire with a full pension. Judges will now have to be 65 years of age or older and have served for at least 10 years. The PC Party of Canada does not have any problem with these proposals. The bill could be improved further on certain provisions dealing with accountability and transparency. The commission could report directly to the House of Commons improving its accountability.

The one member of the commission appointed by the minister could instead be appointed by a committee of the House of Commons, improving its transparency and avoiding the possibility of patronage. We will be raising these points in committee.

In conclusion, we are encouraged by the provisions contained in Bill C-37. We are prepared to support it in principle at second reading.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague for some additional explanations concerning clause 26, which would create a three- to five-member commission.

He indicated that, if there were three members, one would be appointed by the Minister of Justice, one by the judiciary, and the third by the first two, in other words, those appointed by the Minister of Justice and the judiciary. If there were four or five, what would be procedure be?

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the idea here is to make the system as transparent and as accountable as possible and the way the judges would be chosen if it could be done through the process of having nominations from all aspects of the system in place would make it more so.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I first of all wish to convey to the House that a very good maritimer just stood and gave a speech. We know he is not feeling very well today and our party gives credit to him for hanging in there and being a real trooper.

My question is with regard to the pay scales of judges in those positions. Would he not agree, being in support of the bill, that other people in other aspects of the public service such as PSAC workers should be seriously looked at for pay increases too? They have been waiting an awful long time for pay increases as well.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my position is very clear on pay equity and PSAC. Pay equity is something that should be resolved. There is no question about that. However, people in judges' positions come from situations whereby they could earn a lot more money in the private sector and they have to be compensated fairly.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be afforded the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today I would like to deal with four specific topics: first, the issue of the pay raise for our judges; second, the issue of the establishment of a judicial compensation and benefits commission; third, the Judges Act itself; and fourth, a particularly troublesome definition within the legislation.

On the issue of the pay raise I must state how disappointed I am. Once again we witness this government going to great lengths to look after what some might refer to as the upper class or the elite of our society. At the same time, what is it doing for the ordinary citizens other than taxing them into the ground?

Just a few weeks ago this government announced pay increases for the executive levels of the civil service. Those who occupy the upper echelons of our civil service were well looked after. Meanwhile, those in the trenches, the clerks and receptionists who form the first line of contact between the government and its citizens, are again expected to do without.

I would like to illustrate my point with a specific example from my own community of Surrey, British Columbia. When this government provided pay increases to the executive levels of the civil service it included the person who we in Surrey might refer to as our chief of police, even though he is with the RCMP and they do not use that title.

Chief Superintendent Terry Smith, the officer in charge of the Surrey detachment, the largest in the country, came within the qualifications for a raise in pay. In fact all chief superintendents, assistant commissioners, deputy commissioners, as well as the commissioner himself received raises in pay. The constables and the corporals did not. Those men and women charged with keeping our communities safe were passed over. It was not until this past Friday that the lower ranks obtained raises in pay after a five year freeze.

I would suggest that this raise came about primarily as a result of the leadership shown not by the government, but by the upper management of the RCMP itself. Chief Superintendent Smith and his colleagues, to their credit, had refused to accept their pay raises until those in the lower ranks received the long overdue and much needed increase in salaries.

I have spoken with Chief Superintendent Smith on several occasions and he has expressed concern over significant staffing problems within the Surrey detachment. If he has a problem, then the citizens of my community definitely have a problem. If my constituents have a problem, then it is my duty to bring it to the attention of those who are in a position to do something about it, namely the officials of this place.

What is happening is that experienced members of the RCMP are leaving the force in droves. They are being lured away by other police departments. The Vancouver Police Department and the Calgary Police Service are just two of the organizations which have been quite eager to obtain fully trained and experienced RCMP officers. In Vancouver an RCMP member can leave the force on Friday, start with the Vancouver Police Department on Monday and, in effect, receive a $5,000 a year raise. Some go to the special investigations unit of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and some go to B.C. Transit. Indeed, the Surrey detachment just recently lost a much respected and experienced member to the Municipal Bylaw Enforcement Department, one presumes for better pay, better hours and in all likelihood significantly less stress.

Chief Superintendent Smith is plagued with almost perpetual vacancies. He is forced to fill positions with either raw new recruits or with personnel of lesser experience. In fact, when last we spoke he estimated that between 25% and 28% of Surrey's finest were rookies. That has the effect of reducing the overall efficiency of the detachment.

I regularly go on ride-alongs and I can assure members that it is not an easy community to police, partly because Surrey has one of the poorest if not the poorest police-to-resident ratios in the country.

Where does this leave the residents of Surrey, a large, sprawling, diverse municipality with both urban and rural aspects and a very large immigrant community? Terry Smith has every reason to be concerned, as do my constituents.

Residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia will tell everybody who wants to hear about it that it is the most desirable place in the country in which to live, primarily because of the climate, although we would never know it the way the weather has been here for the last few days. However, there is a price to be paid, which is the high cost of living. For that very reason it is well known within the RCMP establishment that the lower mainland is not an enviable posting. Experienced police officers are not compelled to accept transfers to Surrey and they do not do so because it is just not a practical financial decision.

What did the RCMP rank and file receive after five years of waiting? They received 2.75%. They have to wait until next October to benefit from the whole package. Even then they will still be approximately $3,000 behind their Vancouver counterparts.

I compare the increase in pay received by the already well compensated judges with the increases afforded our RCMP officers. As I said, the Mounties get 2.75%, payable in increments, retroactive to January 1 of this year, while the judges get 4.1%, retroactive to April 1, 1997 and then get a further 4.1% compounded to their new 1997 salary figures, payable on April 1, 1998. They already receive, on average, in the vicinity of $140,000 per year. The government seems to believe that it needs to retroactively come to the aid of these poor, financially strapped judges all the way back to April of last year.

Does it come to the same conclusion when compensating our police officers? No. The government throws a few pennies at them, retroactive to January, gives them a few more pennies in April and then tells them to wait until October for the remainder.

Another example is the violent crime linkage analysis system, or ViCLAS. ViCLAS is a computer database developed by the RCMP, used to analyze, research and search out potential links between violent crimes. It has the potential to save enormous amounts of investigative time and effort. More important, since it targets serial killers and sex offenders, the potential to prevent future victims is invaluable. Used by police forces throughout the world it has already been proven successful and is recognized as the best.

Yet in speaking with E Division ViCLAS representatives, the project is in serious danger of going under due to lack of funding and inadequate staffing. How ironic. This is a world class crime solving and crime prevention tool originally developed by the RCMP, but the RCMP will not be able to use it. Why? The government says it does not have the money, yet there appears to be plenty of money available to give judges a raise.

This government appears to have its priorities all out of sync. It falls over backwards to look after its friends, but fails to look after those who need it most. It likes to talk about public safety and crime prevention, but it seems to have a difficult time putting its money where its mouth is.

I will now move on to the issue of the judicial compensation and benefits commission. The government wants to set up yet another bureaucratic agency merely to concern itself with the salaries and benefits of judges. I see, as well, that the governor in council will appoint this new commission. The Minister of Justice gets to make another political patronage appointment. It is just what this country needs, more patronage, more friends of the government to carry out governmental responsibilities without being accountable to the citizens of this country. What we need is less patronage.

If we must establish a commission why is it not set up to conduct public hearings into judicial appointments? Yes, it could also govern pay and benefits, all subject of course to parliamentary approval.

How much is the judicial compensation and benefits commission going to cost Canadian taxpayers? What do we get for this money?

We are going to appoint three people at, no doubt, fairly attractive salaries to carry out their duties. They will be paid fees fixed by the governor in council. In addition, they will be paid travel and living expenses which are also fixed by the governor in council. There will be no parliamentary review or control of these salaries and fees.

It gets worse. Under section 26.2 as proposed by the bill the commission may engage the services of any persons necessary for the proper conduct of the commission.

Once again we are being asked to create a new agency of bureaucrats and provide them with all the financial resources to have others do the work for them. There are obviously other portions of this bill which deserve comment, but my limited time will not permit me to discuss them today.

I will now move on to the third issue I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Judges Act itself. This is the third time this act has been before the House in the last couple of years. Bill C-2 was passed in March 1996. Bill C-42 was passed in June 1996. We now have the Judges Act back once again for amendment. One must ask: Was the previous minister of justice so incompetent that he had to bring the same legislation before the House twice within a matter of months? Did he still not get it right as it is now back again?

I hope we do not have other acts of parliament like this. I am sure Canadian people would not be too impressed if it came to their attention how much time and debate is devoted in this place just to our judges. No wonder our country has a $600 billion debt. In the last two years legislation regarding judges has been brought before the House three times.

One must wonder about the misplaced priorities. Maybe we should not be too surprised. Last June, eight months ago, the Minister of Justice stated that the young offender legislation was her top priority. We have not seen it yet.

The former minister of justice promised almost two years ago to bring in victims' rights legislation. This past summer the present Minister of Justice told Canadians that it was also one of her priorities. Victims are still waiting.

But the Liberals are certainly wasting no time in looking after the judges. Imagine.

I will now move on to the fourth issue. As I mentioned earlier, a definition within the legislation causes me some difficulty. It appears at the first clause of the bill. It amends section 2 of the act to include the definition for surviving spouse. What attracts my attention is that the definition of spouse is limited to a person of the opposite sex. It seems to me that this Liberal government has gone to great ends to foist the whole issue of same sex benefits onto Canadians, but it would appear as though this legislation creates an exception for judges. Regardless of one's personal opinion, I have to ask why there seems to be one rule for judges and another rule for the rest of us.

There is another reason to be concerned with legislation which proposes to give judges an increase in pay. Recent surveys have shown beyond a doubt that Canadians have lost confidence in the courts; not just the justice system, but the judiciary itself. That is extremely troubling. Canadians are telling us that they have no faith in judges to uphold the law.

There are those who will undoubtedly argue that people who say such things do not understand the system. There is that elitism showing through again. Certainly most citizens are unfamiliar with the intricacies and the vagaries of the justice system. My goodness, I know lawyers who become confused. What the public does understand, however, are dubious decisions which come from the bench, like decisions to sanction violent offenders by sending them home on conditional sentences. Even the Alberta court of appeal was extremely critical of some of their peers in this regard.

What about this one? A man suspected in the kidnapping and forcible confinement of two young women while fleeing from the police attacks a third woman, puts a plastic bag over her head and wraps a length of wire tightly around her neck. The judge ruled that this could not be viewed as an attempt to kill her. The man was eventually convicted of not only the initial offences but two murders in another province.

What Canadians also understand are outrageous comments from the bench, comments suggesting that a three-year old child was sexually provocative, implying that she was in part responsible for an assault against herself; comments suggesting that rape is acceptable in some cultures; comments implying that the sexual assault of three young girls by their teacher was not as serious as the “buggery of little boys”.

We know that most judges conduct themselves in an extremely responsible and thoughtful manner, but in this climate of public mistrust to grant our judiciary such a generous increase while other public servants receive nothing or a pittance at best merely invites more cynicism.

With that note, I will end my comments on this legislation.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in some ways I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party, particularly on the issue of retroactive raises back to January 1, 1997.

To make a quick calculation, a supreme court justice earning $148,000 and getting a 4.1% increase would end up with about $6,000, or $120 a week, more.

When I visited a sugar bush operation in my riding on Sunday, a group of women told me their average wage was $240 for 37 hours. So the increase weekly to a justice would be about half of what these women are earning for 37.5 hours. Four per cent of their $8 an hour makes 32 cents, but 4% of the justice's $148,000 makes $6,000.

I do not believe that at any time in the history of mankind, a superior court justice has resigned because he was underpaid. I personally have never seen such a thing.

Worse still, when the time comes for a judge to be appointed, nearly all of the lawyers belonging to the party in power call upon their MP, or the minister, or the Prime Minister to remind him “Keep me in mind, it ought to be my turn for a court appointment”.

I have a question for my distinguished colleague in the Reform Party. In order to make the Canadian judiciary a little more transparent, should we not add a clause to Bill C-37, precisely so as to facilitate appointments, to make them more transparent and to move away for once from a type of patronage comparable to what happens, for instance, in Senate appointments?

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what can I say? I mentioned in my speech that if the commission is to be appointed why do we not take a look to see if the commission could have something to do with reviewing or actually considering the appointments? Of course this would be subject to approval of the House. Whether the bill is the appropriate vehicle to put this clause into effect remains to be seen.

The way the whole process of appointments to the bench is now has left the public absolutely cynical. Again I say it is not an appropriate time to give judges a raise.

I would just like to add that the 4.1% is compounded in the second year, so we are looking at 8.3% by the time we are finished, which is considerably more.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday an RCMP officer came into my constituency office. He was exceptionally upset over the whole issue of pay raises. There had been quite a discussion at the police station about the issue of pay raises and how long they had been delayed. He said there was a tremendous resentment over the fact that the raises were so very small: 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998; a second increment of 1% on April 1, 1998; and an additional .75% on April 1, 1998. Basically he was saying that this put him in a position of moving from $50,508 up to $52,423, but left him in approximately 11th position against all other police members throughout Canada.

Bearing in mind what my colleague has just said, effectively the bill would give the judges an 8.3% increase over a two year period. It creates greater disparity between those who are attempting to enforce the law, already having a serious morale problem because of their wages having been frozen for as long as they have been, with a very meagre increase and the judges, who in many cases do things that end up infuriating the police officers, with an 8.3% increase in a two year period.

I am sure the member would agree the disparity that is being proposed by the Liberals simply should not stand. It sets out the judges in this special case while Canada's finest, Canada's RCMP, is not going begging but is certainly getting the short end of the stick.

I am sure the member would agree that this will lead to further morale and attitude problems on the part of the members of the RCMP who serve the country so well.