Debates of March 30th, 1998

Judges Act

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. I can speak from my own experience with RCMP members in my community of Surrey, which as I said is the largest in the country. There is a serious morale problem there. I know a lot of the members personally. They are very honourable people. They will not let it affect their ability to perform the function we ask them to do.

However, a real serious problem is the bleeding of experienced RCMP members into other police forces and other businesses which give them better rates of pay and a definitely less stress related job, not to mention usually nine to five hours.

Yes, there is definitely a morale problem now and I cannot see it getting anything but worse when they understand how much the judges are receiving as an increase.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I issue a challenge to the member for Surrey North. If we were to take all the televisions and the condoms provided to prisoners, if we were to take all the bleach provided for their needles, if we were to take the money used in terms of their right to sue in legal challenges, if we were to take the money allocated for prisoners to safeguard their “right to vote”, and if we were to take the money the government is looking at currently spending in Bill C-37 with regard to raising the salaries of judges, how many extra police officers could we potentially hire?

I wonder if anyone has done a calculation. I do not think anyone would question the idea that money spent on hiring more police officers to enforce the laws and to go after criminals would be better spent than on bleach, condoms, right to sue, right to vote, TV and raising the salaries of judges.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree. I honestly do not know how many more police officers could be hired. I do not have a calculator handy.

It spreads into other areas. It is not just the question of salaries for the RCMP. I alluded to the ViCLAS system for tracking sex criminals, violent offenders and repeat offenders. I have seen this program demonstrated to be very useful. It cuts down the amount of time police spend investigating cases. There is a serious potential that it could go under because of lack of resources.

They should start getting their priorities straightened out on the other side of the House and decide where we have to spend the money for law enforcement.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another side to this question. Rural communities like those in Caribou—Chilcotin often do without police services because there is no money for budgets in the larger detachments. I think of places with interesting names like Gold Bridge and Horsefly, but when there is a crisis in such communities it will be an hour or two hours minimum before policemen can respond after driving the distance to get there.

I have been watching the government cut its expenditures. The difficulty is that while frontline services are being cut senior bureaucrats and research people are finding more resources for their needs.

Does the member see a correlation between the increase in crime and the lack of necessary funds for policemen to meet this challenge?

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I have seen a correlation because I have not actually seen the data. My gut instinct tells me that there would be if we do not have police on the streets to deal with some of the crime we are seeing, especially in rural parts of the country.

During my speech on Bill C-16 I alluded to the difficulties the RCMP had in remote parts of Canada. I know the Speaker likes to go to Whistler and knows how remote it can be up there. I go to a place that is even further outside Vancouver than Whistler. If the Pemberton RCMP need me they have to drive an hour up a logging road to get me.

There are some serious problems with policing in rural areas. Somebody had better get the idea straight as to where funds will be allotted.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton—Sierra Leone; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques—Employment Insurance.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty at this time to rise and speak to the Judges Act, Bill C-37 at second reading.

I say that because I am representing my constituents. As they hear what is going on in this parliament, they are very concerned. They feel that the emphasis of the government is not on law enforcement as it should be. For example, in this act, as has always been the case, the government introduces amendments to an act of parliament which fall far short of the public's expectations.

This bill is objectionable not for what is in it but for what is not in it. That is of major concern to the people in my riding of Yorkton—Melville.

My constituents are more concerned about opening up the appointment process for judges. The more judges use the charter of rights and freedoms to strike down parliament's laws, the more people want to have a say in what their judges actually think.

The government could have used this opportunity to open up the judicial process. Right now it is an old boy's club with lawyers deciding behind closed doors who the best Liberal available is to get these plum patronage appointments to the judiciary.

I will oppose this bill on these grounds alone, even though there are a couple of positive aspects to this legislation.

The bill increases the number of appeal court judges from 10 to 13. Hopefully this will help to move more cases through the appeal process and help move them through more quickly. Likewise, the increase in the number of unified family court judges from 12 to 36 should help to deal with the huge backlog of family law cases.

There are a couple of positive things in here. Reform supports the use of family courts to resolve separation and custody disputes. However, it is unfortunate that the divorce rate in Canada has soared to such proportions that we require so many more family court judges. Liberalized divorce laws should be fixed first.

Unfortunately Bill C-37 also increases judges' salaries retroactively from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 by 4.1% and an additional 4.1% from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. Thereafter salaries will be reviewed by the newly created judicial compensation and benefits commission. In other words, judges will get an 8.3% increase over two years.

As I understand it, judges are already making approximately $140,000 per year. How many other public servants receive pay raises of 8.3% in a two year period?

This government awards judges and senior bureaucrats, including their own ministers, with large pay raises and bonuses while, comparatively, frontline police officers and low level public servants receive virtually no additional compensation.

Last Friday, March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They will receive a second increment of 1% on April 1, 1998 and an additional 0.75% on October 1, 1998.

RCMP officers have had their wages frozen for five years. The starting salary for a third year constable will go from about $50,508 to $52,423. This sends a clear message to the public that this government cares more about judges than it does about the frontline police officers who risk their lives to protect Canadians in service to their communities.

That is the key point. These people are frontline. They put their lives on the line to protect us. They need the support of those judges but we need to properly compensate them. That should be our first priority.

Add this insult to the decisions by the government not to allow the amendments the police recommended to the DNA act. Add this insult to the government's ongoing expenditure of hundreds of millions on a universal gun registration which frontline police officers universally oppose. The Canadian Police Association even says register criminals before guns. That is where our priorities should be.

Police get a slap in the face with a pay raise that does not compare to what judges will receive and the government also fails to give them the tools they need to do their job of improving public safety and saving lives. How many Canadian workers receive retroactive pay raises as the judges will receive? Public servants, especially judges, should only be given salary increases in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner.

This bill also establishes the judicial compensation and benefits commission to inquire into the adequacy of the salaries and benefits for judges. The creation of the judicial compensation and benefits commission provides the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The Reform Party wants to reform the patronage appointment process to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. Meanwhile the Liberals create more opportunities to make patronage appointments. That is going backwards. That is not the direction things should be heading in this country.

These new patronage appointees will hold office for a term of four years and are eligible to be reappointed for one further term. Fees for commission members will be fixed by the governor in council. Members are deemed to be employed in the public service of Canada. The commission may also engage the services of any person necessary for proper conduct of the commission begging the question just how much will this commission cost taxpayers. We need to know before we go any further with this legislation.

This is the third time the Liberals have amended the Judges Act. During the last Parliament in 1996 Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 were introduced, both nebulous, inconsequential, fuzzy pieces of legislation which were of little significance to Canadians who are concerned about their safety. Canadians want violent crime to be curbed. They do not want more of these judicial review types of legislation.

Both Liberal justice ministers have failed to introduce the victims bill of rights which has taken low priority on the justice committee's agenda. They failed to substantially amend the Young Offenders Act. They have failed to limit the use of conditional sentences for violent offenders. Instead they occupy the justice committee's time with these administrative matters at the expense of more important issues such as amending the laws pertaining to drinking and driving.

It is time that this government got its priorities straight. The people know what is important. This bill proves the government does not. This bill does not contain what it should and therefore I do not support it.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask my colleague a question.

We know about the difficulties raised by the very sensitive issue of salary increases, whether for MPs or judges. This raises all sorts of questions with the public, perhaps legitimately so.

Does he think that the Government of Canada could once again follow the lead of the Government of Quebec? A few years back, the Quebec government decided to use the equivalent of a job category in the civil service. It was decided that all those with sensitive positions, such as MNAs or judges, would receive the same increase as that arrived at more objectively, through negotiations between the employer, the Government of Quebec in this case, and government union representatives. This gives the whole proceeding an objective character.

What would the member think if such a procedure were to be used here in the Government of Canada?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course I do not know all the details of what the process is in Quebec.

The point that I am trying to make is that the people of Canada should have more direct input into what is happening in the judiciary. They have the right to determine who those judges are. They should not be patronage appointments. They have the right to determine what those people are paid. The people of Canada are fair. They are the ones who should be determining what is happening here, not us as parliamentarians, especially the government using this as patronage appointments. I think I have made my point abundantly clear.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make by way of comments.

I am thinking in particular of one judgment I read recently, Delgamuukw, in which the justices referred not to legal precedents but to the literature from the law schools on which at least their judgment was based in part. This means there is a divergence from the tradition of consolidating the law, referring to the law and using the law as the basis on which to build judgments. I am concerned about that.

The second point I wish to raise comes out of today's Ottawa Citizen which has a headline: “Judge scolds greedy lawyers”. Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci of the Supreme Court of Canada has said that many lawyers are rapidly losing sight of their obligations to the public and to the pursuit of justice.

I am wondering if the influence of these lawyers who have lost this sight is also being lost on the courts. Mr. Justice Iacobucci, to his credit, says that lawyers are not merchants of legal services but members of a calling dedicated to helping clients and improving society generally. But he is concerned that there is a clear tendency for a lawyer to be a hired gun, as he says, in the promotion of the client's cause rather than an active and constructive participant in the course of justice.

These two points cause me concern which I add to the debate. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he sees any relationship between the justices, their influence by the law schools, by the lawyers of the community of which they are a part and if this is part of the reason that these justices are being given these pay raises that perhaps other frontline bureaucrats and government workers are not entitled to.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes an excellent point. I can only underline and underscore the importance of that point.

If we do not have a judiciary that is at arm's length to Parliament it will begin to become political and will be influenced by its political masters. That should not happen.

With regard to the law schools and the influence they are having on the judiciary, that is becoming more and more commonplace. People have made predictions as to the decisions that will be coming down from the supreme court simply by reading the literature that is coming out of the law schools. The judges are reading that literature, the commentary and the political correctness that is often associated with it, rather than looking at the merits of the case.

We need judges who are not political. We need judges who are carrying out the will of the people in this country, who are concerned first and foremost with justice. That is I think the point that the member was making and I agree with him.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to change the nature of the question that I posed before because I have new information that I would like to add to it.

If we were to take the costs of colour cable TV, free condoms, free bleach for needles, the right to sue and legal costs involved, the right to vote and the administrative and logistical costs involved, gun registration and the cost of patronage appointees the Liberals have put on the parole board, just those costs alone, would we not be able to spend more money on hiring more officers or more judges without the increased raises to get rid of the backlog in the courts?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could add to the list, the list of condoms, voting privileges, gun registration and all of the associated costs. I could add the costs of the golf courses, the pool tables, the cable TV and I would be asking the government the very same that this member is asking me. Would it not be better to put that money into law enforcement, putting police on the street where they are going to do a lot more good than to put it into what this government is putting it into? That is the point that needs to be made over and over.

I worked on that gun registration issue a long time. I examined it very thoroughly and if we look at the hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted in setting up a huge bureaucracy that will not make our lives any safer we would be asking the question why is that money not going into hiring more police. I think this needs to be debated. I see the government unfortunately avoiding this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listen very intently when Reform talks about more enforcement on the streets in order to make our streets safer. I certainly do not want to debate that aspect with him but last night 60 Minutes had a very good show on about enforcement and what to do with young people and young offenders when they are behind the system.

I keep hearing the hon. member say that more money should be spent on enforcement but would he not believe, or would he not be at least corrected, that actually more enforcement is just sort of the other approach to it and really more resources should be put into the education of young people so that they do not commit these crimes to which he is referring?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member broadening the picture. I do not agree necessarily that more education is going to be the answer. We have already made suggestions. In addition to putting more police on the street, we should not be hurting the family with legislation that is coming before this House and especially with taxation that is forcing both parents to work and allowing children to virtually fend for themselves.

There is a lot more to the problem and I am glad the member has broadened this whole justice issue. Yes, more police on the street would help but there are many other things that would help reduce the rate of crime in our country.

We need to strengthen our families first. That will do much more than trying to impose maybe some kind of an educational scheme on the whole country that does not fit. I think we need to discuss this a lot more and I thank the member for raising it.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-37. It deals with the salary and the annuity benefits for our judges along with establishing a judicial benefits and compensation commission. It also authorizes additional appeal court and unified family court judges.

I believe that judges should get a raise and that the increases in the number of judges are probably justified according to the government's recommendations. We cannot always believe all the statistics, as was recently seen in the firearms act trial in Edmonton. However I will believe them this time that we could use more family court judges.

A government's legislative actions should always reflect a consistent and fair approach to everyone in the public sector. I agree that judges' pay should be set by an independent council. However their salaries are the ultimate responsibility of Parliament. The setting of salaries can be delegated by the government but once again ultimate responsibility and accountability rests with the government.

I find it hard to support this bill because judges are getting a much larger raise than those employees on the lower rungs of the public service who make $30,000 a year. Public service employees will get maybe a 2% raise which is around $600 on $30,000. Previous governments have taken and the current federal Liberal government takes a very extremist view on these kinds of issues. They prefer to take care of the higher echelons and forget the little people who are trying to get pay equity and a better raise to feed their families.

The independent pay council is of concern to me. I refer to it as independent but I do not think that is quite the word when I look at its make-up. The council should be made up of more middle income people who could better reflect what the average person sees is a justifiable salary for judges. They would be more inclined to give raises in keeping with what the rest of society is collecting.

I am not talking about the gross amount paid. Certainly judges have a very responsible job in society. A salary in the $140,000 range is very acceptable. It is the times that count. It is the percentage of the raise that the average person gets compared to the percentage of the raise that those in the upper strata of society get that is the problem. I will probably get a question later on about members of Parliament on that issue and I feel the same way about members of Parliament. We should not be setting ourselves above the average person who is struggling to make a living in Canada today.

Let us look at the judicial compensation and benefits commission. Under section 26.1(1), one person will be nominated by the judiciary, one person will be nominated by the Minister of Justice and one chairperson will be nominated by the first two nominees. If any member can convince me that is going to be an independent committee, I would like to have a long discussion with that member.

In addition we certainly do not need to appoint five people to sit on a committee to decide compensation. Three is plenty. They are certainly going to be well compensated so costs will go up the more people we have on the committee.

Where is the independence and fairness of this judicial compensation and benefits commission? As was pointed out, it really is not. As I said before, the patronage and payment of higher increases are more extremism on the part of the Liberals. They take care of their own and to heck with the little guy.

Once again I agree that judges should get their raise. The salaries of the commissioners who will sit on the independent pay commission, as I like to think of it, should not exceed $60,000 to $80,000. They too must understand what the average person is trying to get by on.

The question of how the other two members could be appointed was dealt with a little bit by a Progressive Conservative member. A case could be made for having one judge on this board to reflect the judges' view. Maybe the government would even look at having the official opposition and maybe the second largest opposition party appoint the other two. We might see a little independence there.

I will comment on the surviving spouse situation. In the annuity section, section 44(4) it is stated under subsection (5):

No annuity shall be granted under this section to the surviving spouse of a judge unless the surviving spouse

(a) married the judge before the judge ceased to hold office; or

(b) commenced cohabiting with the judge in a conjugal relationship before the judge ceased to hold office.

There are a couple of good things. It will address these gold-digger marriages that happen to come along after the judge is out of office. Also, in the definition under subsection (2), the surviving spouse has to have cohabited or have been married for a minimum of one year before the judge's death. That is a good part of the bill. The surviving spouse definition confirms what is the law in Canada today, that a spouse is a person of the opposite sex and then it goes on to cohabitation.

The total salary for all of the increases in the number of judges will have a significant impact on our judicial system. I have made rough figures which indicate that the added judges will bring the total salary compensation up into the $5.5 million range associated with all the other expenses in setting up the courts.

Justice is certainly not cheap. We do not want to try to get by on a real cheap court system but we do want to keep it reasonable. Salaries, particularly raises, should be in keeping with what the average Canadian gets.

In conclusion, the government may want to consider the suggestions I had for this bill before it pushes the bill through.

The government should amend the section dealing with appointment of members to the commission and to try to eliminate the patronage that will be going on.

The second amendment is to try to have the salary increases more in keeping with public sector pay raises. Fairness is really important. In court the judges tell us that not only does justice have to be done but it has to be seen to be done. I think a lot of people would say that a $600 raise for a person at the low end and a $5,000 raise for the person at the high end in the salary scheme of things is not fair. The government should not be reflecting that type of unfairness to Canadians.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague would like the opportunity to comment on the lack of priorities the government has had with regard to Bill C-37.

In this bill the Liberal government is raising judges salaries. Yet day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, the justice minister has been asked when we will be seeing changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Bill C-67 which raises the wages of our judges takes higher priority and comes before making serious changes to the Young Offenders Act. Not only do we see it before changes to the Young Offenders Act, but we see it before changes to section 745, the faint hope clause. There is also a backlog in our court system. If there is a backlog in our court system, surely the money would have been better allocated to hire more judges to take care of the backlog rather than to pay the judges more money.

I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on the lack of priorities of the Liberal government on criminal justice.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to continue on with the facts on a bill and the fact that the government tends to waste a lot of money and does not have its priorities straight.

In addition to the issues my hon. friend raised, we also have a serious street gang problem. There is organized crime. Pedophiles are out on the streets. Some jails are filled to overflowing. Priorities are all around this government and it fails to recognize them.

In the last Parliament the government had the great idea of bringing in useless Bill C-68, the firearms act. It spent millions and probably billions in the end. We are going to need all these judges plus a few hundred more in order to handle the court cases that will come from that.

When the government gets the priorities wrong, it has a snowball effect all the way down. It ruins a lot of good things in society which could have benefited by the government setting its priorities properly.

I agree. The government should set its priorities better. It should spend the money better. Let us get on with making Canada a better place.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I spoke to Bill C-37, I was asked a question concerning the morale within the RCMP when its members see judges getting this kind of an increase. The RCMP is just coming out from under a five year wage freeze and has received a pittance compared to the judges.

My hon. colleague is a former member of the RCMP. I would like to get his views as to what he feels this will do the morale of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to the constables out on patrol. How is this going to affect them? My experience is that they will do their jobs and they will do them well but it certainly does not bode well for their morale.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I lived through that personally. Over those six years I did see the morale of the people working for me decline seriously. It will recover a little bit now.

It is not only the serving uniformed members that cause a drop in the policing on our streets. The government is failing to take care of the non-uniformed people, the public servants who still have not had a raise. These are the people with the lower salaries I was talking about earlier. Their poor morale reflects up to the members. The members' poor morale reflects to the general public. There are more complaints against the members. Everything the government should have done it did not do over the past two or three years and now we are in the situation of trying to fix everything.

There is no real change in the government's attitude. It is still one of keeping the rich and elite happy and letting the little guys fight for themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his fine intervention and for bringing his expertise to the House today on this important bill.

He is a former RCMP officer. I am sure he has a lot of experience with arresting individuals, sending them to court, going through the legal process and then finding out that some members of the judicial community rather than interpreting the laws, have decided to make the laws. They have set precedents in a number of areas which have made it very difficult for the police officers to do their job.

In fact they have turned the judicial system to some extent on its head. That is not what they were there for in the first place. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws made by the House of Commons and we as the representatives of the people have that duty.

I would like to know from my hon. colleague in his experience whether he agrees with that assessment. Does he agree that the judiciary rather than interpreting the laws is making the laws? Does the hon. member see that the House can play a role in trying to turn that around? I would also like him to address the issue of accountability.

There has been a number of egregious statements made by judges. They have put forth penalties that seemed completely out of proportion to the offence committed. In the last few years particularly there have been rape cases where individuals basically got off scot-free for committing some heinous crimes. I would like my hon. colleague who has experience in these matters to address these two issues.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, certainly there have been some examples of this kind of decision making by judges that has adversely affected law enforcement.

One of the most recent examples was the requirement for police officers to obtain a warrant to arrest someone they knew had committed a crime. The officers would approach the house and see the offender's car parked there. They would go to the door and his boots and hat would be sitting inside. His wife would be there and they would see the bathroom door closed. The officers knew the suspect was there but could not go inside to arrest him. They had to try to get a warrant and come back later. Of course when they returned he was gone.

The judges making decisions that result in new law is a serious concern. We have seen a couple examples recently where provincial government justice ministers were talking about the primacy of parliament being usurped by the courts. In fact, they are being pressured so heavily and so badly that they are considering using the notwithstanding clause of the constitution in order to have some control over judges.

Judges have to be independent. However, parliament is the rule of law of the land and judges come under parliament. It seems like parliament is becoming second place, which forces us into the use of a club, the notwithstanding clause, to swat a little mosquito.

The comments I am making regarding the accountability of judges are that while they are independent they must be accountable to someone. They cannot be a law unto themselves. If things continue the way they apparently have over the past years, eventually parliament will have to come up with a radical surgical solution to correct the situation.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, for those watching the debate—and some may just have joined us on CPAC—I say that we are debating Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act. This is the third time the Liberal government has changed the Judges Act. We hope one day they will get it right. They certainly keep flailing away at it.

This series of amendments does four things. First, it increases the salaries of judges. Second, it provides a better pension plan for judges. Third, it puts a full time commission in place to monitor judicial benefits. Fourth, it provides authority to pay some additional judges in particular areas of the system.

Those are the four things this bill provides. Canadians who are watching the debate will be interested, because guess who gets to pay for the measures brought in by the government. Some measures Canadians are willing to pay for. Other measures we as Canadians question whether they are a good use of our hard earned money.

I will give some detail on each of the four measures. First, judges' salaries will increase by just over 8%, which is an increase many Canadians wish they could look forward to. The increase is retroactive for a whole year. That is a nice bonus.

The second measure concerns making the judges' pension plan more generous. Currently a judge can draw a full pension at age 65 after a minimum of 15 years of service. The full pension is equal to two-thirds of the judge's salary at the time of resignation. The new changes will allow judges to retire much earlier. Retirement will not be based on the age of 65 but on an 80 formula, that is the judge's age plus the judge's years of service. If they equal 80, the judge can retire with a full pension.

It should be noted that the public service formula is based on 85 years. Theirs is a more generous formula by five years than public servants are allowed. If a judge is age 60 and has been a judge for 20 years, the individual can retire at age 60 with a full pension. If the judge has served for 25 years, the judge could retire with a full pension at age 55. This is a very generous pension formula for judges.

The third measure is the matter of the full time judicial benefits and compensation commission. It has not been in the past but now will be a full time commission of three people doing nothing but monitoring judges' salaries and compensation. I am not quite sure how many hours a week the commission will require, but I am sure many Canadians would be quite happy to have a full time job serving on a commission that just looks at judicial compensation and benefits.

It is interesting these commissioners are all patronage appointments by cabinet, more patronage appointments to good and faithful Liberals, no doubt, if past experience is anything to go by. It will be a four year appointment.

The fees for the commission will be fixed by cabinet and the commission members will be deemed to be employed in the public service, which means they will be eligible for a generous package of benefits and a pension.

The commission has to report within nine months of being appointed, but the report will not be debated in the House. Whatever the commissioners say Canadians will not know because the report will be tabled quietly. There will be no opportunity to take issue with it, debate it or talk about it, even in the people's House of Commons as we are doing today.

The fourth measure is the authority to pay additional judges. The act increases the number of additional appeal court judges that can be appointed to appeal courts across the provinces from 10 to 13. The federal government has essentially said that it will pay for three more appeal court judges if a province can convince it that it needs one or more. If all ten provinces and two territories want additional appeal court judges, there will be quite a dust up as to who comes out on top.

It is the same with unified family court judges. There will actually be triple the number of unified family court judges possible across the country. Right now there are 12. The federal government is saying that it would pay 36. There will be no additional judges, however, to other levels of the judiciary such as Queen's bench and the provincial courts which administer the Criminal Code.

I will talk in a few minutes particularly about the provincial court level which administers the Criminal Code. That is where a lot of the backlog exists and where there needs to be substantial reform.

We have a situation where the justice committee's time has been considerably taken up in administrative matters to do with the judiciary. That is not to say that there may not be a need for some of it, but certainly Canadians do not have reform of judge's pay and pensions at the top of their list when it comes to justice reform.

In fact the new justice minister, although she spoke nicely at the beginning of her appointment after the last election, has come out with no strength of purpose in overhauling the justice system. She has simply flailed around, tinkering with small repair jobs and avoiding the major overhauls that Canadians are demanding to our sputtering justice system. That is a criticism we as the official opposition with the job of holding the government accountable need to bring before the government.

Why are we spending our time, our effort, our air time, our study, our committee time and the time of the Canadian people on issues that are not the ones which Canadian people are demanding need to be dealt with when it comes to the justice system?

Canadians, for example, want victims' rights to be protected. What does the minister spend time on? In this parliament we had a law that limits the use of DNA evidence to protect the rights of accused and convicted criminals. Far from protecting victims' rights, which is what the public is demanding, particularly families and friends of victims and victims themselves, we have a government that has spent time in parliament making sure that the rights of the accused and convicted criminals are not infringed too heavily by the taking of DNA evidence. That is the kind of perverse priority of the government.

Then we have Canadians saying that they want laws that effectively deter youth crime. That is important to them. The Young Offenders Act gives a slap on the wrist and almost encourages youth crime because the consequences are so lenient.

Yet, what does the government spend its time on? As my colleague who was with the RCMP before taking his seat in parliament just said, we have spent time in parliament with a law that would force law enforcement officers to break off attempts to find suspects to obtain a search warrant to enter a building. At that time anyone but the most inept of criminals would be long gone.

Canadians are asking for measures that deter crime. Parliament in response spends time on laws that will protect criminals to make sure they are not too easily caught. We would not want to actually bring a lawbreaker too easily to justice.

Sometimes we wonder why Canadians put up with this nonsense. Canadians are asking for a bold new package of ideas to substantially reduce delays and costs in the legal system. I will talk in a minute about delays in the legal system.

What does the minister do in response to this demand by Canadians? She beavers away on a bill to expand a tiny corner of evidentiary procedure when it comes to disabled people. That is her big contribution to addressing the delays and costs of the legal system. That is what the justice committee has been asked to spend time on.

Canadians want to reverse the shocking leniency of sentences that are handed down by our courts even for serious violent crimes, for example, drunk driving and some of the light sentences for incredible violations and assaults on our citizens due to conditional sentencing. Canadians are saying enough already.

What does the minister do? Her best shot is to introduce this bill to appoint a few more judges, not of course in the criminal area but in the appeal area and the family court area, and to promise more money for judges.

Does this sound like the acts of a competent, responsive justice minister? My answer is absolutely not. Here we are nearly a year into the mandate of a government and the best this government has been able to do is practically the exact opposite on handling the four greatest concerns of the Canadian people.

What did the minister promise when she took on the job? What was her promise? Was it to appoint a few more judges, pay them more and give them better pensions? I did not hear any of that. I am pretty sure Canadians did not hear that either. Did the new justice minister say she will make sure that before a police officer goes after a suspected criminal following the commission of a crime that they go back to a judge and get a search warrant, lest they catch up with this person too quickly? Did anyone hear the justice minister say that after she was appointed? I did not hear that.

Here is what she did say: “Improving the Young Offenders Act is one of my top priorities”. Oh really, her top priority. Here we are months and months from the appointment of this minister who, by the way, had the benefit of a full two years of study of the Young Offenders Act by the justice committee which had just been finished prior to the election. All the study had been done.

The justice committee travelled across the country, spoke with Canadians from top to bottom of this country, from law enforcement officers, to the judiciary, to regular citizens, to high school students, for two years studying the Young Offenders Act, helping the justice minister to carry out her top priority, to improve the Young Offenders Act. Here we are nearly a year later without one single line of legislation to carry out the justice minister's supposed top priority.

Instead we are spending hours of debate in this House and in committee talking about whether we need a few more judges and if we should pay them more.

Something is far wrong with the mandate of this government and a justice minister who can change priorities to such a sad extent. The record speaks for itself. As I have said, I believe the priorities that have been carried out are bending over backwards to protect the rights of accused, convicted and fleeing criminals and expanding the operations of and rewards to a justice system many Canadians describe as ineffective, inefficient and out of touch.

There has been time for four bills to do that but no time to put even one line of legislation before this House to deal seriously with the glaring flaws in a justice system which has repeatedly failed law abiding Canadians when it comes to protecting their safety and their right to security.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about what is causing so much frustration and unnecessary pain to regular Canadians. That is the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Gilles Deraiche.

Mr. and Mrs. Deraiche now live in Calgary and have given me permission to talk about their situation. They lived in Ottawa not too long ago. In September 1996 their son was viciously murdered in Ottawa. Since that time it took seven months to hold a preliminary hearing. One could imagine the agony of these parents who wanted justice and closure on this terrible family tragedy. They had to wait seven months for the preliminary hearing to find out if there was enough evidence to hold a trial. Following that it took five months to schedule an examination for discovery. Eight months after that a trial date is scheduled.

Twenty months are going to pass before there will be a trial to bring this personal loss to any kind of closure. My constituents have been treated as if they have no right and no interest in this entire proceedings. When they called the prosecutor's office in Ottawa they were advised it was the responsibility of the police to give them information. When they called the police they were advised it was not the police's responsibility to advise them of what was going on. The police also told them that sometimes they do not even know what is going on.

When they call for information they must always state the names of the individuals who were accused of their son's murder, thus putting the emphasis on those who created such tragedy in their lives. This is very painful for them.

They were advised of the trial date of their son's murder by relatives in Ottawa who read about it in the Ottawa newspaper. These are the parents of a murdered son. That is the way our justice system works for Canadians. Canadians are told it is really important that we pay judges more and that they have better pensions. Maybe it is, but that is not how Mr. and Mrs. Deraiche feel. Their situation will not be helped at all by this act because it appoints judges in a totally different area.

In B.C. 40,000 criminals are awaiting trial. This has forced the B.C. attorney general to request an amendment which would allow a longer period of time for bringing a criminal to trial before the case is thrown out of court. Under our charter the criminal is entitled to a timely trial. If the system is backlogged and the criminal does not get a timely trial he or she walks free.

It is necessary to spend time in this Parliament to address some of the changes being demanded for our legal and justice system. The priorities of this government are completely wrong. I appeal to the government to put the tinkering administrative matters on the back burner and get on with the real job we were elected to do, provide safety and security for Canadians and their families.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks. While I do not necessarily share all her opinions, including those on the Young Offenders Act and the severity of sentences imposed by the courts, on the whole, as regards Bill C-37, we are not far apart in our understanding of it and on the government's obligations regarding decisions by the Supreme Court.

On September 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down an important decision. It is the reason we have Bill C-37 before us now. I will quote a passage from the decision I consider very important, and then I will ask her a question.

The justices said the following “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”.

My question to the member is quite simple, and I am sure she shares my position on this. Could she tell us what she thinks, in the light of the statement by the Supreme Court justices, of the way judges are appointed to the Supreme Court, to federal courts and to superior courts? Does she not believe that, if we are to depoliticize the process and prevent all economic manipulation, there has to be a commission?

Would it not be more natural or better if the government opposite introduced a bill to set up a sort of committee, commission or whatever for the appointment of justices? Would this serve to prevent all political interference, all political manipulation, as it was put by a certain lawyer with a high international profile in the Supreme Court reference?

Would justice not be better served if the government listened to the arguments put forward by the opposition on a number of occasions? I think the Reform Party also has a platform or arguments on the appointment of judges to superior courts under federal jurisdiction.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of Canadians found it rather shocking to suppose, if I understand the case, that unless judges are paid more they could be open to bribery. Therefore their integrity may be for sale unless the government pays them more. I find that to be a tremendous insult to the many fine people we have on the bench.

If we extend that argument we could say that law enforcement officers, members of Parliament and legislators should be paid a lot more for the same reason. I think the whole premise behind that judgment was certainly very flawed and suspect in its assessment of the character of our judiciary.

However, the member did ask me about the way judges are appointed and whether that could be improved. I certainly agree with him, as do most Canadians, that simply basing appointments to the bench on patronage, past faithful service to a particular party is very undesirable.

I remember how naive I was in law school. Some days I think I still am but I was more so then. We had a visiting judge. I asked him afterwards how one became a judge. I know that really sounds naive but I was quite curious. He laughed and said most people would say it depends on belonging to the right political party. Surely we can do a lot better than that in this country.

The Reform Party wants to reform this patronage appointment process to make it a lot more transparent and publicly accountable. We formed a task force which made recommendations in a report to our national assembly in Vancouver in 1996.

What the Reform task force recommended was an appointment process whereby a Commons committee made up of the elected representatives of the people would review and interview candidates whose names were put forward for judicial appointments. We felt this would open up the process a great deal and ensure that it was not simply done in the back rooms of the PMO, by whomever was handling the patronage appointments of the day.

We need to push very vigorously for this kind of reform to restore trust and confidence in the judicial system and in its integrity and objectiveness.