Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the first on behalf of the Reform Party to respond to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and to explain why we cannot support the bill.
First and foremost, this is the third time the Liberals have amended the Judges Act. During the last parliament in 1996 they introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42. Both were inconsequential pieces of legislation and of little significance to Canadians concerned about their safety.
Here we are again spending our precious time on judge's salaries and benefits. The Liberal government has failed to introduce a victims' bill of rights. It has failed to amend the YOA. It has failed to limit the Conditional Release Act. It has failed to address the parole system, which is failing constantly in a number of cases.
It fails to deal with the safety of Canadians but we are to talk about judges' pay and benefits. We will occupy our time doing that instead of dealing with important issues like maybe amending some law pertaining to drinking and driving. The government will wait for forever. In the four years I have been here we have hounded the government to make important changes, but, no, not yet.
At the heart of the legislation is the fact that it increases judges' salaries retroactively from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 by 4.1% and an additional 4.1% or a little more from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. In other words judges will get an 8.3% increase over two years. With the average salary of a judge being approximately $140,000, this means they will make in excess of $151,000. This is a substantial increase.
My question is simple. How many other public servants have received pay raises in a two year period of 8.3%? I hope all security guards will hold up their hands and shout hurrah for the 8.3% raise the judges got who went from $140,000 to $151,000. I hope the lady pushing the carpet sweeper and broom and emptying garbage cans in front of my office this morning is pleased to hear that judges will now make $151,000 instead of $140,000 because of a pay raise. I hope bus drivers do not get too disappointed because they have not had a raise for nearly seven or eight years.
What about prison guards? I spend a lot of time in the prisons. The guards have been crying out for nine years that some of them have not seen a raise or pay increase of any kind. They go to work in the morning and are at high risk and in high stress day after day. It is a dangerous and difficult job. Yet the government makes certain that the judges receive an increase from $140,000 to $151,000 while the guards in our institutions who have been asking for a pay raise for seven to nine years simply do not get one.
When I arrived in Ottawa in 1993 the weepy teared deputy prime minister said the government had to do something as there were a million children starving and living in poverty. Today there are still a million or perhaps more children in this situation. The government does not have time to address that. It can give away $25 million worth of flags and not worry about starving children living in poverty. It goes on, and four years later there are still a million children living in poverty. Yet it has time to deal with the judges and give them another big raise, increasing their salaries to $151,000.
The government would simply say it is extremist and does not care. It shows its caring by making sure senior bureaucrats, possibly their frontline officers in caucus and judges are all well looked after with their bonuses. Let us not forget big business grants. It has several millions of dollars to give to big businesses. Maybe they are donors to the Liberal Party. I do not know.
These are the kinds of issues we hoped would be solved when we came here. However, what are debating today? Judges' salaries and benefits. The government is not worried about those million children. It has not worried about this issue for four years so why worry about it today? It is not worried about prison guards or security guards in this building. They have not had a raise for seven or eight years. The government will not worry about that today. It has to look after judges.
Usually judges come from a lawyer background as do most of the people on that side of the House. There is a good industry going on here. Maybe we need to protect that industry. I wish the government would show a little more caring about some things that are going on.
People in my riding are being evicted from their homes because they cannot afford to pay the rent or their mortgages. They have children. I could name three families who are being evicted from their homes because they can no longer afford to pay their mortgage payments. The government does not deal with that. It deals with high wages for the bureaucrats and all the highfalutin Liberal garble. It gives them bonuses and makes it look good. It goes on and on. When will it stop? When will it begin taking care of the needy instead of the greedy? When will that happen? The caring government of the day, huh.
Another point about the bill brings some things out in me that should not be brought out. There will to be a commission that has to report but not to parliament. There will not be opportunity for members to respond. The commission is a creation which will provide the federal government with another opportunity to make more patronage appointments.
Is that not good news? More appointments in a government where the Prime Minister said many times that he was going to put an end to that, much the way he said he was going to put an end to the GST. Instead there are more and more appointments. It is going to be a patronage heaven by the time they get done.
Members will hold office for four years and they are eligible to be reappointed for another term. One will be appointed by the justice minister. Another one will be appointed by the governor in council. A couple more will be recommended by somebody else. Another patronage appointment, welcome to Liberal world. Patronage heaven, what a great place to be. How can this government ever be seen as being accountable when the patronage appointments process is rejuvenated again and again, bill after bill, more patronage, appointments galore.
In the government's press release on compensation and benefits, the supreme court underscored the importance and the necessity of the role played by such an independent commission in ensuring public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Canadian judiciary. This clearly does not mean a system of patronage, yet that is what we got.
They clearly know how to talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk. The public confidence is at an all-time low because of these kinds of patronage patronage appointments. Club Chrétien with its exclusive membership is already at 124 members. This legislation will open the door for more. Is that not good news? More patronage appointments.
Have a good time taxpayers of Canada. You think your taxes are high now, they are going to go up and up. We are not going to really address the needs of the nation. It is not a priority of that crowd over there.
The third highlight of the bill increases the number of appeal court judges from 10 to 13. It is no wonder this has become necessary in light of the shoddy pieces of legislation, such as conditional sentencing. In B.C. alone there have been a record number of cases appealed because of Bill C-41 in the last Parliament. What does all does that mean? What is happening?