Mr. Speaker, just for the benefit of Canadians who might be watching, in terms of my comments and my question to the hon. member, he mentioned at the tail end of his last remarks what in fact we are debating.
We are not debating a revamping of the Judges Act. We are debating amendments to the Judges Act. The summary of those amendments is as follows: to provide changes to salaries and in respect of eligibility for an annuity; to make additional changes to the judicial annuity scheme; to establish a Judicial Benefits and Compensation Commission; and to provide authority to pay additional appeal court and unified family court judges.
We are talking about compensation for judges. In this bill we are not talking about the removal of judges. We are not talking about conditional sentencing under the Criminal Code. That has nothing to do with Bill C-37.
I want to make a couple of comments to the hon. member and then ask him a couple of specific questions.
First I want to say that, as usual, his speeches are entertaining and easy to listen to. He makes good points. He is also perhaps a little bit loose with the facts.
He mentioned a number of judges. I was wondering how many of those judges are provincial court judges, appointed by various provincial governments across the country. The reason I am wondering this is because after each of the horror stories that the hon. member mentioned he blamed the people on this side of the House.
He answered his own question when he referred to Brian Sanderson. He indeed is a provincial court judge. That has nothing to do with the federal government. It has nothing to do with Bill C-37. It has absolutely nothing to do with an 8.5% pay increase.
Are all of the judges that were mentioned by the hon. member federal appointments? If they are—