Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-37, an act respecting changes to the Judges Act, changes to salaries with respect to eligibility for annuity, et cetera.
I will begin my comments by indicating, as has been done by some other speakers, particularly my colleague in the Bloc Quebecois, that there are some good things in this bill. I have indicated that in previous addresses to this House.
Clearly the creation of the unified family court in provinces in this country is an important step forward.
Like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I am honoured to serve on the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. I would say that one of the difficulties in sitting on that committee is that it sits at the same time as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
I appreciate the frustrations that both the parliamentary secretary and myself have had in trying to make both meetings. However, at the meetings we have attended, it has been clear that many individuals who have come before that committee have had experiences in provincial courts dealing with the issues of custody and access, and perhaps matrimonial property if the court has the jurisdiction to do that. In some provinces it may and in some provinces it may not. Then they find themselves before a superior court dealing with the federal legislation of divorce and a whole range of matters that have already been dealt with which have to be re-adjudicated.
The movement toward a unified family court is a good move. Were it not for other aspects of this bill, my party would support it.
With regard to the special joint committee on child custody and access, I mentioned the difficulty that the parliamentary secretary and I had in attending those meetings. That has been compounded by the fact that, like her, I have constituency work to do and voters to be answerable to. They are the most important reason we are here today and they are the most important priority for myself and for other elected members of this House. Unlike certain colleagues in the Senate who have a lot more time because they do not have constituents to answer to and they are only on one committee, we have had to divide our time between the many responsibilities that we have as elected representatives.
This bill moves in the direction of providing annuities and benefits to the surviving spouses of the judiciary. It provides a mechanism for the division of property for the judiciary.
An amendment was suggested by a member of my party to change the definition of spouse in the act. I will read the definition: “A surviving spouse, in relation to a judge, includes a person of the opposite sex who has cohabitated with the judge—”. In recent court rulings of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and in other human rights cases there is some question as to whether or not the definition of spouse, which is an older definition in the act, will hold up to judicial scrutiny at some point down the road. It seems that we could have gone further and taken out the heterosexual nature of the definition of spouse in the act and saved it from litigation at some point down the road. However, that amendment was not deemed important enough to be brought forward.
Those are some of the good aspects of this legislation that are worthy of consideration. At the same time there are important areas that could have been addressed by the Minister of Justice in bringing forward amendments to the Judges Act that have not been addressed.
First, I will deal with the formation of the committee that reviews judicial salaries. I have said before and I say again that I think that committee could have been expanded. I appreciate that the Minister of Justice used a model from arbitration, where a member is nominated by the judiciary, a member is nominated by the government and a third party is nominated by both individuals. However, we could have expanded that committee. We could have included a member of the Canadian Bar Association. No one knows better how much work the judiciary does than the lawyers who appear before the courts on a regular basis.
Some of the judiciary in this country are exemplary. Some go beyond the call of duty. They work late nights. They accept responsibilities. When cases fall through, they go looking for other cases to deal with their workload. At the same time, we know there are members of the judiciary who are not as hardworking as others. As parliament continues to play an increasing role in certain areas, some members of the judiciary have simply retreated from making decisions.
For example, consider the results of Bill C-41 which brought into existence the maintenance tables that the judiciary now uses upon divorce. There was a time when the responsibility of the judge upon divorce was to inquire as to what the means and the needs of the parties were, whether the children were provided for, what special circumstances families had to take into account. Today many of the judiciary simply ensure that the guidelines are imposed. They say they have no responsibility to make further inquiries. They have abandoned that work.
I will again refer to the Divorce Act where in many cases the plan is put forward by the children. We heard on the special joint committee on child custody and access repeated calls for parenting plans to be put forward by parents of children upon divorce.
In many cases it is left up to the lawyers to negotiate that and to ensure that there is a checklist for the judiciary. The judiciary simply checks things off in the way a clerk might. They say “Well, you haven't filled in all the blanks, so take the divorce papers back and when the lawyers do all the work bring it back to me and I'll sign on the dotted line”.
When we hear that type of thing the bill falls short of what might have been done.
First of all, the committee could have been expanded, as I have indicated, to include members of the bar association and to perhaps include a member from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The Canadian Union of Public Employees represents public servants in this country who are paid by the taxpayer in the same way that the judiciary is. Why not have someone sitting on that committee on judicial salaries who understands what other public employees across this country are dealing with in terms of their own expenses and costs of living?
It has been mentioned by both my colleague in the Bloc and the member for Crowfoot that the people who work in the court system, the people who work in the protonotary's office, the people who work in the deeds office and the people who sit at the feet of the judges transcribing what goes on in the courtroom have suffered as a result of the government's emphasis on deficit reduction, have suffered roll-backs and freezes at both the provincial and federal levels. It would have been very interesting to have a representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees sit on the judicial salaries commission.
The failure to expand the committee is a flaw in the bill.
I also think, and this has been the crux of many comments from other individuals, that the size of the increase in pay at this point in time for the judiciary is one that we have to question. The estimates and the figures we have been given range from 8.4%, I believe from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, to well over 13% from the hon. member in the Bloc Quebecois. Either figure at this point in time we have to question, given the nature of what people in this country have gone through.
Further, given the fact of what we have seen in this country under the current economic policies, the gap between the wealthy and the poor continues to increase. That ought to give us pause for concern as we move to increasing the take home income of some of the wealthiest people in the country by either 8% or 13%.
It is not that I do not think the judiciary ought to be well paid. It is not that I do not think the judiciary has a difficult and important job to do. However, at a time when those who work in the court system and those who appear before the courts are suffering, it is unacceptable that we give such a high increase.
I see my hon. colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in the House today. He and I walked a picket line in Halifax. I must say that it was not a situation he was most comfortable with or used to. I had to give him a few lessons on where to turn and how to hold his sign, but he passed with flying colours. It was a sight to be seen. I think our picture appeared on the front page of the daily news. I am sure that Conservatives across that province will take great comfort in the fact that the Conservatives are now walking the picket lines.
However, on a more serious note, we walked that line with the crown attorneys for the province of Nova Scotia. We walked that line with the crown prosecutors in the province of Nova Scotia who were forced onto the street because they had been struggling with pay reductions and increased workloads and simply could not handle it any more.
The legal aid lawyers appear before the judiciary on the most serious matters every day, the most serious criminal matters, the most serious family issues that come before the courts on the questions of custody and access. They defend people who are charged with the most heinous crimes. The crown prosecutors prosecute those crimes to ensure justice is done. They have not had a pay increase. In fact they have had services and incomes slashed in the last four or five years.
I refer to section 41 in the Judges Act. I find this most interesting especially at this point in time. There is a section which allows and authorizes the court to pay for conference allowances, reasonable travel and other expenses actually incurred by the judiciary in travelling to conferences. As I have said I do not oppose that. I think it is important that judges attend conferences and that they understand and have an opportunity to explore the law.
However in my own province the travel budget for legal aid lawyers, and I am sure it is the same for any crown prosecutor, to travel to a conference to further educate themselves has been cut to the point where they cannot go. It is impossible. They have been told “We may pay for the registration fee but you pay for the travel allowance. You pay for your accommodations. You clear your schedule and find a lawyer who will cover for you. If you can accomplish all of that, you can go”.
Understanding the importance of continuing legal education, we have made provisions for the judiciary to have their reasonable expenses met. So what are we doing? We are creating a situation where the judiciary sitting on the bench will be even more critical of the lawyers who appear before them because the lawyers cannot afford to go to the same conferences to be as up to date on the law as they should be. How does that advance the interests of justice?
If the money is available for the judiciary, then we have to make it available for other programs. If it is not available for the other programs, then it is the wrong time to advance for the judiciary a pay increase of the magnitude which we have before us.
There are a few other important points to make. My colleague the member for Crowfoot from the Reform Party has raised some interesting issues on the question of the supreme court case which resulted in the creation of this commission and judicial independence. He and I have discussed the issue before.
The member says that we see an increasing role for the judiciary at the expense of the supremacy of parliament. I would point out that the supremacy of parliament requires checks and balances and always has. The idea that the British parliamentary system is one that has always met the needs of its population is one that is open to historical scrutiny.
It seems to me that on the very issue of universal suffrage, the Parliament of England refused to grant universal suffrage time after time after time up until the turn of the century. It was the charterists in England who I think first brought before the House of Commons in the late 1860s or early 1870s a petition of 1.6 million names of workers who asked for the right to vote and were turned down. They came back a second time with another petition and were turned down. They came back a third time with a petition containing I think five million names and were turned down. Had it not been for the labour movement and the organization of workers in England and in other countries in Europe, the sovereign House of Commons in England would not have granted universal suffrage.
Today the right to vote and the freedom from discrimination can be challenged in the supreme court of this country and other courts at the provincial level.
Had England had that charter of rights and an activist court, then the check on the supremacy of parliament may have provided for universal suffrage much earlier. I say that not to say parliament should not be supreme, but until we have real and radical changes to the way in which we make laws in this country, we have to have a check on this very House. The check has to be more than the opposition of the government.
The way the laws are made in this country is clearly available for anyone who wants to read a political science book. The cabinet and 20 people in the front rows of this House determine what the law will be. Let us look at Bill C-37. They determine what the changes are to be in the legislation. It is presented to the House. There is an airing of different views. It is presented to committee and committee at times can make recommendations and amendments. Realistically at the end of the day the majority of the government members because of party discipline will vote in favour of the legislation. The opposition members may vote against it, but the legislation will pass.
We ask ourselves where is the check on the supreme power of parliament? The check is not in the Senate. I found it interesting to hear the hon. member for Crowfoot mention the house of sober second thought where he hopes this bill will be examined. I find it interesting to hear the Reform Party speak in favour of the Senate that way. It will not be realistically challenged because the government also has a majority in the Senate. It will not be checked by the governor general. The only check on the power of this House and on the legislation put forward by the government is the judiciary. The judiciary does play an important role.
Unfortunately, because the bill has not gone as far as I would like it to, we cannot support it. I do not want that to be seen as casting a bad light on the judiciary. Given the economic times, given the fact that the bill did not go as far as we like, and I have not touched on the method of judicial appointment which could have been included in this bill and is an important factor, but given those situations and given the fact that my time is running out, I say to the House that we will not be supporting the legislation because it is a missed opportunity.