Mr. Speaker, I rose yesterday to speak to Motion No. 1. Today I rise to speak to Motion No. 2 put forward by my colleague from Crowfoot.
Before I start on a detailed analysis I would like to say that in general the motion is taking about bringing transparency and accountability to a system that has long been hidden behind curtains where arbitrary decisions are made.
Therefore the motion put forward by my colleague from Crowfoot is very important. I ask all members to take a careful look at it. As my colleague from the Bloc said, it brings transparency and accountability to this system.
I rose yesterday in support of the Bloc motion asking that the judges' pay raise be not given to judges due to reasons I listed. The same rationale applies to me as well. I would be a hypocrite if I stood here and said I like the 2% pay raise that is to be given to members of parliament. Those same arguments apply to me.
Therefore I want to go on record that I am not in agreement with the 2% pay raise to be given to members of parliament because over the four year period that is a 10% pay raise compounded.
The motion in front of the House asks the justice committee to view what the judicial compensation and benefits commission will come up with and have public hearings. What greater accountability is there than that?
The people of Canada will have a choice to say whether true compensation packages are in agreement with what the judges of this country are saying.
It brings accountability to the judges too because when these hearings are held, people will have room to vent their views regarding how the judicial system has been conducting itself. As members know, today this is under scrutiny.
It is viewed and seen that the judiciary is interfering with the wishes of the people as expressed through parliament by the charter of rights and coming to decisions that at times seem quite baffling.
Therefore it is very important that this benefits commission report is brought in front of the committee so that it can be scrutinized by members of parliament and by the Canadian public.
Another question regards where the laws of the nation are made. Are they made in the judiciary chambers or are they made in parliament? That is a very critical and important point in light of recent decisions made by people who have chosen to read what the charter of rights is saying as opposed to the wishes of what the Canadians want as expressed through the Chamber.
How does the Canadian public express displeasure and dissatisfaction on the way the judiciary can proceed if it is not held accountable? It can do that through the consultation package. It can do that when public hearings are made. Submissions can be made and attention can be brought to the judiciary regarding what the people of Canada feel. This brings some kind of accountability to judges.
To some degree judges would be happy to see the feedback coming from the Canadian public on how they are perceived, although we understand quite clearly that they are the guardians of the law. They have to follow the law. They have to interpret the law. They do not have to read into something when it is not there. The responsibility of a creating a concise law belongs to this Chamber.
That is why this compensation package is generous in everybody's point of view, in the opposition's point of view, but of course not in the government's point of view. We know what its point of view is. Its point of view is to spend money, keep the elite happy.
I said yesterday in reference to working class people that Canadians do not even dream of having this kind of compensation package. But today I am speaking on Motion No. 2 where some attempt is being made to take the whole picture into account so that Canadians are served well through transparency and accountability of the judicial system. That is very important in their eyes. It touches their lives every day.
The Constitution guarantees judiciary independence. We are not infringing on judiciary independence. We are extremely proud of the fact that the judiciary is independent in this nation. It is not under pressure. It is not pressured to compromise on the decisions it makes.
Nevertheless there still has to be accountability. Nevertheless the judiciary represents also the views of society. It is important that there be an understanding by the public and by the judiciary of what they expect of each other.
I conclude by appealing to all members of parliament to look at this motion and see that it is a small step toward dialogue between the judiciary and the Canadian public.