Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 2 put forward by my hon. colleague from Crowfoot.
It deals with the issue of accountability. That is where this amendment is going. It drives home the point that the commission to be set up under Bill C-37 to review the benefit packages and the pay of judges should be scrutinized. If this amendment were passed the commission would come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. That is what this amendment accomplishes. I do not see the problem with that.
A Liberal member stated earlier that in her opinion she felt this amendment was redundant since the committees in exercising their independence already have the ability to call witnesses on virtually any subject that falls under their domain. As one of my Calgary colleagues indicated during his brief and brilliant presentation, everyone, certainly those in parliament, knows the simple fact that the government has a majority position in the standing committees.
The minister of a particular department to which a standing committee is connected basically sets the agenda through their parliamentary secretary who sits on that committee. Those are the facts.
We can pretend these committees are basically independent but it is simply not the facts. The facts would indicate the cabinet and the minister responsible for that portfolio set the agenda.
Clearly in this case the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretary and their appointed chairman of the standing committee all desire that this report from the commission not be reviewed by the standing committee. They crack the whip as they do in the House of Commons. They get all the government members on the standing committee to stand and they simply would not bring that forward to be scrutinized.
That is the point of this amendment because if this amendment were passed there would be no choice in the matter. The commission's report would have to come before the standing committee and there would be public scrutiny through the committee.
When looking at Bill C-37 and this 8.3% increase in salary that it will bestow on our judges, what is the view of the people in the real world? What would they think about this piece of legislation?
As has been clearly laid out by a number of my colleagues, when we look the tough times a lot of people are having to make ends meet today, they would certainly question the need for judges who on average are making $140,000 a year to receive a retroactive pay increase of 8.3% at this time.
This is something the average person has no control over. This is something that will ultimately result in higher taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Where will it come from? It will come out of the pockets of taxpayers and therefore this type of increase should be defensible. It should be scrutinized by the general public through the standing committee, which this amendment calls for. I see my time has expired. I always I get interrupted by question period.