Debates of Nov. 8th, 2006

Canada Elections Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I mentioned in my comments that enumeration seems to be the piece that should be focused on and it has not. Since we have had the centralized voter's list, it has been rife with problems. One of the problems is that we do not have that human contact when we go out and do the enumeration.

I am not happy with the provisions in the bill to designate to the district returning officer those kinds of responsibilities. As I mentioned, in Bill C-2 we are looking at changing that role and having merit based appointments which we support. Until there is time to get people up and going and trained, I do not want to hand that over to people and set them up for something that might fail.

One comment that I did not have the time to make is my deep concern about the fact that we are going to have certain private information made public. That is the reference to birth dates. I understand the need for it, but to me this is a case of concerns about big government. That is something that the Privacy Commissioner might have concerns about. The bill talks about using income tax forms as a way in which we can verify information and use birth dates. That information would be given to candidates and to returning officers.

I think that is something that we should all be very concerned about. I am deeply concerned and I know other people will be.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his comments on the bill. They were very thoughtful and thought provoking.

In my riding the majority of constituents are renters. As such there is a very high turnover among those renters. We also unfortunately have a number of people who are homeless and who are struggling with mental health issues.

In considering the high turnover, there are people who may not navigate systems as well as some of us do and many of whom may not be as engaged politically as we are without an enumeration system. They may not even be engaged in the voting system and may not vote at all. Given that one in every 200 Canadians is without a home, those Canadians may also be quite disengaged from the political process.

I have a question for the hon. member. What impact would the potential loss of political engagement have, the loss of potential voting activity among renters, low income people and homeless people, on our entire political process in Canada?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would undermine the foundation of our democratic system. In other words, it would disenfranchise people when strangely enough the intention of the bill is to invigorate and strengthen our democratic system, and the integrity of the voting system. We have a lot of ideas that we will bring forward to hopefully improve the bill, back to the intent of what we all want and that is to have a better system that allows more participation and indeed not less.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-31.

This bill should be of interest to all members and all Canadians, because its goal is to improve the electoral process, the foundation of our democratic system. There can be no doubt that Canadian democracy is a great democracy.

All members here have been through at least one election and know that the process is not perfect. They know that an election period lasts 36 days and is organized around a complex set of rules and procedures. They also know that holding general elections in 308 electoral districts is a major undertaking. In any operation of this scope there will always be room for improvement. Bill C-31 will allow our electoral process to run more smoothly.

At first glance, many changes seem to be somewhat technical, but even small operational modifications can produce concrete results in practice. Providing support for the machinery of democracy strengthens the integrity of the process as a whole.

I believe that the reforms should be greeted with the support and confidence of the candidates seeking election, the parties involved in the electoral process, the election officials responsible for the conduct of elections and, more particularly, the Canadian public, whose democratic choice is expressed through the electoral system.

The bill contains tangible improvements for everyone involved in the democratic process. That is why I support it. I would like to briefly describe a few of the changes proposed.

The most important change is that electors must identify themselves at the polling stations. As my colleagues from Quebec undoubtedly know, this measure has been in place in Quebec for the last seven years. Quebec’s Election Act was amended in 1999 to incorporate an obligation to present a piece of identification before voting. Other amendments also require that Quebecers identify themselves to vote in a referendum or municipal election.

In order to exercise their right to vote in Quebec, electors must present a Quebec health insurance card, a driver’s licence, a Canadian passport, a certificate of Indian status or a Canadian Armed Forces card, and electors who cannot do that are referred to an identity verification panel and must sign a sworn statement as to their identity. They must produce at least two other documents to the panel that establish their identity or ask another elector who has an identity card with a photograph to be their guarantor.

Those measures are similar to what is proposed in Bill C-31. I am persuaded that the process for identifying electors will work as well at the federal level as it does in Quebec. A study done by the chief electoral officer of Quebec in 2002 shows that deputy returning officers and the persons responsible for polls are generally satisfied with this provision and that it has been relatively well received by electors.

The deputy returning officers who took part in the study noted these facts: first, mandatory identification has strengthened the integrity of the voting process by reducing the possibility of fraud; second, this measure has led to increased public confidence in the system; and third, it enhances the importance of the voting process.

I believe that Bill C-31 will have the same good results, results that are really necessary at the federal level.

For example, members will recall an incident that was much talked about: an American student had voted in the 39th general election. His stated purpose was to demonstrate that the enforcement of rules at polling stations was too lax and that the opportunities for fraud were in his own words, “immense”. He succeeded.

However, I want to make it clear that the very great majority of voters go to the polls in good faith, solely to exercise their legitimate, democratic duty. It is almost impossible to prevent someone whose goal is to defraud the system from finding a way to do so.

Nevertheless, the provision dealing with voter identification in Bill C-31 will make it a great deal more difficult for voters with unlawful intentions to achieve their goal. The bill includes mechanisms that will allow for an investigation after the election if necessary by requiring, for example, that voters without identification take an oath. The bill will highlight the rules for voters who may believe, incorrectly but in good faith, that they are eligible to vote. It will not prevent eligible voters from exercising their rights.

Most Canadians are used to presenting some form of identification for a variety of daily activities. Unlike other levels of Canadian government where identification is compulsory in order to vote, the bill provides alternative solutions for Canadian voters who do not have photo identification.

In other words, the bill establishes an important balance between accessibility and integrity.

This bill introduces important changes that have been standard practice for a long time at other levels of government in Canada, like most of the reforms on election financing in Bill C-2. I think especially of the prohibition on donations from corporations and trade unions. The voter identification system works well in Quebec, and I am convinced that it will work well in the rest of Canada.

This bill contains numerous tangible improvements to the electoral process. I will mention only some of them. First, the voter’s date of birth will be added to the official and revised list of electors that will be used at polling stations. This measure is already in use in Quebec and represents another means of confirming the identity of a person who wishes to vote.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs specifically requested in the recommendations on which these provisions are based that the elector’s date of birth not be shown on the lists given to candidates. I agree with that because it is very important to protect personal information. I see that the bill abides by this request.

I would like to highlight the fact that advance polling stations can henceforth be set up for a single polling division, instead of a minimum of two as is currently the case. This is an important change in those provinces and regions where the polling divisions are very far apart, in northern Canada, for example, or in highly rural areas. Now that the advance polling stations will be closer to the electors in these areas, it will be easier for them to exercise their right to vote.

Finally, I would like to point out that the bill contains various specific points on how the Chief Electoral Officer uses and communicates election information. For example, each registered elector will be assigned a unique, randomly generated identifier to facilitate the updating of the Register of Electors and improve its accuracy.

In addition, income tax returns can be used to enhance the reliability of the information that Canadians agree to provide to Elections Canada.

The bill also contains specific provisions on the exchange of election information between federal and provincial election authorities. This will help to improve the integrity of the federal and provincial voters’ lists and ensure that personal information is well protected.

I could go on much longer about the various advantages of this bill, but what is most important is the cumulative effect of all these improvements. These changes, taken together, enhance the integrity of our election process. Like the Federal Accountability Act , this bill will help us maintain public confidence in our democratic system. Like Bill C-2, which deals with election financing in particular, this bill contains important reforms that have been tested in Quebec. Like Bill C-2, this bill, I hope, will be passed quickly by Parliament so that it will be in effect for the next election. These measures are important for all parties concerned and for all Canadians.

I hope that this bill will receive the enthusiastic support of all hon. members and parties in the House.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Yukon.

The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington and the member for Ottawa Centre went into great detail describing the bill and how we got from that place to here, so I will not repeat that, but I would like to highlight a few aspects that are important for us to consider as we deal further with this bill.

First of all, there was a report from the Chief Electoral Officer in September 2005 which set out a number of these improvements in the integrity of the electoral system. That report was considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs last spring and a report was generated from that committee's hearings. That went to the government and on October 20 we received this report back from the government, incorporating most of the committee's recommendations as well as the drafted Bill C-31 which we are considering.

I was not involved in that committee last fall, so I do not have the full history of what was suggested and what was rejected. However, it seems to me that it is a bit of a surprise at this stage, when we have gone through an iterative process with experts, party members, the Privacy Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer and other electoral officials, as well as debate in committee, and our own report going to the government and the government responding to it, that we are not a little further ahead than we appear to be now.

I listened carefully to the member for Vancouver East and the member for Ottawa Centre. While the points that they raise with respect to democratic access to the voting process make eminent good sense, and in fact they are fundamental principles that must be respected in a democracy, I am a little surprised that at this very late date in this process these are being raised as things that have been totally neglected by members from all parties, the government, electoral officials over the last period of longer than a year.

I am a little surprised at that. I thought actually there was an agreement that we would be moving this pretty quickly through at this stage. Having raised those concerns, it is incumbent upon us, of course, to consider that concerns they raise are either dealt with by amendment or that we are all given the assurances that they are properly looked after.

As we look at election administration and this particular act amending the Elections Act, integrity of the voting system is absolutely critical. We have to balance two things. We have nothing if we do not have integrity of the system. We may have access to all sorts of people who may not otherwise have been enumerated or have easy access, but if we do not have the confidence of Canadians that the system as a whole has integrity, we have nothing. It simply is a chimera.

How do we balance that integrity in ensuring that we have voter identification, that we have effective enumeration, as well as making access as easy as possible for those in society who do face various barriers? We have heard a number of examples of that, either people who are transient and do not have current local information to establish their residence and address, or people who indeed are homeless or living in shelters where they are living very restrictive lifestyles and have a very restricted ability to identify themselves or have someone vouch for their identification.

That balance is tricky, I agree. We must ensure we get it right. I thought we were getting quite close there, but what needs to be done very quickly is to ensure that, first of all, the enumeration process is as sharp, as focused, as accurate, and as up to date as it possibly can be. I think this bill takes some steps toward doing that. There are many communities in our country which are remote and where there are really perennial problems with enumeration in those areas.

We have to, as a committee and as this House, give very strict directions to the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff to ensure that an extra effort is made to identify those areas of low enumeration. I think remote aboriginal communities are the best example of that where there have been in some communities over time a real under-enumeration. It is pretty obvious on the face of it, given what we know about the population and how many people are enumerated. That is an administrative factor. The bill is adequate for enumeration powers. We just have to ensure that the efforts are more strenuous in getting that enumeration done.

Another part, and it came up partly in the comments from the member for Vancouver East, is that we ensure that identification is as easy as possible. The bill lays out certain types of identification at different levels of challenge that can be used for the purpose of confirming identification. One thing that has not been specifically mentioned, which I think is very important, is that aboriginal band identification cards, which do have a photo and are issued by band councils, be accepted as government identification. This would be sufficient with the address and the photo. If they do not have the address, perhaps a letter from the band council would ensure that people in reserve communities have the full opportunity to vote.

Focusing on careful enumeration in order to ensure that we have a secure but a broad interpretation, particularly in aboriginal communities, of the first line of identification with a photo on it that would be acceptable as government photo identification. It should go without saying. It is certainly in line with the whole recognition, under our Constitution and governments across this country, of the inherent right of self-government of aboriginal people and therefore that type of identification should be acceptable.

What we had better do, because of the concerns raised by members of the NDP, is get this back into committee after the vote as soon as possible, and get the necessary officials before us to ensure that the issues raised can be dealt with. At the end of the day, this will be a balance. We will not have enumerated every person eligible in this country. There will always be transients. There will always be difficulties that individuals have, but we must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, we catch as many people while still securing the integrity of the system.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-31 on improving the election process. First, I basically agree with everything my colleague said. I would like to reinforce it, in the environment of my riding, with a bit of background.

It is interesting that we are discussing this on the night after an American election. We saw the little pitfalls it ran into, which were related to computers. Improvements can always be made to the system.

I think we have unanimous all party agreement that we want the highest integrity possible in the voter system. It is so important to our country. We want to ensure that as many people as possible are correctly enumerated so no thinks the elections are unfair. The type of indepth study into the bill is totally supported by all parties. We need to do as much as possible to ensure the integrity of the system for every one of our some 30 million Canadians, at least those who are of voting age.

We have had some problems over the years in my riding, once again minor problems. Hopefully, administrative changes can fix these. With the new mailboxes, voter the cards mailed to people sometimes fall on the ground and other people pick them up and think they are supposed to vote. Sometimes they are mailed to the wrong address. Therefore, we have had a problem with all these cards floating around.

Another problem, which we have had periodically, is the transient population in my riding. Some people move either in or out of the riding, or they move to other parts of the riding. There is a fair amount of movement throughout the riding. Although I am a big supporter of the permanent voters list, many times we would go door to door never knowing if we had the right number of voters. People had moved in, who were not on the list, or they had moved out, but they were still on the list. Hopefully, these amendments in the bill will help improve that.

In relation to the photo access card, I am not sure if pilot projects have been done or considered. However, we have to ensure the wrinkles are ironed out so everyone can have access to those cards, whether they are transient, or youth or aboriginal. Many youth in the country have no reason to have a photo ID card. When they need to get one early in their voting career, they have a hard time getting it. I also know there may be transient people who do not have a photo ID. We had a problem in my area when passports were becoming mandatory to get into the United States. Certain aboriginal people could not obtain a passport easily because they lived so far away.

Hopefully, all these items will be facilitated by Elections Canada to ensure that everyone has easy access to the requirements needed to vote. They are not unreasonable requirements. They are in place in many other countries, as the study on the bill has shown. However, we always have to facilitate every person in our society, whether they are disabled, or a youth, or a senior or aboriginal, to ensure that new requirements are fair to everyone, that they can afford them and can obtain them.

I am adding my support to improving the integrity of the system. As I said, it is exciting coming after the eve of an American election, which turned out very well for my riding. A number of people have been elected who are against drilling in the Arctic National WildLife Refuge. The objective of all parties in Parliament is to ensure no drilling takes place in that area. I am excited for those who were elected, but I lament the loss of a few members who were also against drilling.

I close by lending my support to the bill and I compliment all members of Parliament, especially on the procedures and House affairs committee who are looking at these technical details to make the system fair.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a few questions to my hon. colleague in relation to his assessment of the current electoral system. I think he would agree that integrity of the system is essential and improvements that are made to identify individuals and the exact constituency in which they are to vote are necessary. Perhaps we also need to ensure that people are voting in the right constituency. This is in part some of the intention.

Does he think the integrity of the system is an essential part? I also hearken back to some of our other key policy ideas in relation to fixed election dates. Does he feel taking that out of the hands of the government as a lever for which it can employ for political gain is a good thing?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the question will give me a chance to address two things that I forgot to address. One is on the integrity, and I agree with the member. That is exactly the purpose of the bill. I had forgotten a particular example that I hope the committee will address at some time.

On election day I went to the hospital to visit some sick people. Lo and behold, a number of people there could not vote because they were visiting someone. One never knows when someone may have to go to emergency. They had driven 200 miles from their home to the hospital. They could not vote because they could not get to their polling station in time. This is a big flaw in the system and I hope we will look at this.

I am glad he asked the question about fixed elections dates. I did not have the chance to put something on the record. I do not think the amount of time that the election can be changed to avoid another election is big enough. The first day the bill comes into effect there will be only three days change from another election. There will be an overlap of another election within three days. It can only be changed to the day after the week after, and that is not enough.

I know I have not convinced my colleagues in the House of that point, but someone said that in the long run I would be proved right. I suggest there be more flexibility to change the actual fixed election date so it avoids conflicting with another election.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member discuss the whole idea of cleaning up politics and the electoral system in the country. I want to broaden that discussion to the legislation, Bill C-2, the accountability act. It is not entirely unrelated to the subject we are talking about today.

The bill seeks to end the role of big money and corporate cash, protect whistleblowers in the public service and expand access to information to roughly 30 organizations in the government. It goes farther and has more breadth and depth in fighting corruption than any piece of legislation in Canadian history.

Why is the Liberal Party holding up the passage of the accountability act? Is the Liberal Party fundamentally opposed to accountability?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's statement is false. There are 51 Conservative amendments that are holding it up in the Senate. I agree it should be improved, but we should never rush through detailed legislation. I commend the Conservative members in the Senate who have found so many improvements. Hopefully, there is no one in the House who would not like thoughtful debate of any bill that comes through the House.

I do not think any member here would suggest that any act should be rushed through the House without proper consideration.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An. hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Judges Act

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Judges Act and certain other Acts in relation to courts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate the third reading stage of Bill C-17, which is an important piece of legislation.

Entitled, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in relation to the courts, Bill C-17 proposes to amend the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the report of the 2003 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The bill also proposes some technical amendments of a court related nature to other federal legislation.

Section 100 of the Constitution requires that Parliament and not the executive alone establish judicial compensation and benefits following full and public consideration and debate. In addition to the protections of section 100, the Supreme Court of Canada has established a constitutional requirement for an independent, objective and effective commission to make non-binding recommendations to government.

The government must publicly respond within a reasonable period of time to the commission report. Any rejection or modification of a commission recommendation must be publicly justified based on a standard of rationality. I will say something about this standard in a few moments.

The Judges Act was amended in 1998 to strengthen the existing commission process in keeping with the constitutional requirements identified by the Supreme Court of Canada. At the federal level, the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission is the name of the independent, objective and effective commission that makes recommendations to the government.

The commission convenes every four years to conduct an inquiry into the adequacy of judicial compensation and to deliver a report with its recommendations. The most recent commission completed its work when it delivered its report in May 2004. Sadly, implementation of the commission's recommendations languished under the former government. I will explain.

The commission fulfilled its role by conducting an inquiry and delivering a report with its recommendations. The former government responded to that report and introduced Bill C-51 to implement its response. However, despite an introduction date of May 20, 2005, Bill C-51 never proceeded beyond first reading and died on the order paper when the federal election was called in November 2005.

When Canadians voted for change on January 23 of this year, they voted for a government that was willing to recognize its responsibilities, make the decisions that needed to be made and moved forward with implementing those decisions. This government believes strongly in the principle of judicial independence. One of my priorities upon assuming office of justice minister was to review the commission report. This government recognizes that the integrity of this entire process is dependent in part on timely passage of implementing legislation.

The government is firmly of the view that we had a responsibility to take the time to consider the report and recommendations in light of the mandate and priorities upon which we were elected. However, we undertook our review as quickly as reasonably possible.

This government provided its response to the commission report on May 29, 2006, followed almost immediately by the introduction of Bill C-17 on May 31, 2006. The bill was referred after first reading to the committee on June 20. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began its consideration of the bill on October 24 and tabled its report in the House on November 1, approving the bill with some minor technical amendments.

I am sure hon. members appreciate the critical importance of completing the final stage of the 2003 quadrennial cycle through the passage of legislation. The credibility, indeed, the legitimacy of this constitutional process requires it, especially since the next quadrennial commission process is due to commence in less than one year.

Bill C-17 proposes to implement virtually all of the commission's recommendations. The exceptions are the commission's recommendation of a 10.8% salary increase and the representational costs proposal. Instead, the government is prepared to support a salary increase of 7.25% and to increase reimbursement of representational costs to 66% from the current level of 50%. The fully developed rationale for these modifications can be found in our government's response.

I know the hon. members have read the government's response, which fully explains the rationale for the modification of the commission's salary recommendations. I, therefore, intend to just briefly summarize our thinking on this important issue.

Before doing so, however, I think it is important to speak to the standard of rationality against which any modification of the commission's recommendations by Parliament will be assessed.

It is necessary to displace some of the misconceptions that are at play in this area and, in particular, suggestions that respect for the constitutional judicial compensation process and for judicial independence, broadly speaking, can only be demonstrated through a verbatim implementation of commission recommendations. That is a clearly wrong interpretation.

To ensure public confidence in the process, I think it is absolutely critical that we have a shared appreciation and understanding of the very balanced guidance that has been provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in the key cases of the P.E.I. judges' reference case and the Bodner decision.

In both decisions, the court has quite rightly acknowledged that allocations of public resources belongs to legislatures and to governments. A careful reading of both cases clearly indicates that governments are fully entitled to reject and modify commission recommendations, provided that a public, rational justification is given which demonstrates overall respect for the commission's process.

I would say here, as we did in the response, that the government is confident that we have fully met this requirement.

The effectiveness of the commission is not measured by whether all of its recommendations are implemented unchanged. It is measured by whether the commission process, its information gathering and analysis, and its report and recommendation played a central role in informing the ultimate determination of judicial compensation.

The commission's work and analysis have been critical in the government's deliberations, which is not critical of but critical in the government's deliberations. Our response respectfully acknowledges the commission's efforts and explains the government's position in relation to the two modifications to the commission's proposal.

In justifying our proposed modification of the salary recommendation, as reflected in Bill C-17, we gave careful consideration to all of the criteria established by the Judges Act and to two of these in particular: first, the prevailing economic conditions in Canada, including the cost of living and the overall economic and financial position of the federal government; and, second, the need to attract outstanding candidates to the judiciary.

With respect to the first of those, we concluded that the commission did not pay sufficient heed to the need to balance judicial compensation proposals within the overall context of economic pressures, fiscal priorities and competing demands on the public purse. In essence, the government ascribed a different weight than the commission to the importance of this criterion.

In terms of attracting outstanding candidates, we took issue with the weight that the commission placed on certain comparator groups against which the adequacy of judicial salaries should be assessed. The government recognizes that the task of establishing appropriate comparators for judges has been a perennial challenge for past commissions as well as parliamentarians given the unique nature of judicial office.

We acknowledge that the commission carefully and thoroughly considered a range of comparative information, including the incomes of senior public servants, governor in council appointees and private practice lawyers. Our key concern was the fact that the commission appeared to accord disproportionate weight to incomes earned by self-employed lawyers and, in particular, to those practitioners in Canada's eight largest urban centres. In addition, there was an apparent lack of emphasis given to the value of the judicial annuity.

As the response elaborates, the government believes that the commission's salary recommendation of 10.8% overshoots the mark in defining the level of salary increase necessary to ensure outstanding candidates for the judiciary.

The government is proposing a modified judicial salary proposal for puisne judges of $232,300, or 7.25%, effective April 1, 2004, with statutory indexing to continue effective April 1 in each of the following years, with proportionate adjustments for chief justices and justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The one other proposed modification relates to the commission's recommendation that the judiciary be entitled to an increased level of reimbursements for costs incurred through the judges' participation before the commission. It recommended increases from 50% to 66% for legal fees and from 50% to 100% for disbursement costs.

I note, as a matter of information, that disbursement costs in relation to the commission include, not just photocopying and courier services, but in particular, the cost of substantial contracts for the retention of expert compensation consultants and related matters.

In our view, reimbursement at 100% of disbursement costs would provide little or no financial incentive for the judiciary to incur costs prudently. Accordingly, Bill C-17 would increase the current level of reimbursement for both legal fees and disbursements from the current 50% to 66%.

Our response also underscores that it will be parliamentarians, not this government, to decide which proposal to implement, be it that of the commission, the government or, indeed, a third proposal entirely.

Bill C-17 was carefully reviewed by the justice committee. The justice committee heard directly from the commissioners of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Representatives of the Canadian Bar Association also appeared before the committee, as did Professor Garant, to shed light on this constitutional process from the academic perspective.

Ultimately, the justice committee approved Bill C-17 with some minor technical amendments. Despite an express invitation by the parliamentary secretary that any recommendation by the committee to amend the salary proposal would be seriously considered by the government, the committee did not include such a recommendation in its report but rather approved the bill on division.

Accordingly, the time for this House to vote on the bill is drawing near. I would like, however, to ensure that the House is aware that Bill C-17 also implements a number of other important compensation amendments. These amendments concern such matters as retirement eligibility, eligibility for supernumerary office and other minor changes to allowances.

Bill C-17 also includes a long overdue proposal aimed at levelling the playing field for partners of judges in the difficult circumstances of relationship breakdown by facilitating the equitable sharing of the judicial annuity. The judicial annuity is currently the only federal pension that is not subject to such a division despite the fact that the judicial annuity represents a very significant family asset.

The proposed annuity amendments essentially mirror the provisions of the federal Pension Benefits Division Act. Like that act, these provisions uphold the overarching principles of good pension division policy allowing couples to achieve a clean break, certainty and portability.

These provisions are also consistent with both the objectives of probative retirement planning and the constitutional requirement of financial security as part of the guarantees of judicial independence. While on its face, extremely complicated, the policy objective of this mechanism is very simple. It is to address a long outstanding equity issue in support of families undergoing breakdown of the spousal relationship.

I will wrap up and hand Bill C-17 over to the House for debate. I invite all parliamentarians to carefully discharge their important responsibility in light of the governing constitutional and statutory principles. In doing so, the members of the House will help ensure that Canada continues to have a judiciary whose independence, impartiality, commitment and overall excellence not only inspires the confidence of the Canadian public but is envied around the world.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am furious at the minister on one particular point. He said that the parliamentary secretary offered to change the wages. The minister knows that the committee wanted to reinstate the original report which would have changed the salaries. That was the will of all members of the committee, except the government members. It was ruled out of order. The government would not make the changes.

I appreciate that the minister approached the committee. Today he has reinstated the position that it is Parliament's decision. If he really believed in the integrity of the committee and Parliament, the government would make the changes that were ruled out of order. You cannot say that you offered to make those changes because you have not. Those changes were the will of the committee. We could have been debating them today. I do not mind that the government stopped us from doing that, but you should not state on the record today that you offered to do that because you did not. You did not make it possible for the committee to--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I do not know how many times I have to tell the hon. member for Yukon not to address the Minister of Justice in the second person and to make his remarks through the chair.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I clearly stated that as I understand it the parliamentary secretary invited committee members to make recommendations recognizing that there would have to be a royal recommendation. No such recommendations were made. We are, as a government, a minority in the House, and government members are a minority in committee. If the member chose to make a recommendation that perhaps a different royal recommendation be made, that could have been passed along to the House and entertained. The fact remains that no such recommendation was made and that is regardless of any amendments which may or may not have been proposed.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Minister of Justice to comment on the rationale for the government's response. He knows that it is absolutely essential to have independent judiciary. He knows that this commission which recommended over 10% was independent. He breached that independence when he introduced Bill C-17, which talks of a lower percentage.

What economic conditions or competing demands of the government were in place specifically that led the minister to break that rule of independence of the judiciary which is older than the Magna Carta? What specific programs is the minister speaking about? What bad economic conditions were in place? Was it the $13.2 billion surplus given to him by a previous government?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about a principle being older than the Magna Carta. In fact, the independence of the judiciary is not a principle that is older than the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta is actually an excellent place to start. Section 100 of the Constitution Act says that Parliament makes the determination on public expenditures. That is, in fact, what the Magna Carta is all about. Section 100 deals exactly with the Magna Carta and the responsibility of Parliament to deal with the issue. The Supreme Court of Canada in two cases, the P.E.I. reference case and the Bodner case, recognized the paramountcy of Parliament in determining that issue on a standard of public rationality. It is for Parliament to make that determination.

Thirteen billion dollars is the number that my colleague has been pointing out. The priority of this government and this Parliament was to pay down the debt. That is the priority of this government. The allocation of that money obviously has to be weighed against all of the other issues that we need to deal with as a government.

I understand the member does not think that paying down the debt is important, but it happens to save Canadian taxpayers $650 million each and every year. This was not simply a matter of shifting the books as the Liberals did with the employee pension case, just shifting numbers around to create so-called surpluses. This was actual money used to pay down the debt.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. minister. I must admit that I still have some profound concerns.

Is the hon. minister not concerned that this bill could compromise judicial independence by virtue of the fact that it does not accept the commission's report?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a fundamental failure to understand that it is Parliament's responsibility to make the final determination as to compensation.

The judges, in fact, in both the P.E.I. case and the Bodner case, specifically stated that it is Parliament's responsibility, not the government's responsibility, but Parliament's responsibility to make that determination. That is a constitutional principle. That is not a prerogative of the government. That is not an undertaking that the government takes at a whim. It is a constitutional responsibility that the government has. The Bodner case and the P.E.I. case say that the government has the responsibility to set those salaries and that the government can take into account the various factors identified in those cases.

The government in the response to the report has indicated why we disagree with the commission and on that basis exercise our paramount constitutional responsibility, a responsibility that transcends the independence of the commission. The commission is a secondary level that is surpassed by the responsibility that the member has as a parliamentarian.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the reason that the commission was put in place of course is its independence of the judiciary. That is why conditions were put in for when the government was going to vary those recommendations. The government would have to explain it. There had to be good, rational, defensible reasons, not simply done on a whim.

Is there anyone who really thinks that the amount of the change in the percentage of the judges' pay would have a major effect on the fiscal position of this country? No one believes that. A $13 billion surplus was available. The change was a small amount. The principle of the independence of the judiciary is ingrained in the Constitution and is a foundation of our society. How could anyone believe that someone who pays them and changes their salary would not have an effect on their decisions? That is why the commission was set up, so that there would be good solid reasons.

The witnesses who testified before the committee were very upset. They did not believe that the government's rationale for these changes under the situation of a $13 billion surplus held weight nor were they reasonable reasons for making this change.