Mr. Speaker, I will begin by making some general comments on the bill and then I will talk about the judges in my region of the country.
Of course we want the independence of the judiciary and the independence of its compensation system. I do not think many people would disagree with that. The Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission is made up of three members, one appointed by the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association, one appointed by the government and one appointed by the chair. This is an independent commission that would be, in my view, far more independent than simply having the minister decide the appropriate salaries.
The government says that it wants someone who is independent. It is not as though the minister and the government have made no comments on judges. They have certainly made comments and had opinions. I do not think that would be a very independent mechanism.
The other point I want to make, which I think other members have made in this debate, concerns the reason given for making this change and not accepting the recommendations of this independent commission. The government said that it was because of its overall financial position and it talked about things like insufficient funds. Would anyone in Canada believe that? The government came into power with the largest surplus of any government in history and in the best financial position.
The government saved money when it cut the greenhouse gas emissions program. It saved $5 billion by cutting the Kelowna accord. Everyone voted today in support of bringing that back except the Conservatives. I am sure the government will not be paying the judges more than the $5 billion. We also had $10 billion allocated for child care.
I am sure no one in the country believes that the decision the government made was because of the financial position of the country. When the bill gets to committee I will be delighted to look for a good reason to do this but that is certainly not it.
The main reason I wanted to speak tonight was to talk about the judges in the three territories who are treated slightly different. I was hoping to discuss this in committee and to ask for a change that would make it more equitable.
If we look at subclauses 22(1), 22(2) and 22(2.1) of the bill which refer to the territories, the first line says, “a) the senior judge” and shows an amount of pay. In all the provinces the wording is “chief justice”. I am happy that their salaries are the same because they have the same duties, responsibilities and functions and have about 40 deputy judges reporting to them. They have extensive experience and responsibilities over a wide geographical area, which is almost half the country.
Under the bill they have the same remuneration but I think it is an anachronism that they have a different name. Senior judges have the same responsibilities as the chief justice in the provinces. Why would we not simply, while we have the opportunity, change the name?
Each of the three territorial governments agree. I am not criticizing the government for this. I am simply saying that it is an opportunity for the committee to make a good change. In the year 2000 the three territorial governments passed a law creating the position of chief justice but the legislation has not yet been proclaimed because the federal government has not agreed to the change of creating the position of a chief justice in the territories.
At the time that bill was passed, the federal minister of justice sought the approval of the Canadian Judicial Council and its view on changing the name and remuneration levels. Its position was quite clear. It had no problem with that change.
If the Canadian Judicial Council, the federal Minister of Justice at the time and the three territorial governments are in agreement that we should change the name in the territories from senior judge to chief justice, with the same responsibilities and remuneration, I think it would be fair to make that administrative change while we are going through a review of the act.
I ask all members in all parties in a non-partisan way to look at this change in the name from senior judge to chief justice as in the 10 provinces. They have parallel responsibilities and parallel remuneration and now they would have the same name.