Garry Breitkreuz

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, of course I do not know all the details of what the process is in Quebec.

The point that I am trying to make is that the people of Canada should have more direct input into what is happening in the judiciary. They have the right to determine who those judges are. They should not be patronage appointments. They have the right to determine what those people are paid. The people of Canada are fair. They are the ones who should be determining what is happening here, not us as parliamentarians, especially the government using this as patronage appointments. I think I have made my point abundantly clear.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty at this time to rise and speak to the Judges Act, Bill C-37 at second reading.

I say that because I am representing my constituents. As they hear what is going on in this parliament, they are very concerned. They feel that the emphasis of the government is not on law enforcement as it should be. For example, in this act, as has always been the case, the government introduces amendments to an act of parliament which fall far short of the public's expectations.

This bill is objectionable not for what is in it but for what is not in it. That is of major concern to the people in my riding of Yorkton—Melville.

My constituents are more concerned about opening up the appointment process for judges. The more judges use the charter of rights and freedoms to strike down parliament's laws, the more people want to have a say in what their judges actually think.

The government could have used this opportunity to open up the judicial process. Right now it is an old boy's club with lawyers deciding behind closed doors who the best Liberal available is to get these plum patronage appointments to the judiciary.

I will oppose this bill on these grounds alone, even though there are a couple of positive aspects to this legislation.

The bill increases the number of appeal court judges from 10 to 13. Hopefully this will help to move more cases through the appeal process and help move them through more quickly. Likewise, the increase in the number of unified family court judges from 12 to 36 should help to deal with the huge backlog of family law cases.

There are a couple of positive things in here. Reform supports the use of family courts to resolve separation and custody disputes. However, it is unfortunate that the divorce rate in Canada has soared to such proportions that we require so many more family court judges. Liberalized divorce laws should be fixed first.

Unfortunately Bill C-37 also increases judges' salaries retroactively from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 by 4.1% and an additional 4.1% from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. Thereafter salaries will be reviewed by the newly created judicial compensation and benefits commission. In other words, judges will get an 8.3% increase over two years.

As I understand it, judges are already making approximately $140,000 per year. How many other public servants receive pay raises of 8.3% in a two year period?

This government awards judges and senior bureaucrats, including their own ministers, with large pay raises and bonuses while, comparatively, frontline police officers and low level public servants receive virtually no additional compensation.

Last Friday, March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They will receive a second increment of 1% on April 1, 1998 and an additional 0.75% on October 1, 1998.

RCMP officers have had their wages frozen for five years. The starting salary for a third year constable will go from about $50,508 to $52,423. This sends a clear message to the public that this government cares more about judges than it does about the frontline police officers who risk their lives to protect Canadians in service to their communities.

That is the key point. These people are frontline. They put their lives on the line to protect us. They need the support of those judges but we need to properly compensate them. That should be our first priority.

Add this insult to the decisions by the government not to allow the amendments the police recommended to the DNA act. Add this insult to the government's ongoing expenditure of hundreds of millions on a universal gun registration which frontline police officers universally oppose. The Canadian Police Association even says register criminals before guns. That is where our priorities should be.

Police get a slap in the face with a pay raise that does not compare to what judges will receive and the government also fails to give them the tools they need to do their job of improving public safety and saving lives. How many Canadian workers receive retroactive pay raises as the judges will receive? Public servants, especially judges, should only be given salary increases in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner.

This bill also establishes the judicial compensation and benefits commission to inquire into the adequacy of the salaries and benefits for judges. The creation of the judicial compensation and benefits commission provides the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The Reform Party wants to reform the patronage appointment process to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. Meanwhile the Liberals create more opportunities to make patronage appointments. That is going backwards. That is not the direction things should be heading in this country.

These new patronage appointees will hold office for a term of four years and are eligible to be reappointed for one further term. Fees for commission members will be fixed by the governor in council. Members are deemed to be employed in the public service of Canada. The commission may also engage the services of any person necessary for proper conduct of the commission begging the question just how much will this commission cost taxpayers. We need to know before we go any further with this legislation.

This is the third time the Liberals have amended the Judges Act. During the last Parliament in 1996 Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 were introduced, both nebulous, inconsequential, fuzzy pieces of legislation which were of little significance to Canadians who are concerned about their safety. Canadians want violent crime to be curbed. They do not want more of these judicial review types of legislation.

Both Liberal justice ministers have failed to introduce the victims bill of rights which has taken low priority on the justice committee's agenda. They failed to substantially amend the Young Offenders Act. They have failed to limit the use of conditional sentences for violent offenders. Instead they occupy the justice committee's time with these administrative matters at the expense of more important issues such as amending the laws pertaining to drinking and driving.

It is time that this government got its priorities straight. The people know what is important. This bill proves the government does not. This bill does not contain what it should and therefore I do not support it.

[Firearms, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, through access to information we found that the RCMP commissioner tried to get the justice department to correct data that overstated the number of firearms involved in violent crimes.

The misleading data was being used to support Bill C-68 and was used in the Alberta Court of Appeal. Out of over 88,000 violent crimes investigated by the RCMP in 1993, only 73 involved firearms. The justice department used a figure nine times higher.

My question: what possible reason does the—

[Questions Passed As Orders For Return, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 1997, I placed Question No. 57 on the Order Paper asking if the Deputy Prime Minister's public statement supporting a global movement to spur the development of an instrument to ban firearms worldwide was the policy of the government. In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for an oral answer to be given in the House within 45 days.

My constituents have been waiting over 100 days. When can I expect an answer to this question of whether the Deputy Prime Minister supports a worldwide firearms ban and is this government policy or not?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for this member. I have asked this question previously but really did not get an answer. One of the things that the government has done in its budget is give a tax break to parents who use child care outside of the home.

I feel this is totally unfair and unjust. The member talks about balance. There is no balance here. Does he not agree that parents giving care to their children in the home provide just as valuable a service to society as anyone else and should be afforded the same tax considerations?

It is going to have a very negative effect on the family to have parents subsidize other parents who use child care outside of the home. Those parents that make that choice, I believe, should be afforded the same privileges as those that use child care at home. Would he agree?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions. It will only take several moments to ask them.

I really appreciated the member's plea for more tax reduction and increasing the personal exemption to $10,000. I wholeheartedly agree with that. We desperately need that kind of help for especially low income Canadians.

The question I have relates to that in the sense that the government has put in place a child care credit or tax reduction that applies only for those who use care outside of the home. I think this is a gross injustice. I cannot agree with it.

My concern is that this child care credit should apply to all parents. They should not be forced to take their children outside of the home. I was wondering if the member would agree.

The second question is in regard to agriculture. He made a big point about agriculture and the fact that it was not addressed in this budget. I agree with him. In fact agriculture will be devastated by what this government has done.

In just one example, the CPP premium increase is going to hit all Canadians but farmers are going to find that the price of their produce, the things they have to put in, their input costs into their crops and whatever, are going to increase because of the CPP premium increase. It is going to add to all of their costs, as it will for all Canadians.

I am wondering if he would agree that we need tax reduction, especially in the area of agriculture. I know there needs to be improvements to infrastructure, transportation and all this but the tax increases, I hope he would agree, that have been implemented by this government are going to hit agriculture very hard.

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the leader of the Bloc to rise in his place and withdraw his accusation. He made a mistake. He was in error. He had his facts wrong when he directly accused me of comments I did not make. In the diatribe which he just gave he named me specifically. I think it is in order that he withdraw it immediately because it is a false accusation.

[Points Of Order, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many people look to Hansard as being a fairly accurate record of the proceedings of this House. I am not sure if this is a point of order or a point of privilege. I will allow you to judge that.

But I would like to point out to you that I have checked Hansard last week and this week just to see how the remarks that I have been making have come through.

Last week in the debate on C-4, remarks that I did not make were attributed to me in the Hansard record and yesterday, in looking through this again, I note that I had an intervention. Following that intervention a response was made to what I had said by a Bloc member. None of that is recorded in here.

I bring that to your attention because I think there are many people out there that look to Hansard to be fairly accurate. I do not know what can be done about this, but I think it is something that should be looked into.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on behalf of my constituents at this point. I have three questions for the hon. member.

There have been at least two bills in the last week that have come before this House, extreme government bills, that have really polarized the people rather than bringing them together. The speech which was just given is a prime example of one region being pitted against another region through this bill, as it was through Bill C-4. I want to give three examples and three questions to illustrate what I am talking about.

The Crow benefit was done away with by the Liberal government a few years ago with the intention that it would promote diversification. We now have Bill C-19 before the House which works contrary to that. The diversification is now beginning to take place. Farmers are beginning to grow products besides the traditional grains. One example is that they are going into the cubing of alfalfa, hay. They are making these into cubes. That is not included in this legislation, so it discourages farmers from trying to diversify because it is not included. I do not know if that is an oversight by the government, but it is serious concern of the people in my riding.

They should not simply have a few products covered by this. It should include all products. Farmers do not just grow grains anymore. The government should take that to heart. My question is should all products not be included?

The second thing the member talked about was strike breakers or scabs as some of the Bloc people are calling them—

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I made the point earlier that simply providing an education for students is not going to solve the problem because there are very few jobs out there. I come from the province of Saskatchewan and I gave the examples. I want to go beyond that and ask the member something else in regard to education.

Many educational institutions are not educating students in a way that prepares them for the working world. They go to some of these institutions of higher learning with the purpose of preparing themselves for a job, a job which they later discover does not exist. Simply pouring money into education in itself does not accomplish miracles.

I hope the member will listen to the question carefully. How can we hold these educational institutions more accountable to provide an education that is truly going to meet the needs of those students who are spending thousands of dollars? How can we hold those institutions more accountable to meet the needs of those students? There is a real problem. They go to these institutions and they end up not being properly prepared. What can we do about that?