CANADA VOLUME 137 S NUMBER 045 S 1st SESSION S 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, April 6, 2001 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 2897 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, April 6, 2001 The House met at 10 a.m. tion with the government’s decision to implement most of the recommendations enumerated in the commission’s report. _______________ The strength of Canada’s judiciary is a key factor in our Prayers prosperity and health as a nation. As the guardians of the constitu- tional right of Canadians to have peace, order and good govern- _______________ ment, judges form an important pillar in our democratic society. An independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law. Judges GOVERNMENT ORDERS must be free from undue influence of any kind, be it from those with money or power. There is a growing recognition that stability, D human security and the rule of law are necessary preconditions to (1000) economic growth, and there is a growing appreciation that an [English] independent judiciary with the proper resources is the first step down this path. JUDGES ACT The Government of Canada is committed to the principle of The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, an act to judicial independence, as it is a fundamental precondition to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence, as ensuring the vitality of the rule of law in our democratic system of reported (with amendment) from the committee. government. The three constitutionally required elements of judi- cial independence are security of tenure, independence of adminis- Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney tration of matters relating to the judicial function, and financial General of Canada) moved that the bill be concurred in. security. It is in direct support of the principle of judicial indepen- (Motion agreed to) dence that section 100 of the constitution has conferred on parlia- ment the important task of establishing financial security of a The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By federally appointed judiciary. leave, now? I am very happy to report that during the second reading debate Some hon. members: Agreed. the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party indi- Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney cated their support for Bill C-12. General of Canada) moved that the bill be read the third time and D passed. (1005 ) Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of The Canadian Bar Association has also expressed its support for Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I Bill C-12. In fact, in its written submissions to the House of am very pleased to be able to lead off the debate on the third Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend Canadian Bar Association expressed the view that Bill C-12 not another act in consequence. only enhances judicial independence in promoting financial securi- ty for members of the judiciary but also helps to attract high quality The bill would make certain amendments to the Judges Act that candidates to the judiciary. would ensure appropriate and fair compensation for the federally appointed judiciary in Canada. It is intended to implement the I would ask all members of the House for their support. This bill commitments made by the government in its response to the report would ensure that our judges are compensated fairly and appropri- of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. ately in order to maintain the quality and independence of Canada’s judiciary. I would like to emphasize that the chair of the Judicial Com- pensation and Benefits Commission, Mr. Richard Drouin, who I want to make reference to the hon. member for Ancaster— appeared as a witness before the House of Commons Standing Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, who has proposed an amend- Committee on Justice and Human Rights, expressed his satisfac- ment for Bill C-12. His proposed amendment to Bill C-12 would 2898 COMMONS DEBATES April 6, 2001 Government Orders require that the transcripts of testimony heard before the Supreme $235,700 from $213,000, while the salary of the chief justice Court of Canada be made more accessible to the public. would rise to $254,000 from $230,200. More specifically, the proposed amendment, an addition to This is the fourth time the government has sought to amend the section 75 of the Judges Act, would require the Registrar of the Judges Act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that testimony heard before the Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, court in open session be recorded in electronic format and made all of which were relatively minor pieces of legislation. accessible to the public in the same manner as the Debates of parliament. In April 1998, Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Bill C-37 also increased With the greatest of respect for the member, we cannot accept judges’ salaries retroactively, providing an 8.3% pay increase over this proposed amendment as it is not within the scope of Bill C-12, two years. This meant an average $13,000 pay increase for federal nor is the Judges Act the appropriate place for such an amendment. judges, with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over $172,000. Any matter relating to procedure before the Supreme Court of I would be hard pressed to think of any other public servant, or Canada would fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of any hard-working Canadian for that matter, who received that kind Canada Act. Section 75 of the Judges Act applies solely to of pay increase in 1998. administrative matters relating to the judiciary. According to Statistics Canada, the consumer price index from Further, as members know, Bill C-12 would make amendments 1996 to 1998 rose 2.55%. It is safe to assume that the salaries of to the Judges Act that would ensure appropriate and fair compensa- most Canadians across the country would be affected by that tion for the federally appointed judiciary. It is intended to imple- statistic. Not only have the salaries of judges increased at a rate ment the commitments made by the government in its response to substantially higher than those of most Canadians, but their salaries the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Com- are already indexed. I think that is important to remember. mission. D (1010 ) I thank the hon. members of the House for their attention today and ask for their support in the passage of Bill C-12. No other senior public servant or any other lower level public employee has been given such a significant pay increase in the last Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, number of years. While the government indicates that the raise is a before commencing I would ask for the unanimous consent of the reasonable one, it is interesting to note that senior public servants House to split my time with the member for Surrey Central. have received raises of no more than 5.7%. The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to share his time? It is not only public servants and other public employees who do not receive these types of extensive benefits. The very people who administer our justice system, the people on the ground who do the Some hon. members: Agreed. practical work in looking after the safety and security of Canadians first hand, seem to be ignored. Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government’s response to the recommendations For example, in 1998, the same year that federal judges were made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commis- given these generous salary increases, RCMP officers who had sion. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary in- their salaries and wages frozen for five years were finally granted crease of 11.2% for approximately 1,013 federally appointed an increase of a mere 2% in March 1998, retroactive to January. If judges. This would cost the federal government approximately $19 the concern is that judges receive these raises to ensure that there is million. no corruption of our justice system or any undue influence, is the same not true for the men and women who serve in our federal The increase is retroactive to April 1, 2000, and would raise the police forces? base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the A second pay increase was given to RCMP officers in April 1998 chief justices in those courts would increase to $217,000 from and later that year they received another small increase. However, $196,500. These same increases would also apply to federal court over the five years that their salaries were frozen and in the next judges. year, 1998, the RCMP received an increase of only 3.75%. These frontline officers are putting their lives on the line every day for The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada would remain the Canadians, but the average three year constable received an highest paid. The eight regular judges would see an increase to increase of less than $2,000 over those years.