Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):

Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed that the important documents dealing with the free trade deal have been the object of a lockup since eight o'clock for members of the media. Members of Parliament were invited to a lock-up on those documents as of ten o'clock. I do not want to raise any hairs on the back of anyone's neck, but I do think Members of Parliament should be entitled to the same courtesy as the media and given access to the same documents at the same time. I appreciate that the media have to write and assess the documents in perhaps a different way but we still have to answer to the Canadian public for those documents.

I ask the Government if there is an explanation why the press was invited to attend this lock-up at eight o'clock this morning and Members of Parliament were invited only at ten o'clock.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):

Mr. Speaker, we made every effort to see that Members of Parliament from all Parties were briefed as soon as possible on the documents in question. To be quite frank with you, I would have to investigate the circumstances on other items such as a lock-up on the Estimates or the Budget. I undertake to look into the matter and get back to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised this as a question of privilege. It may well not be, but in any event the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has agreed to report back as quickly as he can. I think at least for now the Chair can leave the matter there.

1 thank the Hon. Member for raising the issue which, as I say, may not be a question of privilege but is of very great interest to Hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):

Mr. Speaker, I am a Conservative, a strong supporter of my Party, my colleagues, my Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and, in general, my Government. 1 am also unilingual. I represent a riding which is overwhelmingly unilingual Anglophone. I fear my constituents' rights are jeopardized by Bill C-72 and the manner in which it is now written. Therefore, I think it only proper that, with regret, I tender my resignation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services.

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has risen on what I think would be more properly referred to as a point of individual privilege. It has been customary in the past on such occasions to hear an Hon. Member under those circumstances. The Hon. Member has made his statement. 1 do not think there is any need to carry the question of privilege any further.

Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Justice) moved

that the Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

Mr. Lewis (for the Minister of Justice) moved

that the Bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few short remarks on the occasion of the third reading of this important piece of legislation.

December 11, 1987

Judges Act

As Hon. Members would know, this Bill contains only two clauses: the first will raise salaries of federally appointed judges, the second will repeal some of the provisions of the Judges Act under which they are entitled to benefits which have to do with their marital status and which might be challenged under the charter.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware that every three years, pursuant to the Judges Act, the Minister of Justice is required to set up an independent commission mandated to review the salaries and benefits of judges appointed by the federal Government and report on the matter. The 1986 commission-the second appointed under the provisions of the Judges Act-recommended a number of changes in judges' salaries and benefits. The purpose of Bill C-88 is to implement some of these recommendations.

Clause 1 of the Bill will increase judicial salaries to the levels recommended by the commission after its independent assessment of the adequacy of existing levels of remuneration. However, these increases will not be made fully retroactive to April 1, 1986, as the commission recommended, but implemented in three equal stages on April 1, 1986, April 1, 1987, and April 1, 1988.

Clause 2 of the Bill, amending the Judges Act so that benefits to spouses and children no longer depend on marital status, also implements a commission recommendation and will make the relevant provisions of the Act fully consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) indicated on second reading debate, the remaining recommendations of the 1986 commission dealing largely with judicial pensions and other non-salary benefits are under review in consultation with those of my cabinet colleagues who are most directly concerned. The Minister of Justice intends to respond to these recommendations once these consultations have been completed.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to thank all Members of the legislative committee to which Bill C-88 was referred for their dispatch in dealing with the matter.

However short this Bill may be, Mr. Speaker, it is a major instrument which enables us to show federally appointed judges our unmistakable appreciation for the essential role they play in our justice system. The Minister of Justice is very pleased that the House has agreed to endorse this measure and hopes it will be given royal assent at the earliest opportunity.

1 would like to thank the members of the legislative committee for their quick response to this Bill. I also want to thank all Members of this House for allowing the Government

to give this Bill third reading today. We hope to receive Royal Assent in the very near future in order to help our judges.

Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):

Mr. Speaker, I expect my intervention to be rather short, but for now 1 should like to yield to my colleague from Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) because he is pressed for time. He has to be somewhere by 10.30.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.

Mr. Gauthier:

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the first and second speakers have unlimited time at third reading. 1 imagine that although my colleague from Saint-Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) was kind enough to yield the floor for the time being, he would not want this to infringe on his right subsequently to take the time he deems necessary.