Evidence of meeting #24 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was judges.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Lemay, your time is actually up. Your question was a good one, I thought.
I would ask Mr. McLennan if he read the response of the Government of Canada to the 2003 report of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Did you read that response?
4:55 p.m.
Chairperson, Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
Oh, yes. Sure.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Right at the offset, it said, “...the Government is prepared to accept all of the recommendations of the 2003 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, with one exception.” And it accepted that in a modified form.
Is that basically it, in a nutshell?
4:55 p.m.
Chairperson, Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
Yes, I would say so.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Chairperson, Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
Compensation. Yes, sir.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for the information on the Commission. I would also like to thank Mr. Gourdeau. Mr. McLennan, it would have been nice if you had given us some written notes, like Mr. Gourdeau did. That would have helped us to come up with questions for you. I am going to have to rely on my memory to try to remember what you said.
First of all, I have to say it bothers me when you equate money with judicial independence. You seem to be saying that the more you pay judges, the less likely they are to take bribes. I cannot agree with that notion. It is very dangerous. You can be independent without money. As a matter of fact, people who are unpaid are far more independent because they do not owe anyone anything.
Perhaps Mr. Gourdeau could answer my question. You said you have criteria regarding terms of appointment and you oversee all of that. I will not ask you to identify all of them. We all have our own ideas about that. But I would like to hear from you on the judges' retirement fund.
I would like to know whether it kicks in on day one. Personally, as a member of Parliament, if I died tomorrow, I would not be entitled to a retirement fund. If I were in the private sector, I would have to rely on my RRSPs, to whatever extent I could. Would a federal judge who died of a heart attack one month after being appointed be immediately entitled to his or her pension fund? If so, would it be a percentage of the fund?
4:55 p.m.
Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs
The answer is no, in the unfortunate event of a judge dying within two months of being appointed to the bench. There would be a return of contributions. Up to a certain age, contributions are shared between employer and employee. There are all kinds of exceptions and provisions in the Act, but let's just say most people pay 7% of their gross salary over 15 years. When they become supernumerary or after a certain number of years, the contribution drops to one per cent.
I will tell you what happens next off the top of my head, but it would be better to consult the applicable provisions of the Act. Judges who have been on the bench for 10 or more years are entitled to a pro-rated annual pension. That is not the full pension. Up to around 10 years, there is a return of contributions.
As for the full pension amount, the so-called rule of 80 applies initially. After that, they are entitled to the full pension amount, i.e., two thirds of their annual salary at the time of retirement.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
A lot of people think that if a federal judge dies a day or two after being appointed to the bench, the estate is entitled to a pension.
You have explained it well. Not everyone knows what judges get. The idea, as you say, is to maintain some form of independence.
Thank you very much.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Is there going to be a response from Mr. Gourdeau? No?
Mr. Ménard, Mr. Cotler is not here, but I'll give you the opportunity.
Mr. Bagnell, when Mr. Cotler walks in he'll take the next question, but go ahead.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
He had to do a TV interview and he'll be right back.
I had a question, Mr. McLennan. You said at the beginning that everyone agreed with the report and that it wasn't as if you had to force one side or the other.
Ms. Chambers, did you agree with the salaries and everything that went into the recommendations?
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
You're asking if I agreed with everything that went into the recommendations?
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
Yes, we signed off on every recommendation.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
In a collaborative process, if the government had good input—and maybe you can't answer this question—I don't understand the necessity of their changing.... Is the spirit of the committee that there'd be some independence of the judiciary from the government, and that's why we have a committee? Should it only be in major circumstances that the government vary your recommendations?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Just to be fair to the other parties, I'll let Mr. Ménard go ahead, so there's time for Mr. Cotler when he comes back.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I would like to understand how you arrive at 10.8%. I do not think there is any connection between money and independence. I want judges to be as well paid as possible, because you have very important responsibilities and you have legitimacy. We believe in the independence of the judiciary.
For example, compared to the industry average salary, I would like to understand how you arrived at 10.8%. I would like you to give a detailed explanation of the factors without getting too technical, especially for people watching. And I am counting on Ms. Chambers' teaching talent to make all of this very accessible. I would like us to be able to really understand the composite index and how you arrived at 10.8%.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, think that is exactly what the recommendation should be, but linked with MPs' salaries. You can say something about that if you want to, but first I would like to understand the index.
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
Mr. McLennan could explain it to you much better, but the explanation has grown into an entire chapter. The way we arrived at that percentage is very complicated. I certainly cannot explain it in two sentences.
As for the other point, that is a political issue. The number 1 rule of our work is not to be politicized.
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
The issue of the 10.8% is complicated. The information is in one of the chapters. You can read it.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Can you explain the basics, so that people watching have some idea how you arrived at that decision?
5 p.m.
Commissioner, Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission
It is in chapter 2.
Chapter 2.
Gentlemen, why don't you do it?
It is in chapter 2, but I cannot summarize it in three sentences.