Justice committee  I can say something very briefly. I think Ms. Conlon probably has more direct experience. It runs the gamut. The CJC sees an awful lot of complaints that get screened out, because people don't like what a judge decided, and they throw into it a bit of the judge's manner, tone or whatever—that kind of stuff.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Also, I was born in Windsor, Nova Scotia, in the same hospital as Scott Brison and Geoff Regan.

Justice committee  I double-checked the structure. It's definitely.... What we're talking about are a judge and possibly the pleading officer in terms of going up out of the system. The right of judicial review is not taken away from complainants. It already exists as part of the broader system. It certainly is not ousted by Bill C-9.

Justice committee  On the specific example of the complaint being made public, it is not made public by the CJC. However, the CJC current rules, the current act, and this new revised act, don't prohibit complainants from making it public. It's not part of the system to make it public. I'll leave it at that.

Justice committee  Yes, it does. However, it's less about the complaint not being made public than how it's handled. The fact that the only way you can make public the reasons for referral or the review panel report is by going to court with a judicial review application has things backwards. It says that the public has a right to this, but you have to go through these extra steps and pay money to do it.

Justice committee  Yes, that would be a good idea. There aren't any now, so I imagine there's been some pushback to the idea from judges.

Justice committee  Yes, there is an impact. That may be why there was pushback. One of the elements underlying judicial independence is security of tenure. Imposing a reduction in pay is perhaps an option, but it may be easier not to change the provision. The fact that a jurisdiction in Canada—Ontario—has done it shows that it is possible.

Justice committee  That, I don't know. I'm sorry.

Justice committee  Very quickly, I think it's a very sound recommendation. As I understand it, it would replace the Supreme Court. It stops at the Federal Court of Appeal. It's possible that could be challenged for not having a further level, but the point is that the Supreme Court doesn't give leave except in a minor number of cases.

Justice committee  Mr. Fortin, I think new section 102 could be amended to allow the review panel to impose salary-related penalties, such as suspending a judge's pay. Three or four years ago, in Ontario, Judge Zabel wore a MAGA hat after Trump was elected, and his penalty was a two-month reduction in pay.

Justice committee  It was a hat emblazoned with “MAGA”, which is the slogan “Make America Great Again” abbreviated.

Justice committee  That's a possibility in Ontario, but I can't say with certainty that it is in this case. It may be possible under paragraphs 102(f) and 102(g), but I'm not sure. As for legal fees, the government has to pay them up to a certain point, but perhaps not all of them. I'm not exactly sure where that line is.

Justice committee  Exactly. I think my main point would be that I don't see anything about any of the proposals so far that compromises the independence of the judiciary. That would be my first point. What they do is enhance the other kinds of values that are crucial. They include reminding the judiciary that confidence does not come from overly stacked processes and from an undue degree of non-transparency.

Justice committee  In 20 seconds, I would say this. For both the reasons for referral and the review panel report, there should be a duty to publish. The standards should be that the council “shall make public the reviewing member’s written reasons for referral”, and, in a separate clause, make public the review panel report “to the same extent as the council would be obligated to disclose them in order for them to form part of the certified tribunal record in the event of judicial review proceedings”.