Evidence of meeting #74 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was expenses.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Lawyer, Senior Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association
I'm the porte-parole of the association, and as I've said, the Canadian Judicial Council has read the text of my submission and has said that it endorses the submission.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
I have two minutes for Mr. Erskine-Smith, if you'd like it. He's next on the list.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I wanted to get to new proposed section 90.25. The Canadian Judicial Council is exempted, and if there's a concern about judicial independence for the Canadian Judicial Council, it's not clear to me why that concern wouldn't apply to the judiciary more broadly. I'm inclined to strike that exemption when we get to clause by clause.
What would you say to that?
5:25 p.m.
Lawyer, Senior Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association
Well, it's unclear to me too, sir, why there is that exemption. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. You've heard the substance of my position, which is that the whole regime should be changed, but insofar as that exemption is concerned, it's unclear why it's there. It does result in anomalies.
Let me give you one example. The very same judicial expense under this bill will need to be published or not, depending on whether the activity is a Judicial Council activity or not, even though it's the same expense.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I have two other quick questions. One is in relation to new proposed section 90.22 and the chief justice of the affected court. If the wording read that the registrar, in consultation with the chief justice of the affected court, or that the chief justice of the affected court should be making the final determination without consulting anyone else, how would that work in practice?
5:25 p.m.
Lawyer, Senior Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association
The suggestion I have made is that the decision be that of the chief justice.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
The last thing I would say is this. I take it the specific concern, frankly, is for these individualized expenses, and specifically in relation to travel, since you keep coming back to that. I understand that it's the Federal Court we're talking about, and the tax court or the travelling courts. Isn't the simple answer for the courts to simply say, “This judge writes this number of decisions and sits on this many panels”, and then that information is published alongside any expenses?
I don't see a reporter or any member of the Canadian public taking seriously any concerns if they see that the large travel expenses for an individual judge are commensurate with the work that this individual judge is doing.
5:30 p.m.
Lawyer, Senior Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association
Sir, I'll answer very briefly. I've given a copy to the clerk of this committee of my submission. We have in our discussions focused on travel expenses, but our concern is not limited to travel expenses, so I do invite members of committee to read the written submission I've given to the clerk. Then you'll see other concerns and reasons given for these other concerns.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today and thank you to the members of the committee.
The meeting is adjourned.
