Evidence of meeting #86 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was health.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Chief, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance
In the context of the budget process, we did of course involve the constitutional law office of the Department of Justice.
That being said, 12 of the provinces and territories did accept, including Quebec. Of course, in the context of the Quebec press release—I don't have it in front of me, so I apologize—I believe it actually did talk about respecting the principles of the asymmetrical agreement that was in place in 2004.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
So you're convinced that there will be no constitutional problem if we pass this bill.
5:05 p.m.
Chief, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That's my understanding, yes, based on the advice we got.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
In Bill C-44 in this area, the formula a times b divided by c, there is a foundation amount for each province in both home care and mental health so that some of the smaller provinces that are less populated don't get injured by just going to per capita. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Chief, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance
What do you mean by foundation amount? Do you mean a base amount?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The base amount, $200 million in the case of home care and $100 million in the case of mental health. I assume that's over the time frame.
5:05 p.m.
Chief, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance
The $200 million is over one year. Maybe I wasn't clear before. To be clear, the $200 million would be divided on an equal per capita basis. For example, if a smaller province had a smaller population, they would receive a smaller share of that $200 million.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Then there isn't a foundation amount like there is on some of the infrastructure programming and overall health care in the formula.
5:05 p.m.
Chief, CHT/CST and Northern Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance
The explanation you gave relative to infrastructure doesn't exist.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's fine. I think that's it for questions. Thank you both for your presentations.
We will turn to division 10, which is the Judges Act.
We calculated that at the rate we're going, to get through all of the part 4 divisions to 21, it will take us about another seven hours to get there. We have an hour and twenty minutes, plus another hour on Monday. We have two hours and twenty minutes. I'll remind members to keep questions on topic and as brief as possible so that we can hopefully get through all part 4 divisions. This is something we always run into. It is a good way for members to gain information beyond the act itself, but just keep time frames in mind.
Turning to part 4, division 10, the Judges Act, we have from the Department of Justice, Ms. Adair Crosby and Ms. Anna Dekker.
Ms. Crosby is senior counsel and deputy director, judicial affairs, courts and tribunal policy; and Ms. Dekker is counsel, judicial affairs, courts and tribunal policy.
The floor is yours.
May 9th, 2017 / 5:05 p.m.
Anna Dekker Counsel, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
Thank you very much.
I'm here today to talk about the proposed division 10 amendments. They touch on two aspects of the federal responsibility under section 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that Parliament must fix and provide the salaries and benefits of superior court judges.
The first aspect is that many of these amendments represent the final step in the constitutional process required for setting judicial compensation, which includes review and non-binding recommendations by an independent, objective, and effective commission. Those recommendations were delivered to the Minister of Justice in June 2016. The government publicly responded in October 2016. The proposed amendments would implement that public response through Judges Act amendments. This is required in order to safeguard the principle of judicial independence, which includes financial security.
The second part of the amendments, which my colleague Adair will speak to, are Judges Act amendments that propose to increase the complement of superior court judges.
Some of the highlights from the judicial salaries amendments are clauses 196 to 210, which would simply update the judicial salaries in the Judges Act as of April 1, 2016, which is in keeping with the time frame of the commission's recommendations. Clause 198 would increase the salary of the chief justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada to be equal to the salary of other chief justices of superior courts, and it would also propose to increase the salary payable to the prothonotaries of the Federal Court from 76% to 80% of the salary of a Federal Court judge.
Clause 213 proposes to amend the start date of the next quadrennial commission and subsequent quadrennial commissions from October 1 to June 1.
Clauses 215 and 216 propose an annual allowance of $3,000 for the prothonotaries, and also propose reimbursement of 95% of a prothonotary's representational expenses before the quadrennial commission.
Clauses 218 and 221 propose changes for certain chief justices and senior judges in recognition of their years of service for carrying out their managerial responsibilities.
Clause 220 would extend existing removal allowances to the judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, who is resident in Labrador in certain circumstances.
Clauses 224 to 226 are technical amendments: for example, to correct discrepancies between French and English language of the provisions that govern the division of annuities on conjugal breakdown. Also, they would ensure that financial support orders can be enforced on all applicable Judges Act payments.
I'll turn it over to my colleague.
5:10 p.m.
Adair Crosby Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
Thank you, Anna.
I will give you my abbreviated version, since time is of the essence today.
As Anna mentioned, this is the second element of division 10, which essentially provides for the establishment of 27 new judicial positions in the superior, trial, and appellate courts across the country. These increases in the judicial complement are intended to address workload pressures facing many of the courts, including those arising as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Jordan.
If you refer to clause 208, you'll see the breakdown: there will be an increase of 11 judges to the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, and one judge to the Yukon Supreme Court. These amendments are to respond to needs that have to date been demonstrated.
The balance of the amendments found in clause 211 authorize the creation of a pool of judges, which would comprise 12 new judges that can be appointed to the provincial superior courts, and three new judges to the provincial appellate superior courts. These 15 positions will basically be allocated across Canada to help ensure that needs in those jurisdictions are met.
We are working right now with our colleagues in the various jurisdictions to develop the sort of objective data that will be necessary to demonstrate that there is a need there. At that point, the appointments would be made.
That's my short version. I'm happy to take questions.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
I don't know how many lawyers are here, but I really find it obscene, this amount that a judge makes. It's $314,000 a year. It's a king's ransom.
I am actually disgusted to see it. I hope Ms. McLachlin hears me, because I don't think it's fair in our Canadian society. The judges aren't even in the 1%—they're in the top 0.1% of people in Canada.... I don't think that in our just society it's something that we should have happening. I see that judges are getting a raise. I notice that military personnel haven't received a raise in over five years, yet for judges we continue to see a raise.
That's my comment. That's all I have to say.
Anyway, may they continue to be independent.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You've made your point, Mr. Ouellette.
Is there anybody else on this?
Mr. Fergus.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a quick question.
Among the new judicial positions in the superior courts, is there an estimate of the number of Quebec judges that will be appointed, meaning the number of positions available for Quebec?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
I'm sorry; I fully understood the question, but I will respond in English.
Basically, no positions have been formally allocated in the legislation. If you open up the Judges Act, you will see a certain number of positions for every court. The 15 pool positions are those that would be allocated to Quebec—some or all of them, depending on the need that Quebec is able to demonstrate.
One thing I would like to point out is that there has been a lot of press about the number of vacancies in Quebec. In fact, as of last week, there are only two vacancies. We hear upwards of 14 or 16 vacancies. Those positions don't exist until this legislation has been passed. So there are two vacancies.
Then there would be, of course, a maximum of six additional appointments that the minister could make, based on the additional positions that have been authorized in the provincial legislation.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Just for precision, then, there are two positions vacant in Quebec, and we've just recently filled a number as well, but there's also the potential for an additional six?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
Is it six or eight....? It's eight.
5:15 p.m.
Counsel, Judicial Affairs, Courts and Tribunal Policy, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
I believe it's eight.
The administration of justice is divided between the provinces and the federal government, so Quebec has created those positions in their provincial legislation where they constitute their courts, but the salaries have to be authorized through the Judges Act amendments. That was what my colleague was talking about, that there will be an objective analysis of the need and they will demonstrate that. Then the pool positions could be allocated.