Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for the invitation to address you today concerning judicial compensation and Bill C-17. I will start with a brief overview of the Canadian Bar Association's interest in this issue. Then my colleague Mr. Leurer will give more detailed comments on the various aspects of the government's response to the recommendations of the 2003 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission that we believe warrant your close scrutiny.
The CBA has approximately 36,000 members across the country. Our mandate includes a commitment to an impartial and independent judiciary, without which there is no rule of law. That is the lens through which we have analyzed Bill C-17, and it governs our comments today.
While this bill looks to be about money, the underlying issue is that Canadians have a right to have disputes heard by impartial judges who can act freely and without interference.
The CBA's approach to judicial compensation is process-oriented. The right process is one that is objective, dispassionate, and rational. Some describe it as being depoliticized.
Judicial compensation commissions are established to provide a non-partisan method of reviewing and setting judicial compensation. Parliament's deliberations on commission reports involve special constitutional considerations, and these should not be endangered by a politicized and partisan approach. Judges cannot and should not be drawn into the political fray through the setting of judicial salaries, nor should this process be used to gain political points.
I would now turn to Mr. Leurer and ask him to explain in further detail the constitutional deficiencies in the government's response.