As I said earlier in response to a question when the minister was here, the duty of procedural fairness that the council has toward the complainant is something that this bill leaves for the council to do via policies and procedures, because the universe of possible complainants is extremely large. When the Camp matter broke, there were hundreds of complaints. All of those people who had read about it in the newspaper were complainants. In a case like that, where the victim of the judge's misconduct also complains, that victim is in a very different position. The council might, or should, really, treat that victim of the misconduct differently from the average person who has read about it in the newspaper.
It's difficult to come up with a one-size-fits-all rule that can fit in an act. Policies amendable from time to time are probably the better way to go. That's why this act leaves that up to the council.
In terms of the procedural safeguards available for judges, the judge has paid counsel. We covered that earlier. That's a very important procedural safeguard. The judge has the right to a hearing at which they can test and adduce evidence before they can be removed. That's the basic minimum that the Supreme Court has said is necessary in order to satisfy judicial independence requirements.
The judge has a full right of appeal. We've created a right of appeal that is not restricted. It's not an appeal on a question of law alone. It's a plenary right of appeal to an appeal panel that has all the powers of a provincial court of appeal. Then there's the right of appeal with leave to the Supreme Court of Canada, as you might have from any provincial court of appeal. Again, that right of appeal is plenary. There are no limits on it.
Those are probably the most important procedural safeguards that help ensure that the process is procedurally fair.
The only other one I could mention is the reduced hearing panel. Review panels will operate by written submissions only. That will be fair for judges in the vast majority of cases, but there may be the odd case where the circumstances might give the judge a right to a hearing, in which case they can basically ask for a reduced hearing panel. The reduced hearing panel will hear the complaint de novo. Whatever the review panel did is not going to have an influence on the reduced hearing panel. The reduced hearing panel can come to its own conclusion on that complaint. Again, the decision of that reduced hearing panel will be appealable to an appeal panel as a plenary right of appeal.
I think those are probably the most salient procedural fairness safeguards.