You raise a specific issue that I think clearly illustrates why Bill C‑9 is needed. The multiple requests for judicial review meant that the process dragged on for nearly seven years, resulting in significant legal costs. There were also costs associated with the council's having to address those requests for judicial review.
I would point out that the bill does set some limits, for instance, when it comes to calculating the judge's annuity. The period used to calculate the annuity ends when the council recommends that the judge be removed from office in a report submitted to the Minister of Justice. That's one thing.
Obviously, Bill C‑9 does not provide for judicial review. It is stipulated, however, that the judge's legal fees will not be paid in cases in which a judicial review is requested. The Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs has a budget to cover the legal fees of judges, and the money is used only for that. Every year, we have to request that funding from the government, if necessary.
Bill C‑9 takes that into account so we don't have to go through that exercise every time. We are bound by the rates set by the Department of Justice for the retaining of legal services. Bill C‑9 also mentions the commissioner for federal judicial affairs, legal fees and the fact that we basically have to take into account what the government provides for in terms of legal fees. If we have to deviate from that, we are required to indicate why.