We see two fundamental objectives. One is increasing public confidence in the judiciary, and the other—and there can be tension between the first and second—is maintaining the independence of the judiciary, particularly security of tenure. That is why The Advocates' Society thinks this legislation strikes the right balance between the two. It does a number of things. It streamlines the process. It reduces time and cost, as well as abuses like those that occurred in the past. It increases lay participation.
Our only concern—this goes to security of tenure for judges, as well as public confidence in the process—is the external judicial oversight process. Otherwise, in practical reality, what we have is a piece of legislation that allows the entire process to be conducted internally by the CJC, without external judicial oversight.
I understand the argument about the appeal panel within the CJC being composed of judges sitting as an appeal court. However, they are performing an administrative function pursuant to the act, which is different from the judicial function in an appeal. We would propose that this function should be exercised by the Federal Court of Appeal.
As I indicated, the concern regarding both public confidence and security of tenure is over adequate external judicial oversight. We are concerned that this is not accomplished by the current piece of legislation, because in the vast majority of cases it is likely the Supreme Court of Canada will deny leave, as it does not meet the public importance test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. There will be little to no testing by way of an appeal.
Those are my comments.