Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing I do not have much time to talk on this bill, because I do not have much to say on such a bill, except that we support its passage.
No one in this House can oppose the desire to modernize the major federal courts and bring them together into a single administrative body.
For those not watching earlier, the aim of this legislation is to combine the administrative services of the Federal Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. Clearly then, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act will be amended.
The aim is a worthy one. It is somewhat like what the Government of Quebec did for the administrative tribunals. The aim was to help people find their way around in the statutes and in the courts that had any bearing on taxpayers' rights. The federal government is doing the same thing for three of its courts.
When we examine Bill C-30, we realize that the objective of the bill is to be found in clause 2. This is usual. There was no effort to have a preamble that contained nothing but empty wishes, as has been the case with some government bills in the House, including the Young Offenders Act. It had a fine preamble that was practically meaningless, and the courts interpreted it that way.
In this bill, instead of being included in a preamble, the aim of it appears in clause 2. It should always be this way.
Clause 2 provides:
- The purposes of this Act are to
(a) facilitate coordination and co-operation among the Federal Court of Appeal—
I do not think anyone can oppose that. The bill also is intended to:
(b) enhance judicial independence—
Here again, I do not think that anyone in this House can object. I would have preferred it if the government had gone even further. If it wants the courts to be totally independent, it should perhaps change the way federal justices are appointed, which is very archaic. The appointment continues to be made by one or two people in cabinet.
The bill also has as an objective:
(c) enhance accountability for the use of public money in support of court administration—
I believe that grouping together all the resources and putting these three courts under the same administrative umbrella will ensure greater efficiency.
What I object to, but this is to be expected from a Liberal government, is that it is always a little hard for the government not to engage in politics and partisanship, particularly after being in office for years. There are many friends to reward. For example, the appointment of the chief administrator will be purely and simply a partisan appointment. Sure, the government will consult judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Tax Court of Canada and the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, but the final decision will be made by the governor in council.
For all intents and purposes, the process with the chief administrator will be exactly the same as with the judges of the federal court, supreme court and superior court. It will simply be an appointment by the government.
If we want to achieve the laudable objective of enhancing judicial independence, we should begin with the appointment process. We should begin with the appointment of the chief administrator, if we really want to be consistent with the purpose of this legislation, which is not the case right now.
What I really like in this bill is that the chief administrator will report to parliament.
Clause 12 states:
- (1) The Chief Administrator shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year, send to the Minister of Justice a report on the activities of the Service for that year.
(2) The Minister of Justice shall have a copy of the report laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Minister receives the report.
That is all well and fine that there is a report to parliament, but since the chief administrator reports to parliament, why is it not parliament that appoints the chief administrator?
I see the government House leader is saying no. I understand, because that would mean they could not appoint their friends to these positions. Yet, of course this would enhance independence.
Yes, it is fine for the chief administrator to report to the House, but the appointment needs to be reconsidered.
Not only is there the chief administrator, there is also a series of judicial administrators. This bill's weakness, in my opinion, is the series of appointments and this government's approach.
Once again, the objective is laudable. It is similar to the Quebec national government's approach to its administrative tribunals. The federal government is taking up their idea. That is fine. These days we have to streamline and group administrations together. This is what the federal government is doing.