[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
.1645 
[English]
The Chair: All right. We have Madame Roland and Louise Meagher, the registrar and deputy registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada. Welcome.
Ms A. Roland (Registrar, Supreme Court of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I start my brief outline, I would like to mention that I have given to the clerk for distribution a paper on the activities of the court, its 1995 statistics and our court brochure, which we like a lot. I believe you already have our part III estimates for 1996-97 and its outlook document.
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Roland: Madam Chair, Members of Parliament, this is the first time that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada has been asked to appear before a House of Commons committee.
It provides me with a unique opportunity to explain to you how the Court's administration is organized and how the funds allocated by Parliament are spent. It is also an opportunity to start a dialogue with you.
The Supreme Court of Canada was established as a general court of appeal for Canada in 1875 under section 101 of the Constitution Act of 1867. It really became "supreme" with the abolition of all appeals to the Privy Council of England in 1949. Twenty years ago, in 1976, the administration of the Court was made independent of the Department of Justice under whose jurisdiction it had previously been.
Composed of nine judges - the Chief Justice of Canada and eight puisne judges - the Court is supported in its work by a team of public service employees. Under the general direction of the Chief Justice, the Registrar of the Court is the deputy head of the administrative body, which is considered a department for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act. Moreover, the Registrar is the administrator of the Judges Act for the judges of the Supreme Court.
Presenting the administration of the Court gives me an opportunity to describe its achievements and plans in light of this institution's unique role in our country.
In the mission statement of the Court administration, we find three themes. The theme of judicial independence, the theme of the role of technology and that of access to the Court. I would like to review them by way of background to my presentation today.
The first theme, then, is: to ensure the Court's independence within the framework of sound public administration.
The function of the administration is to provide the necessary support to the judges in the exercise of their duties and to the parties appearing before the Court.
The level of activity is dictated by the number of cases that are brought before the Court. On annual basis, the Court deals with an average of 475 applications for leave to appeal. The Court grants about 15% of them. About forty appeals as of right are referred to it. The Court hears more than one hundred appeals on the merits and renders judgements with written reasons in most of them.
Like all branches of the Canadian governmental apparatus, the Court is undergoing some profound changes, and in recent years has absorbed its share of budget constraints.
Accordingly, the administration has established a plan that enables it to absorb a 10% decrease over four years (1995-98) or $1.2 million, through reorganization of the administrative support services and the Library.
The Court administration, recognizing the current financial difficulties facing our country, has in this sense been a good soldier. Its proposed budget for 1996-97 is therefore $14,496,000, being $11,075,000 for administration and $3,421,000 for statutory payments for the judges.
.1650
The independence of the judicial function is always, of course, our uppermost concern and the support of that function must be preserved. The Court administration needs solid bases in order to be able to carry out its responsibilities. For these purposes it uses numerous modern tools.
This brings me to my second theme: to participate in the technological revolution.
Almost ten years ago, in 1987, the Court began a step-by-step entry into the informatics era, consolidating its accomplishments as it proceeded. Computers initially facilitated the preparation of judgements and the publication of the Supreme Court Reports. Then several computerized systems were put in place - a case management system, an internal database management system and a library management system. The administrative support functions have also benefited from the era of computerization.
Our in-house network will soon be connected to the Internet, once certain security issues have been resolved. The Court's decisions are already accessible on it through a joint project with the University of Montreal.
The case management system is being redesigned to correspond to current technological standards. This system is central to the Court's activities and we anticipate that a revamped system will enable us to serve the judges and other users more effectively.
Finally, I will turn to the third theme: to facilitate access to the Court.
By access to the Court, I mean rapid, efficient and equitable access both to its services and to its decisions. The Court is very much aware of the need to manage its time efficiently. Under the direction of the Chief Justice and thanks to the hard work of the judges, the Court hears all cases as soon as the parties are ready. There is no backlog.
Within this context, the Court administration has worked relentlessly to facilitate the judges' work and cope with the stepped-up pace. Changes to the Rules of the Court have also allowed us to improve its operation. For example, after consulting with the bar, the Court shortened the time periods for filing factums and improved internal mechanisms in this regard. It has already limited the time allowed for oral argument and the length of factums. In 1995, judgments were rendered in both official languages, with headnotes, within three or four months of hearings.
Decisions can be accessed on commercial databases and the Internet within a few hours of their release. Moreover, in the largest document, I have provided you with our Internet address.
So the Court is participating in the information society. This enables the parties, their counsel, the media and the general public to learn about the decisions at less cost and within shorter time frames. The Court seeks to be accessible to all who need it, whether on site or from a distance. The use of videoconferencing thus opens the Court's doors in the various regions of the country. Some countries, among them Australia, have drawn on our experience.
Through a unique pilot project - no other court of last resort is doing so - CPAC telecasts the vast majority of the Court's hearings. This is another way of providing access to the general public.
Interest in the Court is unflagging, and requests for information come both from other areas of the country and from abroad. Modern communications means are of great assistance to us in responding to these requests.
In terms of its physical organization, extensive construction work over the last three years under the aegis of Public Works Canada has helped in overcoming the building's problems, a fifty year old heritage building. The construction of ramps and the improvements in elevators and doors now facilitate the movement of the many visitors who come to the Court. As well, its employees are now properly accommodated.
I will conclude by returning to the theme of the independence of the judiciary in the context of sound public administration.
.1655
As the administrator of a judicial organisation of national stature, I feel obliged to impart to you my concerns about the new constraints on financial resources that are scheduled for the end of this century.
The reduction and funding of a unique institution, whose efficiency is well recognized, and the whole purpose of which is to guarantee proper support to a function that is essential in a democracy, cannot be done with impunity. Sound public administration, by definition, goes hand in hand with the independence of the judiciary.
That being said, I am proud to have been able to speak to you of the current accomplishments of the Court's administration and the quality support provided to the judges, and hence to all Canadians. I think our efforts should continue along these lines with the support of everyone.
[English]
Thank you very much for your attention. I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I had to step out for a few moments. Have you discussed the parliamentary channel?
Ms. Roland: I mentioned it very briefly.
Ms. Venne: It would be interesting to know how you determine which hearings are to be telecast. Is this something permanent? How much does it cost? I would like you to elaborate a little on that.
Ms. Roland: I said in my presentation that our undertaking with CPAC is a unique pilot project, no other court of last resort in the world having done so up until now.
I would however like to point out that this project came into being as a result of a request from CPAC, which interested the judges. I will explain how we proceed. Once the Court's list has been prepared, we send it to CPAC, along with the cases that will be heard during the next session and CPAC indicates which hearings it wants to telecast. The Court looks at the list and gives its approval.
Some hearings are not telecast, because, for example, lower courts have imposed publication bans, or because the hearing deal with young offenders, children or sexual matters. These hearings are not telecast.
It is a pilot project. For the time being, it is going very well and it could well be continued. The decision has not been made yet. The costs are absolutely neutral from the Courts's point of view, since CPAC picks up our signal and looks after the broadcasting. So there are no costs involved for us in that respect.
Ms. Venne: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today.
I walk past the Supreme Court building every day - in fact, twice a day. I understand the cost of that new roof matched almost the entire original cost of the building. Is that true?
Ms Roland: Mr. Ramsay, I will ask Madame Meagher to answer that question. She's been very closely involved with the whole huge renovation project.
Ms Louise Meagher (Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court of Canada): I don't have the particular breakdown of the cost of the roof, although I could get it for you from Public Works, which really managed the renovation project. The replacement of the roof was one phase of a larger renovation that was done in the court. The entire project cost $30 million.
Mr. Ramsay: What was the original cost of the building?
Ms Meagher: I don't have that information either, but I'll get it for you.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. According to part III of the expenditure plan, $3,421,000 is to go to judges' salaries, annuities and allowances. Do you have a more detailed breakdown of that? According to my rough figures, that's approximately $360,000 for each of the nine judges. Are you free to tell the committee what the salaries of the Chief Justice and the justices are, what their allowances and benefits are? Where does this $3,421,000 go each year?
Ms Roland: The amount of statutory payment flows from the application of the Judges Act. The total salary for the judges presently sitting on the court is approximately $1,700,000. I can give you the salary of the Chief Justice because it is, of course, public information. It is in the Judges Act. It is $199,000, and that of the puisne judges is $185,000.
.1700
The other amount also goes to pay pensions to retired judges of the Supreme Court. Currently we have, I believe, eight retired judges and two widows of former judges who have retired and died - I think we pay two pensions there - as well as the allowances paid to the judges. That amounts to about the figure I've given you.
Mr. Ramsay: What are the pension benefits paid out to retired Supreme Court judges?
Ms Roland: The pensions follow the same pattern as explained by the commissioner, because the Judges Act applies to the judges of the Supreme Court in the same fashion. A retired judge would get, I believe, two-thirds of his salary at the time of retirement and a surviving spouse would get half of that eventually. As you may know, judges of the Supreme Court all retire at the age of 75.
Mr. Ramsay: What about children of judges?
Ms Roland: This is an interesting provision in the Judges Act. It is rather complex, sir. It applies only to children who are minors should the judge die while in office. So until they are 18 or 21, depending on the particular circumstances...
Mr. Ramsay: What would be the rate of the pension or pay-out under those conditions?
Ms Roland: I'm sorry, I would need to go back to the act to give you the exact figures on those. Currently we have nothing of the kind. If you would like it, I would be happy to get those figures for you.
Mr. Ramsay: Sure, if you could provide that for the committee.
Ms Roland: I will. I do not know the details.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you know how many judges there are on pension at the present time?
Ms Roland: I believe it is eight. Yes, eight judges.
Mr. Ramsay: Do you know if there are any other allowances or benefits the judges are entitled to?
Ms Roland: Under the Judges Act again, the judges get a representational allowance. That is for the judges of the Supreme Court. It is up to $10,000 for actual expenditure for the Chief Justice and $5,000 for each other judge. Representational allowances are to cover expenses incurred by the judge or his or her spouse in discharging special extrajudicial obligations and responsibilities. As with all other federally appointed judges, they get $2,500 for incidental expenditures.
Mr. Ramsay: All right. I didn't record the salary of the judges other than the Chief Justice. What do the other judges receive as an annual salary?
Ms Roland: The puisne judges receive $185,000.
Mr. Ramsay: The Chief Justice, for all the extra work he does, doesn't get paid that much more, does he?
Ms Roland: That's true. You get a good deal there.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay, I may come back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Just as a point of interest, could you tell us the last time they had a raise? Do you know?
Ms Roland: Like the public service, the salary has been frozen. It has been three years, I believe, Madam Chair. I should know, but it has been a long time.
The Chair: Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Just like in the law clerks program.
Ms Roland: Yes.
Mr. Maloney: How does one become a law clerk? What are their functions, what are the prerequisites, what is their job description, what do they do?
Ms Roland: The law clerk program has been in place since 1971, or 1970 probably. Currently, judges have three law clerks each. To become a law clerk you have to be a graduate of a Canadian law school. Usually you have to have an excellent academic record and recommendation from your dean. They are hired for one year.
.1705
The process we follow is that we send posters to all the law schools across the country, and of course we get applications. Because people have to have recommendations and high academic records, it limits the number of people, because it is a position that's very much sought after.
I should mention that some of the law societies accept clerking at the court as the whole or part of the articling. They work for each judge. The kind of work depends pretty much on how each judge organizes his or her own work.
They mostly do research. They help the judge prepare for hearings. Then they help the judge with the preparation of draft reasons. They often do pointed research on areas of the law and any other duties that the judge would want them to do. It's been a very successful program.
Mr. Maloney: If they didn't have that program, who would perform those functions? Would they have to hire people?
Ms Roland: Mr. Maloney, it is hard to speculate on how we would do it.
Mr. Maloney: What did they do before 1970?
Ms Roland: To be quite honest, I do not know. I think the pressures of the court were vastly different in those days. Judges have been heard to say in court that they could not perform at the rate they're performing and maintain the rhythm of the work without this very particular extra help they get from the law clerks.
Mr. Maloney: What do law clerks get paid?
Ms Roland: The law clerks are employed as public servants during their tenure, so they are term employees. They receive all the benefits of public servants and have all the obligations of public servants. Their salary is $37,000 a year.
Mr. Maloney: So if you had a researcher of comparable experience, then probably your salary level grid would be much higher?
Ms Roland: Yes.
Mr. Maloney: We get good value for our money.
Ms Roland: One value of the law clerks as well is that they bring fresh ideas all the time. I think it is very valuable.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chair: Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I was just wondering what that would work out to on an hourly basis, since I understand most of our law clerks are putting in 20 hours a day. So we probably get very good value for our money there.
I apologize if you put it in your presentation already, but approximately how many other staff, other than clerks and judges, are there?
Ms Roland: The total staff number in the court - I do not include judges in staff, by the way - is 144 or 145 employees.
Ms Torsney: Are you housed in any other buildings other than that of the Supreme Court?
Ms Roland: Fortunately, that's no longer. With the renovations, we were able to repatriate, as it were, our people who were in the old wooden building called the annex. So now it is very nice to be able to have everybody under the same roof, and the accommodation has been improved. Before the renovation, people would have ceilings falling on their heads.
Ms Torsney: I know that you've done a lot of work to increase public access. The CPAC airings and what have you have already been mentioned, but what about in terms of other things? You have a brochure on the court in our materials. You're open to the public. I assume you do tours and things.
This is one of the best institutions in the country, and I think it's quite terrific that you're doing all that public outreach -
Ms Roland: Thank you very much.
Ms Torsney: - so that people can understand. Is there a video? Are there souvenirs yet?
Ms Roland: That's an idea.
We have a really organized tour program, which we run all year through, but particularly from May to the end of August, with three tour guides who rotate. So we do have particularly in the spring, a lot of schools touring through, but we run all through the season.
.1710
When we have tours during the winter, we ask our guides, who are law students at the University of Ottawa, to do the tours. We do get a lot of requests from foreign and private groups, all kinds of people, and we try to accommodate them as much as we can.
I do not know whether you've ever been to the U.S. Supreme Court, but they have souvenir shops. We've not gone along that route. It has a lot of pitfalls.
A lot of people have made films of the Supreme Court. A film was made on the architect Cormier. They came to film at the court, and that was aired on CBC a year ago or so.
We have had neither the resources, to be frank, nor the time to make a real video on the court. Now that the hearings are broadcast, I think it's part of the way there. It goes into everybody's homes this way.
Ms Torsney: But it would be nice if there was something that we could package as materials for grade school students or high school students as an inspiration to try to become a judge. I think there would probably be a big market across the country among those lawyers for souvenirs, such as mugs.
Ms Meagher: Did I mention that for the first time this year, we have a page in the teacher's guide now. We have noticed a huge increase in school groups coming through in the spring. We had a record month in May. As you say, the next step might be to send out a video or something like that with it.
One thing the children particularly enjoy is that we allow them to participate in a mock trial -
Ms Torsney: Oh, great.
Ms Meagher: - that our tour guides put on for them.
Ms Torsney: I think it's important. Frequently there are decisions that people just don't understand. They're sometimes based on very fine points of law, and on the surface they appear to be contrary to what most of the public would want to have decided. It would be really helpful to set up a different profile of the court and how it works for people so they have some understanding before those decisions are made.
Ms Roland: Going to the point that decisions are difficult sometimes for the public or that it's on a fine point of law, we have somebody who does press briefings and is trying to help the press to decipher the decision for the best reporting possible and to make it easier to understand for the general public. This is something we do. It's not necessarily 100% successful, but we try.
Ms Torsney: Okay, great. I think those are my questions. I'm really glad that I, for one, was one of the people who asked for you to come before us, because I think there is a need to get a greater understanding about the Supreme Court. I appreciate the efforts you've put into making a presentation.
Ms Roland: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.
[Translation]
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe - North): Page 21 of the Estimates mentions Horizon 98, an in-depth review of your offices activities. Can you tell us what this is all about?
Ms. Roland: Horizon 98 is the name we have given to the plan which will help us reach the budget reduction targets which were imposed, because it was during the period from 1994 to 1998. We spent a lot of time carefully examining all of our operations to see where it was possible to save money. The result was that we amalgamated the administration and financial services, which had been separate. Consequently, we eliminated some positions and amalgamated some tasks.
We also more or less reorganized the library, and cut part of the budget for the acquisition of books. We also eliminated managerial positions, or did some delayering, if you will. This enabled us to meet our objectives. Obviously, the plan is unfolding, but for the time being, it fully coincides with the objectives we had set.
Mr. DeVillers: And it is working well?
Ms. Roland: It is working as well as possible. I would not say that it is easy or pleasant. We have gone to great lengths to help people adjust. We have trained them so that they can do their main job and help someone else when others are absent. We have tried to be very flexible in the way we manage our operations.
Mr. DeVillers: You say that cuts were imposed. I would like to know which department imposes them to you.
.1715
Ms. Roland: I'm referring to phase 1 of program review. We are now examining program review phase 2.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions?
I want to thank you for coming. It wasn't so bad. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Ms. Roland: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: The amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code may have eclipsed your appearance here today, so you should probably go back and send a thank-you note to the Minister of Justice.
The meeting is adjourned.