JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 25, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Our guests today are from the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, Mr. Guy Goulard, the commissioner, and Mr. Denis Guay, the deputy commissioner.

Welcome back, gentlemen. I'm not sure how you would like to proceed. Do you have another presentation? You appeared before us approximately two to three weeks ago. Is there anything further you wish to add on the bill to amend the Judges Act?

Mr. Guy Goulard (Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs): It's our pleasure to be back, Mr. Chairman. We made our presentation the last time so we have no presentation to make today. But I would like to note that we have forwarded, in two different packages, the documentation and information that was requested. So this has been provided to your committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Goulard.

Mr. Ramsay, do you wish to start the questioning? Perhaps we'll go eight-minute rounds.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank our witnesses for coming back.

I have some real problems with this bill because of this response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Supreme Court seems to have read into the Constitution, the charter, the need to have a commission. It seems that this has occurred as a result of past governments not responding to the fiscal and monetary needs of those positions held not only by the Supreme Court but by the federal courts. The decision made in the P.E.I. case dealt with the provincial courts, but my understanding is that this bill is responding to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has read into the charter something of questionable fairness.

The other area of concern is the indirect intervention by the courts into the taxation powers of the Parliament of Canada. Inasmuch as they can make a final decision on their pay, this is an indirect or perhaps a more direct influence on the taxation powers of Parliament, which by definition has the sole sovereign right to tax.

• 1540

The Federal Court judges are not paid from any source other than the public purse, the taxes of the people of this country. If we have a legislative regime that allows the courts to make the final decision, as it appears this bill will do, because the courts will have the final decision in a dispute matter on their own pay—

I think it was Mr. Scott who was here before and admitted that it was a conflict of interest, although perhaps an unavoidable one, but I see the intrusion of the courts into the taxation powers of Parliament, and that concerns me. I don't know if you would care to comment on that, but if you have any thoughts, I'm sure the committee would be pleased to hear from you.

Mr. Guy Goulard: I would be remiss to put any interpretation on that Supreme Court of Canada decision, and I would be remiss to even try to comment on whether the court has gone too far or not. That is way beyond my mandate. My mandate is to administer part I of the Judges Act. Period.

I'm trying to discern exactly what your question is. If you are asking me for a legal opinion on that Supreme Court of Canada judgment, I'm not able to give you an opinion.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. I'm looking at the possible consequences of this bill and—

Mr. Guy Goulard: I understand that, but I cannot comment.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: And I can understand your reasoning for not doing that. Perhaps that is a question for other witnesses that unfortunately we may not have appear before the committee.

In the area of compensation— Just to put it on the record, I wonder how many witnesses who have been asked have refrained from appearing before the committee. Perhaps they don't want to get involved in the examination of this bill and being subjected to questions that might put their opinions on the record with regard to various aspects of the bill, including what I'm asking about.

With regard to compensation, would it not be easier to have judges' compensation reviewed every two or three years and have it perhaps be guided by the industrial average, rather than going through the form we're establishing now where the thing could go to the Supreme Court to determine their own salaries? From your experience, is this the best route to go? Are there alternatives to this, or is this the only alternative to move the government in the direction of a pay increase or benefits that might be considered by the commission? Is this the only route we can go?

I have grave concerns about this, and it is beyond the area that you would like to address, but from your experience over the years is this the final alternative, the only alternative?

Mr. Guy Goulard: You're asking if there are alternative ways that it could be done. If we looked around the world I'm sure we could find an alternative way of doing this, but Parliament, in its wisdom, 17 years ago decided that judicial salaries would be reviewed in two ways—first, by adding the industrial aggregate every year, and by having the whole issue of salaries and other benefits reviewed by a commission every three years, and now it is proposed to do it every four years. I believe that is one way and a good way of doing it.

• 1545

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What difference do you see in what you've just described and what will come forward as a result of the passage of this bill?

Mr. Guy Goulard: I see an improvement in what will now be the quadrennial commission's role. It will make it more independent and it's a way of bringing some independence into the reviewing of judicial salaries to protect their independence. I think it is that simple.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: And where do you see the improvement in that independence? Would you tell the committee your thoughts on that?

Mr. Guy Goulard: I'm not saying it will improve independence. It will protect their independence.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Was the independence of the committee not protected before? In what way will you see it protected? How will you see the protection of independence enhanced through the bill?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Again, this is way beyond my mandate. I'm to administer the salaries and the other benefits of judges under part I. I'm prepared to answer questions on the mathematics of fixing salaries, but the fact that a member of the committee will be appointed by the judiciary, the chair, and one by government, and the chair will be picked by those two members—that will be a way of ensuring the independence of members of the committee.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Was that not there before?

Mr. Guy Goulard: That wasn't there before.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Bellehumeur, you have eight minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Good day, Commissioner. I realize that you are here to speak to Bill C-37 which you will be applying, but I am curious as to what the true powers of your office are. Do you have the power to make recommendations to the minister?

Mr. Guy Goulard: When the Office of the Commissioner was created, it was understood that it would not be involved in formulating policy vis-à-vis amendments to the legislation.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Basically then, there is not much you can do to amend Bill C-37.

Mr. Guy Goulard: No, there is nothing I can do.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Do you handle complaints from members of the public?

Mr. Guy Goulard: No, complaints are not filed with my office.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Your office doesn't receive these complaints?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Complaints are forwarded to the Judicial Council. We merely serve as accountants.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I see. Appropriately enough, this ties in with the question I have for you.

I'm sure you follow current events. Since 1993, the government has made a number of cuts to unemployment insurance. Since then, the youth poverty rate has increased substantially. Statistics show that in the past few years, the number of people on social assistance has increased and that generally speaking, people and families are poorer and that some children do not even eat breakfast before leaving for school in the morning. It is also common knowledge that the government refuses to compensate persons who contracted hepatitis C between 1980 and 1986 on the grounds that it cannot afford to. In the meantime, this bill proposes to increase the salaries of judges.

According to Mr. Scott who testified before the committee, the proposed increases add up to a great deal of money. An increase of 4.1 per cent was scheduled to take effect on April 1, 1998. Overall increases will be in the 12 to 13 per cent range, because judges will receive 4.1 percent on April 1, 1997 and a further 4.1 percent on April 1, 1998, in addition to a statutory increase of 2.8 per cent.

My question for you is simple. As an accountant mindful of the fact that money is in short supply, do you think it would be appropriate for me, as a parliamentarian, to vote in favour of this bill which would grant a 12 per cent increase to persons already earning in excess of $160,000 and even upwards of $200,000? If you can't influence the government, what about me? Do you think that I should support the bill?

• 1550

Mr. Guy Goulard: Of course, I would like to influence you in a positive way, but I am certainly not in a position to comment on the state of our national economy.

However, from a comparative standpoint, if we were to compare the salaries of deputy ministers and judges in recent decades, we would see that the increase proposed in Bill C-37 would keep judges at about the same remuneration level as deputy ministers, and maybe even a notch lower. Therefore, comparatively speaking, the proposed increase does not do justice to judges.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: However, are these salaries appropriate, when compared to general income levels? Poverty is on the rise and many people are receiving social assistance. All the while, the most fortunate members of the system are in line for a 12 to 13 per cent increase. Chief justices will benefit from an increase of over $25,000 retroactive to April 1, 1998 when the bill is passed. I have to tell you that this does not sit well the general public. How is it that the Minister of Justice earns less than deputy ministers? These are basic questions that need to be asked. On the flip side, there is some reluctance to award MPs an increase of two or three per cent. I don't know if we are going to get an increase or not. In any event, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to any increase for members of Parliament. It's ludicrous, in any case. What with taxes, the amount of the paycheck doesn't change. Getting back to my question, do you think the proposed increase is appropriate and that I should support this increase of 12 to 13 per cent? Furthermore, the increase is retroactive. Don't tell me otherwise, when judges are about to receive a 4.1 per cent increase retroactive to April 1, 1997. In your opinion, should I endorse this bill?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I will be voting against the bill. I have no further questions.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you. I apologize for being a few minutes late.

In response to the questions from my colleague, Mr. Bellehumeur, you essentially indicated to us that you're an accountant. You're here to administer the act. You're a lawyer, I understand?

Mr. Guy Goulard: We do the accounting.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I may ask you an interpretation question, because you're involved with part I of the act. I gather you would administer section 2 of the act, which deals with the surviving spouses' benefits. Is that what you mean when you say you're involved in the administration of part I of the act?

Mr. Guy Goulard: That is correct.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Do you have concerns about the definition of surviving spouse in terms of it applying—I ask this in light of recent human rights cases—only to members of the opposite sex? Do you foresee any kind of challenge there?

Mr. Guy Goulard: I do not foresee a challenge. It is not for me to foresee or not. There have been challenges in similar situations, but—

Mr. Peter Mancini: So you don't see any kind of same sex benefit challenge coming under this section of the act? There's no concern about that in terms of administering it.

Mr. Guy Goulard: That's right. It is not for me to have or not to have concern.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I envy you.

Mr. Guy Goulard: I have other concerns.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I am sure.

The creation of the unified family court—let's take the province of Nova Scotia, for example—and the appointment of eight new judges— how will the funding formula work with regard to those salaries? Will those judges all be paid from the federal government or will there be a top-up? I'm not clear on how the salaries of those judges in the unified family court will work.

Mr. Guy Goulard: They will be federally appointed judges, so their salaries will come from the federal government.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So there is no cost sharing there at all?

Mr. Guy Goulard: There is no cost sharing for the salaries of judges.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay. For the administration of the unified family court—?

Mr. Guy Goulard: That remains a provincial responsibility, and providing social services and other services that should go with a family court remains a provincial responsibility.

• 1555

Mr. Peter Mancini: Is it your understanding then that those judges would remain in the physical locations and with staff paid for by the province? Essentially they'll stay where they are right now, with the exception that they would be paid by the federal government?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Yes, that is a provincial responsibility, providing all administrative services including facilities and support staff will remain a responsibility of the province. So whether they're in the same location or a new location will be determined by the province, but that is a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Will these judges of the unified family court have the power to combine relief under both provincial and federal statutes, almost a one-stop shopping, if you will?

Mr. Guy Goulard: That's the intention.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So I would think that in essence the federal government will be saving money. If the province absorbs the costs of preparing divorce decrees, doing all the clerical work—because there is a tremendous amount of paperwork involved, certainly in divorce—if those are being paid for then by the province, they're absorbing that cost. The trade-off is the judicial salary.

Mr. Guy Goulard: It is there now.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Well, it isn't in divorces. Right now you have to go to a federal court, the Supreme Court, to obtain a divorce. So is the workload on the prothonotary's office, let's say, in a provincial setting, all from federal money?

Mr. Guy Goulard: No.

Mr. Peter Mancini: It's not?

Mr. Guy Goulard: No, it's provincial. The only money that comes from the federal government is the judicial salary.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So the federal government is in fact incurring an increased cost then by, say, adding eight more judges in the province of Nova Scotia.

Mr. Guy Goulard: If there are a few additional judges, it is an increase in costs for what hopefully will be an increase in services to the people involved in family courts. Instead of having two places where you must go, this will become, as you said, a one-stop— in family matters.

In Ontario it has proven to be extremely successful for 20 years. Finally now it's being extended.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I am happy to hear that there's going to be more federal money. I'm just trying to figure out what the trade-off is, because I can't imagine that there isn't one.

If the federal government is prepared to increase the amount of money it's spending in that provincial area of jurisdiction, if you will, although there is the overlap—

Mr. Guy Goulard: Again, it's not for me to talk about trade-offs, but improving services to the family will bring an additional cost to the province. So if you want to talk about trade-offs, that might be a trade-off.

Mr. Peter Mancini: If I can shift a little bit, you talked a little about the comparison of judges' salaries to deputy ministers' salaries. In terms of the public bar, crown attorneys in different provinces, say, chief crown prosecutors, can you tell me if there has been a comparison done in that regard?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Not that I'm aware of. I know that in Ontario there has been a similar comparison for provincial judges. I know that was done, but I have no idea what the outcome was.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay, those are my questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you both for appearing today. Just to follow up on the question posed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party with respect to the call for further appointments—and, I guess, particularly in the province of Ontario—that was one of the criticisms I read.

I assume it was the Attorney General on the part of the province saying that, okay, well, the appointment of 17 new unified family court judges in Ontario is a help, but we really need 27.

Has there been further consideration on the number, particularly in Ontario?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Not that I'm aware of. This is policy—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure.

Mr. Guy Goulard: —and I'm not involved in the policy negotiations between the federal and provincial governments.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So as far as you are concerned, the numbers are fixed?

Mr. Guy Goulard: The numbers are fixed by the act.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Let me ask you something with respect to the decision itself that led to this legislation, the P.E.I. reference case. There was discussion in the decision by Justice LaForest about the judicial compensation commission now being perceived as a fourth level of government, and then further to that, the perception of bias on the part of the commission then being subject to judicial review itself.

This was essentially judges looking at what judges are doing. I wondered if you would comment on that.

• 1600

Mr. Guy Goulard: No, I could not comment on this, because I would be entering into the realm of giving a legal opinion. I'm not prepared for that, and that is way beyond my mandate.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, fair enough.

Mr. Guy Goulard: I might note that Justice LaForest was the dissenting voice of that judgment.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Fair enough.

I just have a final question, and it is along the same lines as the question posed by Mr. Bellehumeur about the public perception; again, the public perception of judges.

I suppose that having this significant increase in salary in terms of the man on the street— I've even heard rumblings that the judges do not like to be compared to deputy ministers in terms of their duties and salaries. I wonder if you would address that.

Mr. Guy Goulard: You're asking me about the rumblings in the general public? I'm not sure about that. The comments I receive from the public are that they are much more interested in having a bench that they can trust. And if in trust one has to pay a reasonable salary, then I wonder if the public would not, if well informed, be very supportive of adequate salaries for— I'm sure they would be very supportive of adequate salaries for judges.

About the judges not liking to be compared to deputy ministers, I think they want it to be made very clear that they are serving the public, but as members of the third branch. That is the judiciary, and they should not be compared with either of the two other branches.

I think generally they agree that their salary being comparable to a mid-range of senior deputy ministers is quite acceptable. That is all I have heard.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I take it from your earlier comment to my question that you embrace the linkage of higher salaries leading to a better judiciary. Do you believe that wholeheartedly?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Yes. It's logical.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you. Mr. Goulard, I'd like to focus a bit more if I could, and I think you can probably help us—I hope you can—on this so-called potential benchmark of the DM-3, deputy minister 3, which is the senior level of deputy ministers. Do you know what the salary range for that DM-3 category is now as we speak?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Yes, it's now $173,000 to $203,500.

Mr. Derek Lee: All right. And you've already indicated in response to earlier questioning that it is your sense that the bench accepts a kind of approximate linkage with that. In the absence of anything else, that particular range would be the range that the bulk of the judicial community would see themselves as following appropriately? Is that fair?

Mr. Guy Goulard: I agree.

Mr. Derek Lee: Now, I'm sure you've had the benefit of reading the report of the Scott commission.

Mr. Guy Goulard: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: On page 15 of the report there is an apparent linkage to the lost or frozen industrial aggregate over the period the federal government had frozen public service salaries and other remuneration.

It is perhaps regrettable that this reference was made. It is arguably unnecessary to make reference to it, and in fact it might hurt.

• 1605

You've read the report. You may be regarded as some kind of a spokesperson on it. Do you believe it was the view of the commission that judges should have what I would call catch-up for that lost industrial aggregate inflation over the freeze period?

Mr. Guy Goulard: I do not believe that this was the intention. Again, I know that Mr. Scott did appear before your committee, and it would have been much more up to him to tell what the intentions were.

But my understanding is that since the report, the judges have been asking that their salaries be reviewed to make them equitable with respect to what should be a current salary. I do not believe the judges have ever asked for a catch-up. I think they were advised never to raise the word “catch-up”. I've never heard that as being the intention.

Mr. Derek Lee: No, in fairness that word does not show up in the Scott commission report.

Mr. Guy Goulard: He did say to ensure that the erosion is effectively corrected, and erosion goes to much more than the freeze.

If you look at the salaries of the DM-3s over the last 10 years, as of now the judges have fallen way behind in comparison with the DM-3 levels. I've prepared a table that I've left with the clerk indicating that in the past years the judges' salaries have been within the mid-range of DMs—at the lower level even—and with a maximum differentiation at the maximum level at roughly 10%. As of today it is 25%.

That's the difference between the judges' salaries and the maximum DM-3 level. Even if the bill is passed, there will still be a 15% differentiation between the judges' salary and the DM-3 maximum.

So judges are not keeping up with DM-3s, even with the proposed raise. But at least they're brought back within the range. As it is now, they are even 6.5% below the minimum DM-3, and that's the first time it has happened. This has happened always.

Mr. Derek Lee: You're saying that is the current situation without passing this bill?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Right. Over the last 10 years they've always been a little over the minimum DM-3 minimum, give or take 2.1%, but as of now they have fallen 6.5% below that minimum DM-3.

Mr. Derek Lee: So if I have my facts correct, this bill would place the salary level for the lowest paid federal judges, the puisne judges or whatever, however they are described in various courts, at $175,200. My records show that the minimum for the DM-3 range is $173,000 even.

Mr. Guy Goulard: Correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: So the judges, therefore, would now be within the range.

Mr. Guy Goulard: They'd be 1.6% above the minimum range. So they're way below the range as it is now.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. And one would note, as well, then that the new range for DM-3s goes up to $203,000.

Here I flip to the Supreme Court. Most people will accept judicial office there as worthy of the highest remuneration. This bill would put the Supreme Court of Canada judge at $209,000, just slightly above the top-end of the DM-3—

Mr. Guy Goulard: Correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: —if you don't include the bonuses that are available to DM-3s.

Mr. Guy Goulard: Right.

Mr. Derek Lee: Is that fair?

Mr. Guy Goulard. That's fair.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Mr. Guy Goulard: The bonus and other benefits that deputy ministers receive and judges do not.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Jack.

• 1610

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, my concerns lie outside the scope of the duties of our witnesses, so I have no further questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Can you tell me how many DM-3s we have and how many judges we have?

Mr. Guy Goulard: I can tell you how many judges we have, but I cannot tell you how many DM-3s we have. As of May 1 we have 992 judges.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: To the best information I have available, we have nine DM-3s, which is more equivalent to the number of Supreme Court justices we have.

That's the only comment.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I have no further questions. However, I am troubled by something you said to my colleague Mr. MacKay. You argued that the higher a judge's salary, the more qualified the judge will be. In my view, this is not a very accurate statement. One shouldn't generalize.

I'm a lawyer myself. I practised law for a eight years. I know some lawyers who have worked their entire lives at legal aid offices helping out people and who have made excellent, compassionate judges. We don't necessarily find these qualities in lawyers appointed to the bench who once worked for large law firms and earned between $200,000 and $250,000 a year. I would like the statement to the effect that the higher the salary, the more qualified the judge will be, to be withdrawn. It is absolutely not true.

Mr. Guy Goulard: I totally agree with you. Let me just clarify something. I didn't say that judges who are paid more are more qualified. I said that their remuneration had to be adequate if we wanted to ensure that they possessed certain qualifications and a certain ability to act independently.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Fine. In my opinion, an increase in salary from $162,300 to $208,200 on April 1 is a very adequate level of remuneration.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to get something on the record, just so this thing had some context.

If the group of judges out there are unhappy with their remuneration or some element of their compensation, how do they complain about it? What do they do? Do they phone you?

Mr. Guy Goulard: No.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm just trying to get it on the record for purposes of explanation, for people who might not be too clear about it.

Mr. Guy Goulard: There's not much they can do.

Mr. Derek Lee: There's not much they can do. They certainly don't phone politicians. Is that correct?

Mr. Guy Goulard: I hope not, no. That is correct; they do not phone.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Every lawyer in the courtroom knows.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Mancini is suggesting that judges may take it out on the poor lawyers in the courtroom, but I know that the judges don't.

Is there any informal process, other than the commission approach, that exists under the statutes?

Mr. Guy Goulard: There is no other process. This is the process that Parliament has put in place. The judges have used that process and I am sure will continue to use that process, but there is no other process. They cannot go to the bar. They cannot go to the public. They cannot go to the press. They cannot go on strike. There is no viable process.

Mr. Derek Lee: There is no ombudsman.

Mr. Guy Goulard: There is no ombudsman.

Mr. Derek Lee: There is no linkage. Okay. I wanted to get that on the record.

Mr. Ramsay was concerned, I think, about the process that had the courier package coming down the street into Parliament from this commission, simply saying here's the program, rubber-stamp it.

You see the circumstances under which judges work. Is there any other way, in your view, to record, document— and cause Parliament and the government to make changes in these areas?

Mr. Guy Goulard: Are there other ways?

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes. Have you ever experienced any in your current position?

• 1615

Mr. Guy Goulard: I have not.

Mr. Derek Lee: In any other countries, have you seen any?

Mr. Guy Goulard: You could go from A to Z in other countries, where some judges work on contract for three years. I'm just back from the Caribbean where magistrates work on a three-year contract with a termination clause of one month's notice. Surely that is not independence of the judiciary.

I do not know of any better mechanism than what is being proposed.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. And just for Mr. Ramsay, it is my view, having read the Supreme Court judgment, that the process recommended or imposed by the Supreme Court is useful and helpful, given the fact that there was nothing else coherent there.

At the end of the day, what does come to Parliament will receive scrutiny of Parliament, just as this bill is now. Should Parliament be so advised and of the view to take a position other than what would be in the commission report, then Parliament will do so. If Parliament should, and doesn't, then Parliament has no one else to blame but itself. I think there is ample opportunity within the process to act on behalf of our electorate in a responsible way within the process recommended or imposed by the Supreme Court. Time will tell, but I just wanted to make that comment.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'll follow on some of Mr. Lee's comments when he says that in essence—and he's right—the judiciary has very few avenues to complain if they're not happy with their salaries.

By the same token, I think you have to agree with me that there's very little accountability in terms of work performance of the judiciary. I'm not saying if a judge is openly sexist, or if a judge comes to work drunk, or if a judge makes an error of law—of course there are checks for that in the judicial council; there are checks at the court of appeal. But realistically, there is no one to tell a judge to work eight hours a day. I think you would agree with me on that.

Mr. Guy Goulard: There's no one to tell a judge how to do his job.

Mr. Peter Mancini: There is no one to tell the judge if he works two hours a day, or if he or she demands a checklist of everything to be done by council, so they can simply affix their signature.

So in terms of them not having an avenue to complain, they also have very little accountability in terms of job performance. I think I would make that point on the record, because I do think it needs to be said, in light of some of the comments. That's all, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'd like to follow up on this information that's been provided to the committee that the judges have no representative with regard to their salaries and benefits.

It seems that they have now indirectly placed themselves as their own representatives. I wonder what response there will be if the commission makes recommendations that are not considered to be fair. It's then taken, of course, to Parliament; Parliament agrees with it and it's then taken to court.

I have some real concerns in this particular area that there's a definite conflict of interest. I think we identified that when Mr. Scott was before the committee.

I have concerns that— as Mr. Bellehumeur was directing his comments to you, I could envision the financial difficulty striking society. There might need to be a requirement to reduce the salaries from, say, $200,000 to whatever. Our Parliament would not be able to do that without running the risk of its actions being declared an interference in the judicial independence of the court.

I have grave concerns about that kind of scenario developing through this bill. And I think it's real. I think it is there either on the deficit side, where there may be justifiable reasons to give tax relief to all Canadians, and of course all public servants, including judges, would have to experience that, whereas at the top level it's the same type of interference into the sovereign power of the state to tax. I see that happening here. It may not be that overt, but I see there is an encroachment here.

• 1620

We've enticed you through the door in some of our questions, and I don't know if you want to comment on them. But I do see that inasmuch as they have no representative, they have now through this bill emerged, at least in part, as their own representative, where they can decide, if a matter comes to court, whether or not it is a fair compensation offer. If it's not fair—either not a good enough raise or there's a contemplated reduction in salary based upon the economic conditions of the country—they can render a decision that this poses, or in fact is, judicial interference.

So I have some grave concerns. If you have any comments you'd like to make about that, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Guy Goulard: I would only echo Mr. Lee's comment that it will still be up to Parliament to make a decision. I agree with you that it is something that could be brought to court on the reasonableness issue, but I have faith in the reasonableness of people.

Apart from that, I have no comment.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. Of course, I hear that comment quite often from our officials who appear before our committee. I hope you're right, but too often the reasonableness disappears based upon the circumstances.

Thank you.

Mr. Derek Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to cite section 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689. You just can't take Parliament to court.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: While I certainly agree with some of what Mr. Ramsay is voicing, the concern being that somehow, if this bill were not to pass Parliament, although we wouldn't expect to see judges out on the picket line, they could certainly slow down the process. That would be the recourse, I think, Mr. Lee maybe alluded to as to what judges do if they're dissatisfied.

I don't think Mr. Mancini was insinuating that they take it out entirely on lawyers in the courtroom, but they can certainly throw a wrench—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Crown prosecutors.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Or crown prosecutors, yes. They won't be out walking the picket lines like the prosecutors in Nova Scotia will.

My question is of a more specific nature. How is the package going to apply to supernumerary judges—that is, judges who are no longer working in a full capacity? I'm not sure what they call them in other provinces, but in my home province of Nova Scotia, when a judge, usually due to either a medical condition or their nearing the age of retirement, slows down, they will not be acting in their full capacity but they still will be hearing cases.

How would this proposal affect judges in that situation?

Mr. Guy Goulard: For provincial judges it varies from province to province, and I will not comment, but for federally appointed judges, the supernumerary judges for all benefits are judges. They have the same salary, same benefits.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Do they?

Mr. Guy Goulard: There is no difference.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I was of the understanding that when they went into that status of supernumerary they weren't receiving their full remuneration.

Mr. Guy Goulard: They are.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Are there any other questions on the government side?

Mr. Goulard, I have a question. The Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Information are paid salaries equivalent to a Federal Court judge. The Auditor General is paid a salary equivalent to a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Are there other public servants whose salaries are targeted to the judiciary and whose remuneration will be affected by an increase as well?

Mr. Guy Goulard: The only ones are official languages, privacy, information, and the Auditor General. They are the only ones we are aware of.

• 1625

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): So any increase allowed by Bill C-37 will increase their salaries proportionally?

Mr. Guy Goulard: That's correct.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: So, your salary won't be affected?

Mr. Guy Goulard: No, but we could always discuss it.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you very much, Mr. Goulard and Mr. Guy. We appreciate your presence here today.

Mr. Guy Goulard: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): There being no other questions, we'll adjourn. Let's suspend proceedings. We still have consideration of the estimates, of the report.

• 1626

• 1630

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order, please. We now have the votes on estimates.

I've never done this before.

A voice: Neither have I.

The Chair: I'll take it easy on you.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: On a point of order, Madam Chair, before we begin, inasmuch as some of the witnesses have not been able to appear before us on the Judges Act, Bill C-37, is there a possibility that some of the other witnesses who were on the list, but were not called because they didn't represent organizations, could be called?

• 1631

The Chair: That's not why they weren't called. We voted on it at that time. The sentiment of the committee was that they were being called on issues that were tangential to the bill.

And just while I'm speaking on that, I'll say this on the record, although I was going to say it tomorrow in camera. Someone gave some information to the Canadian Police Association that could only have come from an in camera meeting.

The Canadian Police Association has now written to me. I just caution you that when we are in camera, unless we agree to give the results of one of those meetings out, decisions that are held in camera are decisions that are held by this committee for that reason.

The information was inconsequential and it doesn't really matter, and I'm not about to mount a witch-hunt here. I just want to remind you that when we make decisions or until we decide together that we're going to release that information, we should do it. The fact that we haven't decided doesn't mean anything other than we haven't raised the issue for publication. I just point that out. When we're in camera we're in camera. Usually when we're doing future business we're in camera.

On the question of Bill C-37 and further witnesses, if you're addressing this to the academics who would speak to the issue of the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary, my personal view of that is we've asked questions on it, but it's outside the scope of this particular bill. It may be something we want to study at some point. I know there are a lot of members who are interested in it—I'm one of them—but I wouldn't personally be inclined to have any further witnesses on this bill.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: We were prepared to call— and we had asked witnesses to appear who have declined to attend.

Are there no replacement witnesses who would be able to provide similar information to the committee?

The Chair: We canvassed thoroughly all of the witnesses. The witnesses we've invited who are not coming on particular points have declined because they support the bill and they just don't have anything to add to it.

I don't know how you replace the Canadian Bar Association or le Barreau du Québec or Madam Justice Bertha Wilson. She's not replaceable, I agree. So I don't think you replace them with academics who are inclined to speak on other subjects.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I had asked for two witnesses. Were they notified? Were they on top of the list?

The Chair: We had a vote on that. Mr. Breitkreuz was here representing you, representing the Reform Party. We voted on the list and we cut out the people who were not relevant to this particular bill. Was Morton one of them?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Morton was one.

The Chair: Morton and Martin—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes.

The Chair: Peter Russell, who was my idea— were all cut out. Here's the list with my notes on it.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): She'll adopt them as hers.

The Chair: That was during the in camera session.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Was that based on the fact that they had no opinion on this bill?

The Chair: No. The issue was whether what they had to say was relevant to the bill.

Mr. Morton is well known for his views on the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary.

Mr. Russell is well known for his views on how judges are appointed. It's something I'm very interested in.

Professor Ratushny is well known actually for several things, one of which is that he's counsel to the judicial council.

They are all outside the scope of this bill. They're not experts on family law or on unified family court. The people we did invite on that issue declined to come because they support that aspect of the bill. They didn't think they could add anything to it.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I can understand people not wanting to come. We don't know what Morton would say or Russell would say until we ask them questions. What's the point of having witnesses if—

The Chair: Jack, we could call Santa Claus and he might have a view on this bill too, but what we're trying to do is use our time efficiently. As it stands now, I have a motion from your party that I have to deal with somewhere in here, sometime this week. If you want to give that up, we can. Is that what you want to do? Something has to give. We're setting priorities now.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I understand the timing. How many witnesses have we had on this bill?

The Chair: I don't know.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Two?

The Chair: Three, four—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: There were two or three groups.

The Chair: The rest declined.

• 1635

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm not satisfied that we've had—

The Chair: There were eight witnesses invited and five declined.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Are we denying some witnesses the opportunity to attend?

The Chair: No, we're not denying anybody. We're denying you. We decided as a group that we weren't going to call those witnesses, and my witnesses either. I had two and they're not being called.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Because of the lack of time—

The Chair: No. Because they're not relevant to this bill—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: How do we know if they're relevant or not? We don't know. We haven't asked them any questions.

The Chair: We took a look at them. I don't know about you, but I took a look at their writings. I know what they have to say and what their relationship is to this particular subject matter.

It would be interesting to call them if we were studying other things, like the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary, or the way in which judges are appointed, or the way in which judges are disciplined, but those are not aspects of this bill.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you feel they would have no opinion on this bill?

The Chair: They may have, but, as I say, so would Santa Claus. That doesn't mean they have any expertise that we need to tap into on this bill, Jack. Every lawyer in Canada probably has an opinion on this bill, and probably every political science professor who has something to do with the study of the judiciary would have an opinion on this bill, but we're not calling them all.

Mr. Bellehumeur has an opinion on this bill, but he doesn't want to testify.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I've made up my mind and I don't need to hear any other witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: It's not up to me; it's up to the committee. I think I'm expressing fairly how the committee feels.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: For the record, I don't think we've had enough witnesses. There are questions here that I would like answered. With the greatest respect to the witnesses who just appeared, they were very concerned about getting beyond their own area of responsibility in answering questions, but it leaves some questions unanswered. So I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: Okay.

Estimates. We're starting with votes under justice, votes 1 and 5.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do we have a copy of this?

The Chair: It's what you have. It's part of your blue book. Did you not bring it?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Chair, just before we go on to the estimates, were you going to address this letter that was copied to all of the opposition justice critics from Newark and his request to appear on this bill?

The Chair: Who?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Scott Newark— dated May 14.

The Chair: It's the letter to which I was referring.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. I thought you were referring to Mr. Ramsay's request for other witnesses.

The Chair: Mr. Newark's expertise on the issue of judges' salaries would be exactly what?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think he's saying police officers generally—

The Chair: If everybody wants to have them, that's fine with me. However, (1) Mr. Newark is an employee of the Canadian Police Association and I do not consider him to be an appropriate witness on his own, without the president or a member of the board of directors here to make the main presentation; and (2), and I feel this very strongly, in this particular subject matter, Mr. Newark and the Canadian Police Association's opinion is no greater than that of any other public interest group or any other member of the public. It would be my view that it's not appropriate, not necessary to call them, particularly when what they're addressing is the relationship of Parliament to the judiciary.

It's something we may want to study. It's certainly a current topic, and if we can fit that into our schedule somewhere, we may in fact want to do that.

Mr. Lee would love to do it. Mr. Lee would love to have a subcommittee to do it. Mr. Lee would love to be a one-man commission on the issue.

If we can fit that in, fine, but I don't know why we would take a bill that has to do with judges' salaries and the establishment of a unified family court, which is a major advance in my province and yours, and turn this into, if you'll excuse the expression, a half-assed attack on another subject matter, which we can do a good job on at some point.

• 1640

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect, I don't think it would be that. I think the concern that was expressed, and it isn't necessarily— I assume Mr. Newark would want to come as part of any delegation from the CPA, but I think what we're talking about here is tied into what we're going to deal with next, which is budget allocations.

Obviously, any increase in salaries for judges is going to be coming out of the overall pool of money, and I think the police may have a unique perspective on how the priorities of the government should come down.

The Chair: Coming out of the justice department's portfolio, they don't have anything to do with policing in Canada.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It all comes out of the general pool, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It comes out of a particular envelope if you follow the budgeting process, and that has no direct relevance to the salaries of police officers in Pictou county.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I understand. However, Madam Chair, if judges receive a 12 per cent increase, why shouldn't I, a police officer, who does battle with the extremely dangerous criminals who come before judges, receive a comparable increase in pay? Many people could make the same argument, since all public servants have had their salaries frozen for several years.

The Chair: You and me both.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We must look at things from this perspective. I can understand a member of the Canadian Police Association wanting to testify before the committee. I concur fully with him. In some respects, we don't need to hear from him because I know what he is going to say. This won't help us move forward. What we must do is reject this bill.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks Michel.

Mr. MacKay, I would suggest to you that's the point, that there are issues that should be studied at some point in the future. Those are the issues Mr. Newark appears to want the Canadian Police Association to address, and they have a valid concern.

Have they taken the time to check the government's response to our second report, which addressed the issues raised in the Phinney bill? Is there some point at which we might want—if we ever get the time or we could ever get together on what our priorities are—to address those issues? We may come to that, in which case they're welcome to come, but it seems to me that we've created a witness list that was a significant one. We've been declined by some witnesses and we're finished with it. We ought to get on to the next subject matter, unless you, who also signed that motion, would like to give that time up.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's not a matter of giving time up.

The Chair: Sure it is.

Mr. Peter MacKay: If we had time set aside for witnesses who didn't come— Let's be frank here. Obviously time was set aside that wasn't used that could be substituted by other witnesses.

The Chair: No, there's not. There's time because we were overbooked. There will be time for a steering committee meeting on Wednesday, which we haven't had time to have. There will be time for planning of our future business, and there's time for that motion.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I don't have any problem with you saying that. Sure, there are all kinds of back-up things that can be filled in with this extra time, but to suggest that witnesses who didn't come—that time would have had to have been set aside. If we were going to hear from ten witnesses and we heard from four—

The Chair: Yes, but what we gave up in order to schedule those witnesses was organizational time and time to have the kinds of discussions that we're having now. Now we have that time back and we could probably use it to set priorities, which is something I've been urging this committee to do for several weeks now.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And I can accept that, but that's a decision that you've made.

The Chair: It's something I'm pushing, yes. I really can't make the decision. If you want to have a vote on whether the Canadian Police Association and these other witnesses should come, we can have that vote. But I would suggest to you that first we're going to do the estimates, which is what we're scheduled to do today. There is a future business meeting first thing tomorrow.

Okay, vote 1, the Justice Department.

Shall vote 1 carry?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Madam Chair, I'm new at this too, so we can just find out where this is? I'm looking at two books here. Where do we start? We didn't do this last year.

• 1645

Mr. Derek Lee: It would be helpful to us all if the process was eliminated. Instead of just being vote 1, is there another denominator or description of what votes 1, 2, and 3 are—the departmental spending estimates, a rough number, just to help—

The Chair: Justice Department.

Mr. Derek Lee: —us calibrate where we are?

Thank you.

JUSTICE

Department

Vote 1—Operating expenditures ...... $193,805,000

Vote 5—Grants and contributions ...... $283,651,000

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Vote 10—Program expenditures ...... $12,874,000

Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs

Vote 15—Operating expenditures ...... $3,855,000

Vote 20—Canadian Judicial Council—Operating expenditures ...... $499,000

Federal Court of Canada

Vote 25—Program expenditures ...... $27,002,000

Human Rights Tribunal Panel

Vote 30—Program expenditures ...... $2,076,000

Law Commission of Canada

Vote 35—Program expenditures ...... 2,791,000

Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada

Vote 40—Program expenditures ...... $5,760,000

Supreme Court of Canada

Vote 45—Program expenditures ...... $10,090,000

Tax Court of Canada

Vote 50—Program expenditures ...... $9,304,000

(Vote 1 agreed to on division)

Mr. Peter Mancini: Is there a particular page you're referring to?

The Chair: You need the main estimates.

(Votes 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Vote 35 refers to the Law Commission of Canada. You would have studied this, but we didn't call any witnesses on this. It was not requested.

(Votes 35, 40, and 45 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Vote 50 refers to the Tax Court of Canada. We didn't study them, but you would have the information to consider this.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Is there a copy of the sheet you're using, Madam Chair?

The Chair: No, this is my crib sheet.

(Vote 50 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Now we go to the votes under the Solicitor General's department.

SOLICITOR GENERAL

Department

Vote 1—Operating expenditures ...... $17,544,000

Vote 5—Grants and contributions ...... $52,898,000

• 1650

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Vote 10—Program expenditures ...... $153,492,000

Correctional Service

Vote 15—Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service—Operating expenditures ...... $907,704,000

Vote 20—Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service—Capital expenditures ...... $158,527

National Parole Board

Vote 25—Program expenditures ...... 20,224,000

Office of the Correctional Investigator

Vote 30—Program expenditures ...... $1,237,000

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Vote 35—Operating expenditures ...... $789,932,000

Vote 40—Capital expenditures ...... $110,528,000

Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee

Vote 45—Program expenditures ...... $718,000

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission

Vote 50—Program expenditures ...... 3,123,000

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Vote 10 is on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I want a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

(Vote 10 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Votes 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Vote 45 is on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police external review committee. We did not examine them during the hearing of witnesses, but you have the material on that.

(Vote 45 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Vote 50 is the budget for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police public complaints commission. Again, we didn't study them, but you do have the material.

(Vote 50 agreed to)

PRIVY COUNCIL

Security Intelligence Review Committee

Vote 40—Program expenditures ...... $1,239,000

The Chair: Mr. Lee, did you have something to say?

Mr. Derek Lee: I have something I want to say to my colleagues here. This particular agency has come to the committee and has told us something that in my view—and I articulated this at the time—is contrary to parliamentary law and throws back at us something that is contrary to the very foundation of how Parliament operates. Their ignorance of those principles and their adoption of a position offered to them by a private sector lawyer was something to which I took great umbrage. If I could send a message by way of these estimates, it would be that I'm not happy paying an agency working for Parliament that's not prepared to respect parliamentary law.

So could I ask our clerk, now that this vote has been moved, what our options are? Can we change it? Can we reduce it? What are our options?

• 1655

The Chair: You can vote in favour of the motion, which would support their estimate. You could bring a motion to reduce—in other words, you would vote for it less the amount you want to reduce it by.

Mr. Derek Lee: By which amount could one reduce?

The Chair: Well, you could do whatever—

Mr. Derek Lee: One dollar, a million dollars?

The Chair: You can move whatever you want.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

The Chair: Then I would suggest to you that the normal 48-hour— because we're in this procedure, I don't think anybody would mind that the normal 48-hour rule would not— They'd probably all consent to it, but you do what you want.

Mr. Derek Lee: I don't think there'd be consensus at this time to do this, because many of the members will not have moved—

The Chair: But soon they'll be able to—

Mr. Derek Lee: —a change to a votable item before. I'm certainly prepared to say for the record that this time next year, if I'm still the member from Scarborough—Rouge River, if I'm still in the House and still on this committee, if SIRC comes back and tries to sell us on what they brought back this time, I'll have a different attitude to the estimate.

This is fair warning. I'm not going to make a motion. Thank you for listening to me.

The Chair: Okay, thank you, Derek.

Shall vote 40—

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you mean you wasted all this time and didn't move a motion?

The Chair: He was thinking out loud with it.

Michel, do you want a voice vote?

Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Chairman, before we go through this, maybe I will change my mind; maybe I will move a motion here.

The Chair: What's your motion?

Mr. Derek Lee: My motion is to reduce the amount in this vote by $1,000. If the committee would support me— I do it on principle.

I'll move that, and if there's a seconder I'll—

The Chair: We have a motion on vote 40. It's vote 40 less the amount voted and that interim supply be reduced by $1,000. Do you want a recorded vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: May I propose an amendment to the motion?

[English]

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Are we overriding all the rules, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Which rules do you think we are over—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Forty-eight hours' notice, amendment coming back and forth—is that how we're going to proceed? I just want to be clear.

[Translation]

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): If you really want to send a message, Michel, leave a penny.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Is that something you learned in Italy?

Mr. Nick Discepola: No. When I'm not satisfied with the service I received, I always leave a penny.

[English]

The Chair: Do you two want to have a little chat?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If you're not prepared to amend the motion, then it won't go through, my friend.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm trying to make a point. I think it's important for Parliament; it's important to the process. The amount I have moved is small, and I think it would make the point.

Mr. Bellehumeur has recommended a different amount, which would be more than just nominal. I'm not prepared at this point, without a whole lot of notice to my colleagues, without a whole lot of preliminary work, to do that to the process. I know Mr. Bellehumeur and the opposition would be prepared to do it, but I wouldn't be prepared to change the amount to greater than what it is.

The Chair: Because it's been questioned, we'll just go through the motions. Is there unanimous consent to Mr. Derek Lee bringing his motion without 48 hours' notice? That is our rule. Is there any objection to that?

Mr. Peter Mancini: I object.

• 1700

The Chair: You object? Well, the motion can't go through, then. We need unanimous consent for that motion.

All right. We'll have a voice vote on this.

(Vote 40 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall I report the estimates to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.