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]

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

• 1533

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order. We're ready to go.

Before we start, are there amendments from any of the parties?

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): There are none from my party.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But we expect much discussion, Madam Chair.

The Chair: All right then.

Today we're looking forward to a lot of explanations from the parliamentary secretary on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act. I understand that there are no government amendments and no opposition amendments at this stage. Is there any discussion on clauses 1 through 5?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes.

The Chair: Which clause?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Clause 1.

The Chair: All right, clause 1.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Clause 1 adds a definition of a surviving spouse, which will now include a common-law spouse. Do the officials present know how many this will apply to?

Mr. George Thomson (Deputy Minister of Justice): The answer is no, we don't know how many it would apply to. We don't have information with respect to the personal living arrangements of individual judges such that we would be able to know whether or not there would be a qualification as a surviving spouse should that judge die. Is that the question you're asking?

• 1535

Mr. Jack Ramsay: It will now include a common-law spouse. My question was whether you're aware of the number this will apply to. You have said no?

Mr. George Thomson: The answer is no, because we don't have personal information with respect to the living arrangements of individual judges.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Did anyone present representation to you on behalf of the judges on this particular clause?

Mr. George Thomson: To the best of my knowledge, no.

Ms. Judith Bellis (Senior Counsel, Judicial Affairs Unit, Department of Justice): The issue was addressed specifically by the Scott commission.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. That's all I have.

(Clauses 1 to 21 inclusive agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: No.

The Chair: Do you want a voice vote on that, Jack?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: This is going too fast.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: On division, Jack?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: On division.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I move that we have a recorded vote on the bill so that we know who was present and who was not.

[English]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

The Chair: Shall I report the bill without amendment to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage— I guess we don't need to do that. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): In discussion among some members it was felt that we might consider reporting to the House to clarify elements of the background of the bill. While I thought that was a useful thing to do, if there isn't a critical mass of support for that now we can let it go.

The Chair: Is there something one of us could do in the House on third reading or report stage?

Mr. Derek Lee: The only difficulty is we would not want Parliament to adopt this bill based on the format of the Scott commission report and the testimony that's come in here to date. We wouldn't want that to allow one to infer that there was a catch-up mechanism involved in this. I was detecting a consensus around the table that the committee looked on it that way.

The Chair: There are others who support you. Mr. DeVillers supports you. I think Mr. Maloney does. I don't know about the opposition.

Mr. Derek Lee: If that view is not crystallized in a report, if it's simply a throwaway at third reading debate, perhaps it doesn't hit the nail on the head. Yet I don't want to make a lot of extra work for colleagues on the committee. I believe this is a one- or two-page report at most.

• 1540

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Derek, would you explain it?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I didn't see any consensus emerge from the committee.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: I was hoping to find a consensus that the committee would want to report to the House that the judicial salary increase formula and calculation put into place by this bill did not relate directly to a catch-up mechanism, a catch-up for lost industrial aggregrate or inflation that was lost during the salary freeze of 1991 to 1996, roughly.

Page 15 of the Scott report allows one to make that inference. The footnote on that page and the reference to lost inflation and industrial aggregate show clearly the accumulated losses from the freeze. They add up to just about exactly 8%, which is exactly what this bill would increase the judicial salaries by. That's where I was coming from. Does that explain it to you?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That does shed some light on the subject, but that is not my interpretation of events. I think the government is playing catch-up as far as judges' salaries are concerned. It's ludicrous to approve a 13 per cent pay increase for them. Therefore, there will be no consensus on this issue. I won't consent to this increase, although that won't change the outcome.

I think Derek is of the same opinion as me. He seemed to find the increase ludicrous as well, but we are not starting from the same point. Therefore, there will be no consensus.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: No, it's not unreasonable for you to fall outside the consensus in this case.

The Chair: I'm hearing from the Reform that there's no uniform consensus. But that doesn't preclude the committee from making a report. If you want to do it and you have the support of your colleagues, you can do it.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): When Mr. Scott testified before the committee, he indicated that this wasn't a catch-up wage increase. However, the report would seem to indicate otherwise. That is what we're trying to determine.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In my opinion, it's a catch-up increase. Therefore, I cannot—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes, but Mr. Scott stated that this was not the case, whereas his report—

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Now he claims that it is.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: That's what we're trying to—

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Then as opposed to putting it into a report, why don't I just state for the record right now that it is my view, which may or may not be endorsed by colleagues, that the 8% increase in this is not directly related to the industrial aggregate loss during the period of the freeze and that the new salary levels adopted by this bill are related more to the range of salary currently offered to the DM-3 level of public servant, not to the lost catch-up.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: What do you base that conclusion on?

The Chair: What you heard yesterday.

Mr. Derek Lee: We had evidence yesterday that the range of salary for currently DM-3 salaried persons would run from $173,000 to $203,500. The salary ranges for judges put in place by this bill will run from $175,200 up to $209,000.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: The comparison with the DM-3 then alleviates your concern?

Mr. Derek Lee: That's correct.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But without the comparison, would your concern remain?

Mr. Derek Lee: No, because if one had concern about this, one should also have concern for the salary levels of the DM-3 range.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: But they're two separate issues.

• 1545

Mr. Derek Lee: They're only separate if you wish to dissect the components of the salary level for the judges, for the judiciary, and that has already been done by the Scott commission. While I think the commission got the numbers right, and while I think it's fair to say that judges as a group have been frustrated by the slowness of this Parliament and other legislatures to deal with these issues, the Scott commission also made explicit reference to what I call catch-up of lost industrial aggregate, and I didn't think that was appropriate. If that were the only issue involved here now, I would not support the increase. There's no reason why judges shouldn't bear their fair share of bad times, as Canadians and public servants experienced during the recession and during the period of the freeze.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: So the DM-3 category— If you're getting off the hook or if they're getting off the hook simply by the comparison, then I have questions about the comparison.

Mr. Derek Lee: It's my view that the DM-3s are getting paid what the government has to pay to keep the DM-3s in the saddle.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Then how does that relate to the judges?

Mr. Derek Lee: Because the judges, over the last couple of decades or more, have been linked to DM-3 salary levels.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay. And the Scott report makes that link.

The Chair: Thanks.

Paul, do you have a final comment? Then we'll bail out of here.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): So the issue, Mr. Lee, is one of benchmark comparability rather than looking at historical— You're saying the judges share the pain with everybody else, and they're not being made an exception now. Because if that is the view, then everybody else wants the same recompense for making up pain. They share the pain. The issue is benchmark comparability rather than the historical freeze everyone went through.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you. I agree with that.

The Chair: Okay. We're adjourned.