[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
.1536 
[English]
The Chair: I would like to welcome the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs,Mr. Goulard, and his Deputy Commissioner for Judicial Affairs, Mr. Guay. Is André Gareau here as well?
Mr. Guy Goulard (Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs): Yes, he is, as an observer.
The Chair: It's nice to see you.
I understand you have some speaking notes or a presentation you would like to make. Perhaps you would go ahead and do that, but please leave us some time for questions.
Mr. Goulard: You can rest assured of that.
Madam Chair, hon. members, I am the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, and have been for the last two years, approximately. I'm accompanied today by Maître Denis Guay, my deputy commissioner, who has been in office since 1989.
We are pleased and honoured to have this opportunity to inform you on the mandate, mission and organization of our office. I do propose to make a relatively short presentation, then we will be happy to receive your questions. More specifically, Mr. Guay will reply to questions relating directly to judges' salaries and benefits, as well as our language training program. I will deal with questions relating to other issues.
[Translation]
The mandate of our Office, as provided for in section 74 of the Judges' Act is threefold.
First of all, we are responsible for the administration of Part I of the Judges' Act, which entails the administration of all salaries and benefits paid to federally appointed judges.
Second, we have a mandate to prepare the budget and provide for the administrative requirements of the Federal Court of Canada, Tax Court of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council.
Finally, the Act provides that at the request of the Minister of Justice, we are to undertake missions in connection with any matter falling within the Minister's responsibility for the proper functioning of the judicial system in Canada.
Our Office is responsible for a budget envelope of approximately 250 million dollars, most of which represents salaries and benefits payable to federally appointed judges and amounts paid to their survivors and to retired judges. We have an office staff of 40 divided among our five main areas of involvement.
First, there is the Judicial Appointments Secretariat.
Any person who is a member in good standing of the bar in any province or territory for at least ten years, which may include some years as a provincial judge, may submit an application for consideration for an appointment to the federal judiciary. This is done by submitting a personal history form provided by our Office for this purpose.
.1540
Candidates are evaluated by one of 15 committees created across Canada. In 1989, these committees were established by the Minister of Justice.
Each province and territory has a committee except for Quebec and Ontario, which have one and two additional committees, respectively. These additional committees were created because of the large number of candidates in these provinces and to ensure some regional input in the evaluations.
These committees consist of seven persons: one judge, three lawyers, and three people from the community, who are not jurists.
In each province, the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Law Society and the provincial branch of the Canadian Bar Association are asked to submit a few names. The Minister then selects one name from each of these groups and finally appoints three additional members at his own discretion. Two of the lay members, and one of the lawyers on the committee are selected by the Minister.
These committees, whose members are volunteers, meet regularly. Through an extensive process of consultation with members of the bench, bar and the general community, they evaluate the candidates according to four major criteria. They are chiefly competence in the law, experience in the law, character and temperament.
The committees then submit their report on each candidate with one of three recommendations: highly recommended, recommended or unable to recommend. The minister has undertaken to appoint only candidates who have been either "highly recommended" or "recommended".
For your information, in the calendar year 1995, 519 applications were received from lawyers who wanted to be considered for appointment to the bench; the committee met 57 times;268 candidates were recommended, either highly recommended or simply recommended; and376 candidates were not recommended, representing 42 and 58% in each category. During the same year there were 72 appointments to the federal judiciary.
[English]
Our second division is the judges administration division. This section deals with all matters concerning judges personally. This includes the preparation of the documentation for orders and counsel, including the appointments, retirements, leaves of absence and extensions for such matters as removal allowances. This section also deals with all financial matters relating to judges, that is, their salaries, pensions, and reimbursement of all expenses, including travelling for court purposes as well as for conferences and training purposes.
The third sector is the policy and corporate services. This section consists of our department of personnel, finance, information technology and general administrative services. The section is also responsible for the development of new policies and programs, such as our recently initiated computerized network project, as well as the recent implementation of the national judicial counselling program. We'll say a few words on these programs momentarily.
The fourth section is the Federal Court reports publication section. This section publishes a selection of Federal Court decisions, either in its entire text or in a digested version. The mandate to publish the Federal Court reports was given to our office when it was created in 1978. I should note that the Federal Court reports will become available on the Internet this fall. It will join the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada that have been on the network since last year.
.1545
I should note that in the last fiscal year we received 1,701 judgments from the court. This compares to 821 judgments 5 years earlier. So it has almost doubled over those 5 years.
We published 95 of these judgments in their entire text a couple of years ago. This represents a reduction from 13.7% to 5.6% in terms of the percentage of judgments published. There were440 judgments digested, compared with 607. This means that 5 years ago we were reporting three-quarters of the judgments, 74%, compared to 26% for only last year. The number of pages went up from 2,548 to 2,822. The delay between the issuance of the judgment and the publication was reduced from an average of 9 months 5 years ago to 5.3 months last year.
The staff was also reduced from 10 to 9. So we're very proud that, notwithstanding a reduction in the budget and the number of staff, we were able to cut down on the delays, although unfortunately, we also had to cut down on the percentage of published judgments.
The fifth division is the judges language training section. This program was instituted in 1978, when language training for members of the judiciary was transferred from the Public Service Commission training program to our office.
The program's main objective is to improve the ability of judges to carry out their judicial duties in either official language. Three types of programs are offered: training in English legal terminology for francophone judges; its counterpart, which is training in French legal terminology for anglophone judges; and a third program that assists judges who are francophone but who were trained in the common law provinces and who have generally only been trained in English. This is for them to familiarize themselves with French legal terminology.
In 1995-96, a total of 253 judges participated in our program, representing 186 federally appointed judges and 67 provincially appointed judges. This is a quick overview of our main operation.
I would now like to say a few words on some projects undertaken recently to improve the support and services we provide for members of the federal judiciary. The first deals with our interest in the maximum exploitation of all the modern technologies that are now available to our courts.
Our office has conceptualized and developed with the assistance of GTA, the Government Telecommunications Agency and the Judicial Affairs Information Network, commonly called JAIN, or REMI in French. This network is serving as a pilot project for what should eventually be a larger-scale project that would link all federally appointed judges throughout the country.
This project is presently operating with approximately 125 judges. It has proven to be a very valuable medium for the confidential exchange of information among judges. In its first year of operation, the network has provided judges with discussion groups that have fostered interesting discussions on topics of great interest to the judges. This has varied from things such as jury charges, court administration issues, security issues, and a number of other important issues that would not have otherwise been discussed between judges from across the country.
It has also provided these judges with a confidential electronic mail service.
Word is spreading quickly, and the demand on our office to increase the level of services, as well as the number of participants, is very strong. We are presently investigating options and the cost of allowing JAIN to evolve to a higher level of technology.
.1550
We have been working with interested parties at the federal and provincial levels in the development of videoconferencing, in light of the potentially major impact it could have on the cost of judicial travel, both in money and in time. Being a stakeholder, our office has cooperated in a partnership with some provinces in experimental trials of videoconferencing in the courtroom. We have been coordinating efforts with Public Works and Government Services Canada and a few provinces in an attempt to move this technology to a stage that will provide important data on the savings that can be had through this technology.
If the savings associated with the program can be substantiated - and we expect they will - we plan to make the results of this program available to other organizations, such as tribunals and other courts. We have had an indication of interest in the project from a number of federal tribunals.
[Translation]
Re-engineering of centralized common services: we have undertaken discussions with third parties to form partnerships for the operation of a Judges Central Travel Service. This system would provide travel services including airline tickets, accommodation and ground transportation.
We are also exploring the possibility of obtaining a travel credit card for judges which would encompass a system for obtaining cash advances from ATMs. The intent is to reduce or eliminate the need for this Office to issue travel advances. These initiatives should eventually result in substantial savings from the lower travel costs associated with economies of scale, as well as the direct cash savings from reducing the costs associated with the financing of standing advances and outstanding travel advances issued to judges. These advances at any given time account for approximately $900,000.
As a separate focus of this strategy, we have entered into an agreement with two separate small agencies to provide specialized corporate services. The agreements afford these agencies the benefits of the experience and expertise we have acquired and provide them with the opportunity to minimize their administrative costs.
We have entered into these agreements on a cost-recovery basis. These arrangements will result in much lower overall costs to the government than would be the case if each were to have its own administrative services. The overall savings are achieved through the application of economies of scale. Our Office has benefitted by being able to increase its staff and accordingly has strengthened specific areas in which we had previously been vulnerable.
[English]
With respect to safety measures, I think we have been very lucky in Canada that we have not had major security incidents in recent time, but there have been threats. At the request of some chief justices, we have entered into discussions concerning the work environment safety policy for federally appointed judges.
We have obtained the commitment of the RCMP to assist judges in planning their security measures and doing needs assessment, and making presentations to groups of judges on security measures. We have established contacts in three provinces between the judiciary and the RCMP, and we have obtained and distributed court security guides prepared by the National Center for State Courts, of Williamsburg.
Finally, there's no doubt that the judges' stress, or the stress of judicial work, has been on the increase. To assist, we have worked with the Canadian Judges Conference to arrive at a tripartite agreement among our office, the conference and Corporate Health Consultants Limited, to provide an employee assistance program to all federally appointed judges. This program was introduced in July of last year and has been well received.
.1555
Finally, the Chief Justice of Canada has asked us to coordinate the participation of federally appointed judges in international cooperation programs admissions. The minister has approved this involvement under section 74 of the Judges Act.
At the request of the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, our office has prepared a project proposal to provide a Canadian contribution to ongoing judicial reform in Ukraine.
Once again, Madam Chair, we thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Mr. Guay and I are now prepared to receive your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mrs. Venne, you have ten minutes.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne (Saint-Hubert): When I was speaking with you earlier, Mr. Goulard, you told me that approximately 1,000 judges were covered by the Judges Act. I would like to know how many of them are women.
Mr. Goulard: At the moment, we have a total of 987 judges, 805 of them being full-time and 182 supernumeraries. Of this total, 157 are women, or roughly 15 per cent.
Ms. Venne: We have some catching up to do.
Mr. Goulard: Yes, but a lot has already been done.
Ms. Venne: There is still room for improvement.
In Part III of the Estimates for 1996-97, on pages 18 and 19, there is a description of the Canadian Judicial Council. It states that the Council's aim is to promote efficiency and uniformity, and to improve the quality of judicial services in superior courts and in the Tax Court of Canada.
It also states that the Council achieves its objectives through four broad categories of activities. Does the continuing education program for judges include a program to make judges aware of problems typically experienced by women in their dealings with the justice system?
Another activity is dealing with complaints against federally appointed judges. Has it ever happened that a federally appointed judge is removed from the bench? Has such a recommendation ever been made?
If I remember correctly, the Judges Act provides that there can only be a recommendation to suspend or remove a judge. I would like some further information on this point.
I don't remember exactly what can be done after a judge has been investigated by the Canadian Judicial Council. What would the sentence - if we can use this term - or rather the recommendation, be? What recommendation would normally be made? I don't think there has ever been a case of removal from office, but I would like you to confirm that for me.
Mr. Goulard: With respect to training, the Judicial Council has a mandate to promote and encourage the training of judges. For close to 10 years, Canada has had a National Judicial Institute, which is the main training body.
The vast majority of programs offered through the Institute and other bodies are first approved by the education committee of the Canadian Judicial Council. The Council is responsible for checking the quality of such programs. With respect to programs geared to racial, sexual or other types of equality, the Institute has offered such programs in the past and the Judicial Council commissioned a specific study of the problem last year.
The rapport was submitted to the Council and a program is being set up that will be provided to all judges throughout the country by the National Judicial Institute with a view to promoting equity and equality and to providing training in this area. The program is being developed at the moment.
.1600
Our Office has absolutely nothing to do with disciplining judges. That is entirely the Council's responsibility. On the other hand, I can answer three of your specific questions.
The Act provides that a judge may be removed from office only on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, following an investigation by the Council, through a joint address to the House of Commons and the Senate. There has never been a recommendation of this type. So no federally appointed judge in Canada has ever been removed from office.
Ms. Venne: Could you tell me the average age of your 987 judges?
Mr. Goulard: I would not want to waste your time now, but we could certainly provide you with that information later.
Ms. Venne: Yes, if you would, please.
My other question is about Bill C-42, which we are studying at the moment and which will apparently be passed before the end of the week. Things are moving quite quickly. It is an amendment to the Judges' Act.
Do you really think this is such an essential, urgent bill. From what I can see, the government feels it is urgent that this bill be passed. Do you think there is some urgency somewhere on the international scene? From what I understand, the bill refers to the international context. I would like you to tell us what the amendments are really about, and whether or not they are urgent.
Mr. Goulard: To answer your first question, I would say that the situation is urgent. In its present form, the Act provides that a judge cannot be away from his or her work for more than30 days without getting permission through an order in council. This applies to leave of all sorts - sick leave, maternity leave or education leave. An order in council is required in all cases.
The Act states as well that a judge cannot be compensated for his or her work other than through the salary set out in the Judges' Act. The urgency stems from the fact that one of our judges,Madam Justice Louise Arbour of the Ontario Court of Appeal, has been invited to take part in the work of the International Criminal Tribunal on War Crimes in The Hague, Holland. It is an honour for Canada that one of its judges has been invited to act as Chief Attorney of the Tribunal. However, this is not possible under the existing legislation, because Madam Justice Arbour should be paid by the United Nations. This would not be possible unless the Act is amended.
It is important that Canada take part in this work and that it be able to authorize one of our judges to go to The Hague. In order for this to be possible, the Act must be amended.
Second, at the moment, we have to go through the order in council process. I think that this is an abuse of process in the case of sick leave, maternity leave or education leave. The suggestion is that the chief justice of a province or a court be able to allow one of his or her judges to take leave for valid reasons. It would be up to the chief justice to manage the court in such a way that leave of this type is possible.
The bill also contains some other minor amendments. The two I just mentioned are the main ones.
[English]
The Chair: Very efficient. Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thanks, Madam Chair.
Mr. Goulard, I wanted to start talking about those Federal Court judges who are currently on the bench. I understand that when travelling, a judge has really no fixed limit on expenditures with respect to hotels and meals. Can you tell me how that works? You indicated that at any one time $900,000 is being paid out to judges.
.1605
Mr. Goulard: I'll let Mr. Guay answer this question, although I would like to jump in because we have a good answer.
Mr. Denis Guay (Deputy Commissioner for Judicial Affairs): Yes, there are limits for travel for judges. Normally we will not pay more than $150 per night for hotel rooms. The limit is between $75 and $150, depending on the location in Canada, the situation, and whether it's crowded in the city or not. There are also limits for meals.
Mr. Gallaway: What are those limits?
Mr. Guay: The per diem limit is between $50 to $85.
Mr. Gallaway: What is that for?
Mr. Guay: That's for meals and all other expenses during the day.
Mr. Gallaway: What about mileage? Certainly they drive in parts of Ontario.
Mr. Guay: We apply the same guidelines Treasury Board applies to all public servants. I don't have the figures in front of me, but for someone who has a Quebec licence plate we pay 38¢ per kilometre. In Ontario it's a little bit different. The guidelines of Treasury Board apply to all public servants.
Mr. Gallaway: If you were to send a judge to downtown Toronto, what would the per diem be for meals?
Mr. Guay: I'm repeating myself. It's between $50 and $85 per day.
Mr. Gallaway: If I were to guess, would that be $85 in Toronto?
Mr. Guay: Yes, it could be $85 in Toronto.
Mr. Gallaway: The reason I ask is that last week we were paid $47.20, I believe, as members of Parliament. So we're very interested in knowing that judges would receive close to double that amount.
Mr. Goulard: I might note that the majority of judges charge us the costs they incur. A minority uses the per diem, and most who use the per diem keep it in the range of $60 to $70. We have had $85. In cities like Vancouver, for example, in summer costs are very high; therefore we do tolerate up to $85.
In Toronto, we have maintained the cap of $150 on hotels. Again, this is a cap. Mr. Guay and I tell judges, whenever we have the chance, that they have to be conscious of the economy of the country. Our leader, the minister, practises what he preaches, and we should follow in line.
Mr. Gallaway: I want to ask you about the judicial selection process, because it's often discussed by politicians and in ridings. There seems to be some mystery surrounding this process, so I welcome your attendance here today.
As I understand it, when a member of the bar wishes to be considered for the bench, an application is made. The committee meets and examines this application. I'd like to know whether the applicant is in any way informed whether he or she is recommended by the committee.
Mr. Goulard: No, applicants are only told that the committee has arrived at a decision that is either highly recommended, recommended, or not recommended, and that the recommendation has been sent to the minister. They are not told what the recommendation is.
Mr. Gallaway: The individual would not know in which of the three categories he or she falls. Is that right?
Mr. Goulard: That's right.
Mr. Gallaway: Are applicants told of their shortcomings if they fall into the ``not recommended'' category?
Mr. Goulard: They are not told what the outcome was, so they cannot be told what their shortcomings might be.
Mr. Gallaway: Then I have to assume there's no appeal process.
Mr. Goulard: That is right.
.1610
Mr. Gallaway: You've described these committees. I'm from Ontario, so you'll excuse me. In Ontario more than one committee deals with regional interests. What check is there in the system to ensure someone on the committee who perhaps is biased is not going to work against an applicant? Many of the criteria you've listed are somewhat subjective, very difficult to quantify. How do you protect yourself against that?
Mr. Goulard: We have to rely on the professionalism of committee members. There is no mechanism to ensure there is no bias, but the opinions that are expressed and the judgments that are passed are made following substantial consultation. In some of the committees they make literally dozens of contacts, either by telephone or otherwise.
I've had occasion to act as secretary for a few of the committees. On some occasions, because of personal friendship or because it's a lawyer who is involved in a case against the candidate, a committee member will refrain and leave the room while a candidate is being discussed. From what I have seen, committee members perform their functions very professionally.
Mr. Gallaway: If I were to suggest to you - I don't want to say this is always the case - there are certain factions, camps, or differences of opinion within the bar on a defined area, you would not check against that? For example, if I were to write to you - I'm not about to - to suggest a selection process going on in some city in Canada was in fact being...certain candidates were being discarded, not recommended, because of certain interests which have perhaps seized the agenda of the committee, would that concern you? What would you do about it?
Mr. Goulard: It would highly concern me. That specifically has not happened. But on two occasions the committees were at or close to a deadlock and there were evidently some problems. So on those occasions I joined my secretary for the process at the meetings to raise the importance of confidentiality in what was going on and the thoroughness of the evaluation, of the criteria we talked about, the competence, character, and temperament. These are all very important.
Mr. Gallaway: Who makes the calls on these? You've referred to telephone calls being made, for example, to talk to individuals and in some way carry out an assessment. Who makes the calls? Is it committee members or is it committee staff?
Mr. Goulard: It is committee members only. There is no actual staff except for myself or the secretary, who act only as secretary. We do not participate in the discussions. We do not vote, for sure. We do not express opinions. We simply take notes and prepare a précis that is approved by the committee and that is then the basis for our report to the minister.
Mr. Gallaway: Are these applicants - I know the answer to this question; gosh, surprise - ever interviewed by the committee?
Mr. Goulard: No. We provide that there can be interviews, but in the last two years, in my mandate and the mandate of the current committees, there have been no interviews.
Mr. Gallaway: Before the two years to which you refer were there ever any interviews?
Mr. Goulard: I believe Nova Scotia at one time had a few interviews. It's possible we might have interviews in the future, but there have been no interviews in the last two years.
Mr. Gallaway: I also understand that if a person, an applicant, were to fall into the category of ``not recommended'', there is an understanding that the minister will not then appoint that person. Is that correct?
Mr. Goulard: That's correct. There is an undertaking by the minister not to bring to cabinet the name of a candidate who has not been recommended.
Mr. Gallaway: Have you ever had any complaints about that?
Mr. Goulard: No.
Mr. Gallaway: Would it ever be possible for someone to suggest that in doing so, in undertaking to a committee that is accountable to, I presume, the minister but is a rather invisible committee, in fact the minister is in some way directly fettering his discretion in the appointment process.
.1615
Mr. Goulard: Once the committees have performed their functions, which are basically to screen out rather than to recommend for appointment the names that are given to the minister as people who have been evaluated as recommendable, then definitely the process becomes a political one. The minister will recommend to cabinet, and cabinet will decide, and the Governor in Council will confirm. It is a political process.
Mr. Gallaway: Do you think it would at some point be beyond the realm of possibility, in this very litigious society we live in, that a person might bring an application for judicial review because one their friends who is on the committee has told them that they fell into the basket of those not recommended?
Mr. Goulard: It is truly possible.
Mr. Gallaway: What would be the position of your office if that were to occur?
Mr. Goulard: Then it becomes a judicial review, and we would probably become witnesses in that process. That's all we could do.
Mr. Gallaway: So in the end those who appoint the judges would be witnesses before the judges?
Mr. Goulard: Yes. It would be an interesting case, by the lawyer.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes, only those appointed. That's correct.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway, I have let you go over your time.
Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Ms. Venne: After how many years of service are federally appointed judges authorized to take their retirement?
Mr. Guay: Under section 42 of the Act, a judge may retire when he or she has completed15 years of service and is 65 years of age. The judges are eligible for a full annuity, which is two-thirds of the salary.
Ms. Venne: Two-thirds of the salary.
Mr. Guay: Two-thirds of the salary at the time of retirement.
Ms. Venne: I believe I've heard that the provinces provided other benefits to federally appointed judges, such as car, car allowances, allowances for participating in conferences, purchasing reference work, purchasing their robe, and so on. What benefits do the provinces give to federally appointed judges?
I would also like to know what differences, if any, there are among the provinces. If you cannot give me this information now, I would ask you to send it to the Committee Clerk for distribution to the members. Can you answer my question in part?
Mr. Guay: Yes. In fact, the situation varies considerably from province to province. For example, provinces supply judges' furniture. Legal texts, robes, and so on are paid for out of the allocation for incidental costs provided by the federal government.
Ms. Venne: Are there car allowances?
Mr. Guay: In some provinces, there are car allowances for the chief justices of the various courts. The situation varies considerably from province to province. We can try to get additional information for you, but that is a provincial responsibility, not ours.
Ms. Venne: I know, but since these benefits are in addition to those they have already, it would be interesting to know about this.
Mr. Guay: Benefits are very limited in a number of provinces, Ms. Venne. Federally appointed judges are paid by the federal government and get their allowances, annuities, and so on from the federal government. They get very little from the provinces.
Ms. Venne: So if you get some more information...
Mr. Guay: We would be pleased to pass it on to the Clerk.
.1620
[English]
The Chair: Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): Are federal judges distributed evenly across the country, or are they all located mostly in a couple of big centres?
Mr. Goulard: They are distributed fairly equally. The number of judicial positions in each province is set by provincial legislation. The Province of Ontario will set the number of judges in their Court of Appeal and in their trial division. It's the same way in each province. Then the federal government sets the number of judicial positions provided for under the act. They are generally probably on a per capita basis.
Ms Torsney: So in Ontario there is some number of judges. Where are they located physically? In Ottawa? In Toronto?
Mr. Goulard: Ontario has divided the province into judicial regions. Within regions they have judges assigned to different cities. For example, Ontario has -
Ms Torsney: So there'd be one in Hamilton -
Mr. Goulard: Hamilton has its judges. Eastern Ontario is a region where judges are situated in Ottawa, Kingston, Cornwall, Pembroke, L'Orignal. So they are fairly available to the population in general.
Ms Torsney: I appreciate that training, judges' training and gender sensitivity training and all that stuff, is done by the National Judicial Institute, with input or advice from you, somehow. I assume there's some correlation.
Mr. Goulard: Basically we are the paymasters. They provide the training. The judicial council approves the programs under section 41 of the act. We cover the expenses to participate in the programs, either at the National Judicial Institute or at programs organized by the courts themselves or by the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice.
Ms Torsney: And judges take those training courses on a voluntary basis?
Mr. Goulard: Yes.
Ms Torsney: Have you done exit interviews with people who have decided to leave the bench? Do you keep statistics on people who leave the bench?
Mr. Goulard: Before retirement?
Ms Torsney: Yes.
Mr. Goulard: There have been very few.
The Chair: One in a million.
Mr. Goulard: That's a good question. There are very few in fact. One in B.C. recently left the bench. But it's very rare that the judge will leave the bench without a pension.
It happens once in a while. There was one case at the Court of Appeal in B.C. recently.
Ms Torsney: You just got an employee assistance program as recently as 1995. I can imagine, given there are only 15% women on the bench now and there probably have been fewer more recently, inasmuch as that's a real push of this government to make sure more women are on there, there could be some issues related to the workplace in terms of gender issues that could arise, whether accommodations, whether judges' shirts being issued only in men's sizes, or whatever else. I wonder if you do some follow-up if you're working on those issues; if you've identified that therefore there are some things you need to work on and judges' training should include, and as the paymaster you might want to have some input on this stuff. You could be making some people's lives a heck of a lot better or worse, as the case may be. Do you find out what issues employees are facing, employees being the judges?
Mr. Goulard: No, we do not. That is a term of the agreement. The program, quite understandably, has to be totally discreet. The services are provided by a private firm. The judges have access to a 1-800 number.
On the side of providing training for judges, as I mentioned, a report was sponsored by the council to see what the needs were in that type of training. As a result of that report the program is now being developed to provide an offer of training to all judges, not only federally, because provincially and federally appointed judges have access to the National Judicial Institute programs.
.1625
Ms Torsney: But, for instance, if a judge with a young family was required to do some travelling, is there accommodation for their family day care support, whether it's male or female? Have those issues ever been brought forward?
Clearly, something happened in 1995 for you to hit the 1990s and have an employee assistance program. Are there other issues? Are you trying to enhance the quality of the working environment of these people? That is what I'm trying to find out.
Mr. Goulard: I must say that the request to implement the program came from the Judges Conference. The Judges Conference is their association, and a leader in that conference, Justice Vancise, of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, did a survey of judges. It was the consensus that there was a need for a program, and they approached us for assistance. So we simply provided financial assistance.
On the other hand, we keep records of the requests for leave of absence due to illness. We saw in 1995 the drastic increase in the number of judges who applied for a leave of absence based on illness. Some had nothing to do with stress, but on the other hand, if you have a jump of an average of four or five per year for the previous four or five years, to 21 in 1995, there's a sign that maybe something out there needs to be looked at. One option was to offer this program.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I apologize for arriving late, as well as to our witnesses today.
I don't know what questions have been placed to you, but I will be able to review the record of the information that you've provided so far.
I understand that your office is responsible for the administration of the Canadian Judicial Council. Is that correct?
Mr. Goulard: We provide the resources, but that's where our role stops.
Mr. Ramsay: Can you tell us how the Canadian Judicial Council functions, how it deals with complaints, in terms of who can make a complaint to the Judicial Council and what powers they have to deal with members under their jurisdiction and authority?
Mr. Goulard: Complaints are made by the public or a request for an investigation can be made by the Minister of Justice or by a provincial attorney general. Once a complaint is made, the investigation is made within council. They have set their own rules, and there's a clear split between their role as investigators and our role as a supplier of administrative services.
Mr. Ramsay: Can the Judicial Council act without a complaint?
Mr. Goulard: I do not believe so. That question would have to be addressed to council, but I do not see how they could begin an inquiry unless there was a complaint.
Mr. Ramsay: Could they not act simply on information that comes to their attention through the news media or whatever?
Mr. Goulard: An investigation that is brought by a member of the public becomes a complaint.
Mr. Ramsay: In other words, before it can take action, does the Judicial Council have to have a complaint registered with them from some individual within society?
Mr. Goulard: That is my understanding.
Mr. Ramsay: Is the corollary to that that they will not take action unless they receive a complaint?
Mr. Goulard: That is my understanding.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe-North): You say in your brief that language training is the main tool you use to help judges improve their knowledge of both official languages. Does your office do any follow up to determine whether judges are able to hold trials in both official languages after their training? Is the objective that they be able to hold trials in both languages?
.1630
Mr. Guay: There are various tests. Participation in the language training program is voluntary.
When judges sign up for the program, they must take an aptitude test to determine whether they have the skills required to learn the other language... French in the case of Anglophones, and English in the case of Francophones. If they have the necessary aptitudes, they are enrolled in the course. There are four program levels: Basic, Intermediate, Advanced and More Advanced. Judges must take tests at each level.
You ask when an Anglophone judge could hear a trial in French, for example. Our office may inform the judge in question or his Chief Justice when he is able to hear a trial in French. I can tell you that many English speakers who take our courses are able to hear trials in French.
Mr. DeVillers: How much does this cost each year?
Mr. Guay: The language training program costs $1.5 million this year.
[English]
The Chair: Thanks, Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Are applicants to the bench ever assessed as to their gender bias or their biases on racial or sexual orientation, etc.? Are they ever assessed before they're appointed?
Mr. Goulard: They are not assessed and we're not aware of the existence of assessment tools to this effect. They are not assessed.
Mr. Maloney: You provide sensitivity training after they're appointed. Would there not be some procedure for beforehand, perhaps where you get someone on the bench who has a strong bias in some respect?
Mr. Goulard: The only evaluation is through the consultation process. If a candidate has a reputation of having either the character or the temperament of somebody who is biased against a certain gender or a certain race, it might come out at this stage. If it does come out, then he would more than likely not be recommended. But the only mechanism we have now is through this evaluation.
Mr. Maloney: Do you offer language training in languages other than the two official languages? What about Italian, Ukrainian or aboriginal languages?
Mr. Guay: No. We don't.
Mr. Maloney: Should you offer it? Would it be recommended, depending on where an individual is appointed to?
Mr. Guay: Well, if there is a recommendation either from Parliament or the government, we are prepared to look at this. For instance, it might be in the Indian or Inuit language or another language.
Mr. Goulard: This would be a very interesting challenge. I might note our language training program has become the envy of other countries. Last year and the year before, before I came along in my role as commissioner, the office was invited to help the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic in setting up a similar teaching or training capacity.
This year we have had a request from the Ukraine and we have had a more recent request from Russia to provide technical assistance in developing such a capacity. So this will be training in English or French legal terminology. But to be invited to provide training in other Canadian languages would be a fascinating challenge.
Mr. Maloney: Is this a challenge you would accept?
Mr. Goulard: We would accept it gladly if funds were provided.
The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor] to hear that today.
Mr. Goulard: Our approach has been, when there has been a request for a service, that judges should be provided. With programs such as the employee assistance program and the Judicial Affairs Information Network, our approach has been that we offer the program and then we fight to get the funds.
We have been able to at least maintain our budget and find funds by improving our services. So if there was a request to provide training in another of our national languages, we surely would fight very hard to provide the service.
Mr. Maloney: I have one last question. Are members of your advisory committee respecting applicants for judicial appointment paid for their services?
Mr. Goulard: They are not. Only their expenses are paid.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.
Ms Torsney, did you have something?
.1635
Ms Torsney: I wanted to let you know that I have heard from people in my riding - and I've heard that other MPs have the same problem - that people have been told that they were in the recommended group. That only puts more pressure on all of us. So whether that is through leaks or otherwise, you've a problem. People are being told that they've made it through the process.
Mr. Goulard: We are aware. We have had problems and we do repeat whenever we can the importance of confidentiality. But we have seven members, some of whom have been recommended by politicians. We also have politicians who are very curious to find out what the outcome has been. We do not live in a perfect world. But generally the process has been very successful and generally it has remained very confidential. Unfortunately, there have been a few exceptions to the rules.
Ms Torsney: I'm not sure that there wasn't a complete expectation on the individual I'm thinking of that they would get that information, that they viewed that as being part of the process. That's how forthright it was. It was, oh yes, I've made it through the hurdles because they've told me. That's supposed to be confidential. It certainly wasn't from me or anybody else asking. Their approach was, it's not that I got some information I shouldn't have; I was given the appropriate information.
So there might be some issues in that area.
Mr. Goulard: A few worst cases were when they were told that they had not made it.
Ms Torsney: Oh. And they had?
Mr. Goulard: Oh no, they had not. Then you can see that they go at open warfare to try to get the process reopened, but the process has never been reopened.
The Chair: There are two things for which I wanted to take just a moment. One is a question and the other is some information that may be of some assistance to you.
On the issue of judges on circuit, in southwestern Ontario, because I practised there for a long time, I'm quite familiar with the judges, and off the record they sometimes complain about circuiting and about the requirement that they have to circuit and about the expense, which I'm told averages about $900 per week. There are a lot of judges in southwestern Ontario, and quite frankly, it seems patently ridiculous to me that we need to bring a judge from London to Windsor or a judge from Windsor to London. I take it that we have no control over that.
Is that part of the independence of the judiciary? So other than to say that I think it's ridiculous...there's no other remedy there?
Mr. Goulard: No. This is at the -
The Chair: If indeed it's a problem. I'm not passing judgment on it.
Mr. Goulard: I don't think it's a major problem. There is a cost involved. On the other hand, there is a benefit from having different judges available in some regions.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Goulard: I also practised in northern Ontario, in North Bay, where at that time there was only one judge. I think it was good occasionally to have a visiting judge, notwithstanding the fact that our judge was good.
It's also good for the judge to have occasion to meet a different bar. The cost is reasonable.
A number of judges would rather not travel, especially after being on the road a few times. It's part of their functions.
The Chair: I will just point out to you that in the state of Michigan, which is close to Windsor, where I'm from, there has been an extensive use of electronic mail to allow conferencing and that sort of thing. The judge who created it is Mr. Justice Kirkendall of the Michigan probate court, who is also very active in unifying all their levels of court and also in judicial education. He is quite a goldmine of information. I'll be happy to provide you with a reference to him, if you would like one.
Mr. Goulard: Surely.
I might say that we are keeping in very close touch with our American counterparts. We visited the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, as well as the National State Court Center in Williamsburg.
The Chair: You ought to go to the judges college in Reno.
Mr. Goulard: I've not gone there yet.
We keep in touch with them, and they are always very helpful.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It's been educational, and I think we have some undertakings, as we used to say in practice. We'll be happy to receive your information.
Let's rise for a couple of minutes while our next witnesses take their place. This meeting is adjourned.