Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 36 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 10, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 10:45 a.m. to examine the Main Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000. Consideration of a draft report.
Senator Anne C. Cools (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. Four members of the committee are present. We will begin our proceedings in camera.
(The committee continued in camera)
The committee resumed the meeting in public.
The Deputy Chairman: We will now deal with our next item of business. The Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs is our next witness. When he was kind enough to appear before us on Thursday, December 10 last, he told us that he would be willing to return to clarify any questions we might have and to continue this dialogue. At that time he gave us a comprehensive outline of his role as commissioner.
Mr. Guy Y. Goulard, Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs: Honourable senators, as I described my office's operation in December, I do not see the point in doing so again, unless you wish me to do so.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps you could reflect on some of the questions that we had put to you last December and expand on them more fully. At the time you had said that you would provide us with much more information, but I did not receive some of that information. This is important because, as you just heard a few moments ago, this committee is embarking on a study of the activities of CIDA, and so there are places where the two issues are dovetailing.
Mr. Goulard: In December, I committed myself to providing additional information, which I did provide. I advised the clerk that if anything else was required, that I would be most happy to oblige.
The Deputy Chairman: For example, at pages 21 and 29 of your testimony, I asked for a list of all the Canadian judges who have been funded by CIDA or through your office to go abroad, and I have received no such list. I am not too sure if you sent something to the clerk, but if so, I did not receive it.
Mr. Goulard: I did send it and I have a copy of that.
The Deputy Chairman: Did other members of this committee receive this?
Senator Cook: The page just brought this document in this minute. I just received it from my office.
Mr. Goulard: I can read that to you now. It was provided.
The Deputy Chairman: Where is the list?
Senator Cook: My office says that I just received this, and she sent it by messenger. It is from the National Finance meeting on the examination of the Main Estimates. It is a letter dated December 17 addressed to the clerk and the committee chairmen. It offers some explanations. I just looked at it briefly. It concerns responses to questions that were asked quite some time ago.
The Deputy Chairman: I am requesting a list of all the Canadian judges who have been funded by CIDA. Even the information just received right now by the committee does not include that information.
Senator Cook: It says committee chair.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: Mr. Goulard, you wrote to Mr. Denis Robert and informed him that you would be sending him a brochure entitled "Federal Judicial Appointments Process". I have not received this brochure and would appreciate having it.
Mr. Goulard: I believe we did send an envelope to each committee member containing all of the material sent to candidates.
[English]
I was asked to send a brochure on the judicial appointments process for each of the members. I have enclosed an envelope, which contains the materials we sent to candidates in the senators' respective home provinces. The form is slightly different for lawyers and judges, so I have enclosed a copy of each. This was sent in separate envelopes to each of the committee members.
The Deputy Chairman: It would appear that the committee members have not received the information. I have no doubt that we will take action in order to find out what happened to the information.
Mr. Denis Robert, Clerk of the Committee: If we received it in those envelopes, it was sent to all committee members in December when we received the packages.
Mr. Goulard: It would be quite easy for me to prepare a new package.
The Deputy Chairman: Maybe we should take up this matter with the clerk. Some of the information that was included was never translated. There is a letter here from Mr. Goulard to Mr. Robert that was never translated for committee members.
Mr. Goulard: That is interesting because I had the letter translated at that time to be enclosed with my French version.
The Deputy Chairman: I can assure Mr. Goulard and members of the committee that I have never seen a copy of your letter translated into English. A copy of it is before us right now.
Mr. Goulard: I can leave it with you now, if you wish.
The Deputy Chairman: Before us we have a package containing some documents. One is a letter from the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs addressed to Mr. Denis Robert, which basically states that he is sending a brochure, the federal judicial appointments process, a list of the committee chairmen, a copy of the order in council in respect of Mr. Justice Strayer, and then there is a note that says, "In response to Senator Cools' request for additional information of the cost of the Canada-Ukraine judicial cooperation project, I am pleased to inform you that the contribution by CIDA is $1,848,300 and that the contribution by the Ukraine was set at $909,750." The amounts are here. Then there is another letter from Mr. Goulard addressed to Denis Robert, in French, which is not translated.
Senator Bolduc: It is the same letter in English and French.
The Deputy Chairman: That is the same one, is it?
Mr. Goulard: That is the translation.
The Deputy Chairman: I am seeing it now for the first time, Mr. Goulard. Then there is a list of the committee chairmen. I take it that these are the chairmen of every province's judicial appointments committee?
Mr. Goulard: That is right.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps, with leave, I will table this so that it is part of the record. That way the record will show very clearly that this information has been sent and received. Could you proceed to address some of the other issues that were raised in the testimony that still remain unaddressed?
Mr. Goulard: I would suggest answering your questions, unless any of the members would like me to explain my office. I had done that and left a copy of my text. Basically, our role is to administer Part I of the Judges Act.
The Deputy Chairman: We have a pretty good handle on the role of your office, so perhaps we could go directly to the issues as they relate to what the committee will be dealing with in the next little while. One question that recurs again and again is the exact relationship between CIDA and the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. We would like to know how that works, what the statutory powers are, and we would like more information on those judges. Who are they? How are they chosen? What quantities of money are paid to them?
I am requesting a list of all the Canadian judges that have been funded by CIDA through your offices to go abroad. What is the real authority for this kind of relationship between CIDA and the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs?
Mr. Goulard: I will address that statutory authority. Section 74 of the Judges Act, which creates my office, sets my mandate as being firstly to administer Part I of the Judges Act, which is basically all financial matters dealing with judges: payment of their salaries, allowances, benefits, retirement and annuities to retired judges and their surviving dependants. The second mandate is to prepare the budgetary submission and to provide the necessary resources to the Federal Court of Canada, the Tax Court of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council. We are providing that directly to the Canadian Judicial Council. The two courts basically run their own operations through their administrators. The Judges Act provides that they must do so under my direction, but it has been basically without my direction.
The third and last mandate provides that the Commissioner shall "do such other things as the Minister may require in connection with any matters falling within the Minister's responsibilities --"
The Deputy Chairman: What section are you reading from?
Mr. Goulard: I am reading from Section 74.1(d).
The Deputy Chairman: Not every senator is as familiar with the Judges Act as you are. Perhaps you could put the whole thing on the record for us, please?
Mr. Goulard: I just summarized three quarters of it.
74(1) It shall be the duty and function of the Commissioner, under the Minister, to
act as a deputy of the Minister in performing all such duties and functions in relation to the administration of Part 1 as fall, by law, within the responsibility of the Minister;
prepare budgetary submissions for the requirements of the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada and the Council;
to be responsible for such other administrative arrangements as are necessary to ensure that all reasonable requirements, including those for premises, equipment and other supplies and services, and for the officers, clerks and employees of the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada and the Council for the carrying out of their respective operations, are provided for in accordance with the law; and
(d) do such other things as the Minister may require in connection with any matter or matters falling, by law, within the Minister's responsibilities for the proper functioning of the judicial system in Canada.
The Deputy Chairman: The relevant subsection is therefore 74.1(d).
The committee members are especially interested in exactly how section 74.1(d) of the Judges Act grants authority for this peculiar situation where CIDA sends judges abroad. My understanding is that there is no extraterritorial power attached to your responsibility and the Minister of Justice's responsibility in respect of judges. Now, obviously that is wrong.
Mr. Goulard: I was asked by the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice of Canada, to coordinate the participation of Canadian judges in international cooperation initiatives. In the last 10 years, especially since 1992, there has been a growing demand for Canada to contribute to the ongoing efforts of countries that wish to return to democracy, and also to those developing countries that want to improve their judicial system. These demands would often come to Justice Lamer from his counterparts in these countries. He therefore asked my office and myself to coordinate this, one reason being that the moneys involved in these initiatives should flow through my office. My main responsibility is to make sure that judges receive the funds to which they are allowed, and that these be accounted for.
To make sure that this fell within my mandate, I wrote to the minister at the time, Allan Rock, advising him of the request and asking that he confirm that this fell within my mandate, under section 74.1(d). He confirmed in writing that he was adding this to my mandate and that I could proceed.
The Deputy Chairman: You say that the minister added this to your mandate. How can the minister expand on the mandate of section 74.1(d) of the Judges Act without proceeding through Parliament? He cannot just add to the part of the Judges Act that created your office and that set of responsibilities. The Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs cannot be added to without the express approval of Parliament. How did Mr. Rock add to your mandate without an act of Parliament?
Mr. Goulard: The section reads "to do such other things as the Minister may require," so he is adding this responsibility. There are other things also.
The Deputy Chairman: The reference to "other things" in the Judges Act seems to refer to the more domestic issues of judge's salaries, judge's compensation and related matters. I am trying to figure out how "other things" in that section become an extraterritorial responsibility.
Mr. Goulard: Whether these activities are extraterritorial is a question of definition. I am strongly convinced that Canada has a moral obligation to contribute to these efforts to return to democracy. I am convinced that we have the best judicial system in the world, and we are obliged to do whatever we can to help these countries to reinforce one of their democratic institutions.
Now, where it falls is another question. These requests for Canadian contributions to legal and judicial systems come to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Minister of Justice and to the Chief Justice of Canada. Now, are these international initiatives? Of course they are international cooperation initiatives, but they are ones that involve the Canadian judiciary. My role is to ensure that the Canadian judiciary's participation is coordinated.
The Deputy Chairman: You are making some very large assumptions. Maybe I should back up to bring some clarity. I do not think that anybody would have any quarrel whatsoever with Canada's moral obligations to the world. However, I would tend to think that those moral obligations are political obligations as well, and that these political obligations are best handled on a government-to-government, minister-to-minister basis, as so many of the international affairs across the world are really governed by what we call the royal prerogative. I still need a missing link, and we have discussed this before, Mr. Goulard. How did these responsibilities arrive on the shoulders of the Chief Justice of Canada? You said in your testimony a few minutes ago that Chief Justice Antonio Lamer asked you to coordinate this. That means that it was already in motion. You were approached to coordinate something that was already in motion. Since you have described your role as you saw it, as it was expanded under section 74.1(d) of the Judges Act, what is the section of the Judges Act which gives the Chief Justice of Canada that authority?
Mr. Goulard: I do not think that it is up to me to even guess where Chief Justice Lamer gets his authority. You may ask him that if you wish, but I will not question his decision to respond positively or negatively to requests from his counterparts elsewhere for Canadian assistance in their efforts.
The Deputy Chairman: I am not asking you to answer for the Chief Justice of Canada. You have said that you were approached to coordinate activities, so it would seem to me that before you agreed to coordinate something, I expect that it would be your duty to first ensure that it was in order and that it was consistent with the law of Canada and with ministerial responsibility in general. How did you satisfy yourself then that the request from Chief Justice Lamer was an adequate and proper request consistent with the laws and legal system of Canada?
Mr. Goulard: I am a deputy to the minister. Therefore, I requested a clear directive from the minister at the time, the Honourable Allan Rock, who gave me the directive. I was satisfied, having received this from the minister, that it was within my responsibilities to undertake these duties.
The Deputy Chairman: Did Mr. Justice Lamer discuss this matter with Mr. Rock first?
Mr. Goulard: I am not suggesting that. I have no idea whether that was ever raised between them.
The Deputy Chairman: I quoted to you the last time we were here an article in the Lawyer's Weekly. The record is here from the last meeting, within which the Lawyer's Weekly said very clearly -- and you confirmed this because you were cited in that article -- that the entire project was the brainchild of the Chief Justice of Canada.
Mr. Goulard: What project are you speaking of?
The Deputy Chairman: It is this whole project of "juges sans frontières," which I believe is the phrase you use to describe your project.
Mr. Goulard: That phrase would not describe our project, but it was coined by Chief Justice Lamer.
The Deputy Chairman: Do you know what I am talking about?
Mr. Goulard: I have used it quite often since.
The Deputy Chairman: There is an article in Lawyer's Weekly. You were quoted in the article, as was Mr. Justice Lamer. I believe that you also refer to it in your own exchanges as his brainchild. This material that I am speaking of is in the public domain and is well quoted.
Mr. Goulard: It is true that the phrase "juges sans frontières" was coined by Chief Justice Lamer, but international cooperation between Canada's judiciary and foreign judiciaries existed long before Chief Justice Lamer came on the scene.
The Deputy Chairman: We are talking about this project. I must hear more about this particular project which you refer to in your correspondence, and about these particular projects which are being funded by CIDA and which you are coordinating, so that we are not talking about everything else in the world. We are talking about those moneys from CIDA that you are receiving, and this particular project that you are coordinating, so we are not talking about every international relationship in the world. We are talking specifically here about your involvement, CIDA's financing, and Canadian judges, so now that I have narrowed it down for you, maybe it is a bit clearer. I have seen quite a bit of literature and quite a lot of press about it. I would have thought that it would be quite easy to discuss it here because it is very well known in the public domain. Interviews are done quite extensively, from what I can see. Perhaps you could then look at this in a much more factual way.
Can you tell us the amounts of money that are involved, how they are received from CIDA, and which judges are involved?
Mr. Goulard: Last December following our meeting, I prepared a list of the judges for which financing had been provided through my office. There are a multitude of international cooperation projects that I have never heard of, which include members of the Canadian judiciary, who are appointed either federally or provincially. I cannot speak about those projects. For the Canada-Ukraine Judicial Cooperation Project, which was the only one that involved funding through my office for judicial participation, seven Canadian judges were involved. That was up to last December.
The Deputy Chairman: This is now June. Can you tell me how many more have become involved since last December?
Mr. Goulard: I do not recall any Canadian judges going abroad in connection with that project since December. I would have to confirm for you whether any in fact went.
The Deputy Chairman: Can you then give us the names of those judges and the courts they sit on?
Mr. Goulard: They are the late Justice Sopinka of the Supreme Court; Chief Justice Hewak of the Manitoba Queen's Bench, Justice Bracco of the Alberta Superior Courts, Justice Lysyk of the British Columbia Courts, Chief Justice Scott of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba and Judge Seniuk of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chairman: That is six.
Mr. Goulard: I said seven because Justice Bracco went twice.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: They all went to the Ukraine, is that it?
Mr. Goulard: Yes. We have British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The judges were chosen mostly because they speak Ukrainian.
The Deputy Chairman: Who chose them?
Mr. Goulard: I chose Justice Hewak initially because of his fluency in Ukrainian, then they were approached by the Director of International Cooperation, because of their judicial competence and their knowledge of Ukrainian. Chief Justice Scott was President or Chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council for the committee that developed the Code of Judicial Conduct. He participated at conferences dealing with judicial ethics. That is why he was chosen.
As for Justice Sopinka, we wanted a representative from the Supreme Court at a conference on judicial independence and he is of Ukrainian origin.
Justice Bracco is fluent in Ukrainian, but I am not sure about Justice Lysyk. Scott is not, but he is our Canadian expert. Seniuk is fluent.
The Deputy Chairman: They were chosen largely because they speak Ukrainian.
Mr. Goulard: The exception is Justice Scott, who was chosen because of his specialty.
The Deputy Chairman: Can you tell us exactly what the justices did in the Ukraine, what sums of monies were exchanged and how the money was paid.
Mr. Goulard: When Minister Rock approved my participation, it was on one condition, that my operational funding not be used for these initiatives. All funding had to be received from other sources, CIDA or the World Bank or whatever, but not from my operational funding.
The Deputy Chairman: My understanding is that it went the other way. You had CIDA's approval first, and then it went the other way.
Mr. Goulard: I think so.
The Deputy Chairman: I could be wrong. You should know. My understanding is that it began as an idea. With Bill C-42, Parliament initiated dramatic changes, limiting what judges could do internationally, limiting the international activities explicitly to Madam Louise Arbour. Based on what I have read, the idea moved from the Chief Justice of Canada and you to Mrs. Labelle at CIDA and the money was obtained.
Mr. Goulard: The mandate that I was given by Chief Justice Lamer or by the minister after the request by Chief Justice Lamer was to coordinate the participation of members of the Canadian judiciary in various initiatives. Before all of that, before I even came to my present position, I had been involved in international cooperation while at the Department of Justice. This had involved initial discussions between Canada and the Ukraine on the possibility of developing a Canada-Ukraine legal, judicial cooperation initiative.
After I began my duties as Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, I was approached by a CIDA officer to see if I could continue to help with the development of that project.
The Deputy Chairman: Who was that officer?
Mr. Goulard: That took place almost five years ago. He has moved on; he is out of the country now.
The Deputy Chairman: Was it a senior person? Was it the president or vice-president of CIDA?
Mr. Goulard: It was a desk officer responsible for that specific project, the development of a Canada-Ukraine legal, judicial project. He approached me because of my previous involvement. I had also directed, while at the Department of Justice, a Canada-Czech and Slovak Republic's Judicial Cooperation Project that had gone well, so I was regarded as somebody who could do the job. My initial reaction was that I was undertaking new functions and would not have time. They convinced me to help them, which I did.
The Deputy Chairman: The CIDA officer convinced you, but you cannot remember his name?
Mr. Goulard: It might come back because at that stage we worked very closely. It might come back over the course of the morning. If it does, I will tell you. Then that evolved into a project proposal for a multi-year, $2 million project, which you already know of.
The Deputy Chairman: We are all eager to have more details.
Mr. Goulard: The office was to be under contract with CIDA, the executive agency for that endeavour. This was all totally apart from the request that came from Chief Justice Lamer at a later time. Before I commenced my duties, the office had had visitors from members of the judiciary and court administrators from a number of countries. I can see that in the records. This has continued, so that also has to do with CIDA or with Chief Justice Lamer's request for coordination. We receive these visitors. The only funding that I have had so far that has involved the funding of judges travelling abroad is the Ukrainian project.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: You stated that judges were selected on the basis of their ability to speak Ukrainian. However, are these judges well versed in international law? If they are selected solely because of their knowledge of Ukrainian, I fail to see what contribution they could possibly make to the Ukraine. How long will they remain in the Ukraine and what will they be doing there? The country is asking us for experts in international law to teach them about the technology in use here in Canada? What specific problems are they being called in to address?
Mr. Goulard: First and foremost, the judges are chosen for their expertise in their particular field. Mr. Justice Hewak has been on the bench for thirty years. Once a trial judge, he is now a chief justice and has been one for a number of years. He is also respected as an exceptional judicial trustee. In addition to speaking the language, he brings with him his extensive expertise on the bench.
As for Mr. Justice Sopinka, there is no need for me to tell you about his exceptional qualifications as a judge and legal expert.
When Mr. Justice Lysyk was invited, he was serving as the Deputy Director of the National Judicial Institute, which provides continuing education services to Canada's judges. One component of our Ukrainian judicial cooperation project is the training of judges. Therefore, in addition to his vast experience as a chief justice in British Columbia, Mr. Justice Lysyk also brought with him his extensive knowledge of judicial training.
As I mentioned, Mr. Justice Scott is an expert in the field of judicial ethics.
Mr. Justice Seniuk, on the other hand, is an expert on judicial independence. He has directed projects for the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, written extensively on the subject on judicial independence and been involved in the production of a video on the subject.
Lastly, Mr. Justice Bracco has 20, if not 30, years of experience in this area.
All of the senior judges chosen have extensive knowledge of this field. The fact that they spoke the language was an added bonus.
Senator Ferretti Barth: How long did they remain abroad?
Mr. Goulard: For the duration of the conference. Mr. Justice Hewak accompanied us on the development mission. We remained in the country for two weeks. He stayed the longest of all the judges. Therefore, it was primarily to attend conferences that the judges went to the Ukraine. No judge involved in our project traveled outside the country.
Senator Ferretti Barth: How much were the judges paid for their two-week or one-week stint?
Mr. Goulard: They were not paid a fee as such, because judges are not allowed to accept payments for services, but their expenses were covered.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Did the Ukraine go out of its way to provide the appropriate level of hospitality for such renowned judges? What costs did the Ukraine incur?
Mr. Goulard: The costs were minimal, because the Ukraine does not have a lot. Frequently, Ukrainian judges go months at a stretch without receiving a salary. Therefore, we cannot expect them to provide us with much. However, they did provide the judges with office space at the Supreme Court in Kiev and they did cover the travel expenses of the Ukrainian judges so that they could attend the conference. That was the extent of their contribution.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Can you tell us what benefits the Ukraine derived from the participation of Canadian judges in this conference? We organized programs and sent judges to give conferences and to deal with issues of special interest to the Ukraine. However, what positive benefits were derived from this exercise?
Mr. Goulard: The aims of the project, which spans a four-year period, are threefold. Firstly, we helped to establish three model courts, one in the heart of the country near Kiev, a second in the eastern region and a third in the western region where a registry office equipped with computers and text processing and business management software has been opened. We also trained the registry office staff.
Secondly, working in consultation with Canadian judges like Mr. Justice Scott, the Ukrainians have developed their own code of judicial conduct.
Thirdly, important strides have been made in improving judicial independence. The focus of the conference was in fact judicial independence. Documents distributed over the course of the conference were recently published and will be circulated to many judges. I would call that a tangible benefit.
The true challenge associated with these projects, and probably the greatest one, is to change the attitudes not only of judges but of governments as well.
Mr. Justice Bracco was telling me just last week how a Ukrainian counterpart wrote to him describing the importance of judicial independence and the difficulties associated with achieving it. We are trying to forge links between the judges from our respective countries and to lend them some moral support. The benefits as such are difficult to quantify. However, when the time comes for them to go home, the judges who have come to our country often remark on how much they were impressed by the openness and willingness of Canadian judges to engage in a dialogue and to consider themselves as equals. That is why I loathe the expression "assistance project". We are providing them with friendship and support, not financial aid.
Senator Ferretti Barth: You are saying that Canadian judges are more humane and more democratic?
Mr. Goulard: Exactly.
Senator Ferretti Barth: You mentioned that you set up an office in the Ukraine and equipped it with computers, software and so forth. Who picked up the tab for that?
Mr. Goulard: CIDA did.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Do you also have any Ukrainians in your employ?
Mr. Goulard: Yes, we have one part-time Ukrainian employee. He works the odd day when we require his services.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You have explained to us how the Ukrainian project works. However, is it not true that you have also received requests for assistance and for judicial training support from China? What initiatives have you taken in this regard and who covers expenses?
Mr. Goulard: I do believe China requested some assistance when the Prime Minister met with his Chinese counterpart. That was some time ago. CIDA awarded a project jointly to the University of Montreal and to McGill University. Some Canadian judges participated in a project under the direction of the University of Montreal, but my office was not involved in this at all.
Senator Bolduc: Do you think this is a good thing for our judges to be doing? I understand that you are responsible for the salaries they are paid and that, in some respects, you are the personnel manager for all federal judges. How many are there in all?
Mr. Goulard: One thousand.
Senator Bolduc: One thousand judges. There are a limited number of Supreme Court judges, a slightly higher number of federal court judges, a significant number of judges on the tax court and on the human rights tribunal, not to mention all of the superior court judges. Does it make sense to have some projects initiated by CIDA and other initiated by your office or by universities?
We have one thousand judges who handle duties at the superior court level and still there is a backlog. People often encounter frustrating delays. Would it not be advisable for the Minister of Justice, not Mr. Justice Lamer, to set down some guidelines for the participation of Canadian judges in international cooperation initiatives? We need a clear policy on the subject, instead of proceeding on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, it is Mr. Justice Lamer who speaks out on the subject, and other times, it is someone else. The situation affects staff. When some judges are absent, others must fill in for them. Many are semi-retired and continue to receive their full salary. I see this happening. A number of them spend their day on the golf course. As a senior official, do you not feel that some action on your part is warranted?
I often did that in my day. When I found that something did not make a great deal of sense, I would go to the minister and tell him to do something. Perhaps you should go to the Justice Minister and tell her that while you are not opposed to sending judges off on assignments around the world -- everyone wants to help the people of the Ukraine and others -- your resources are nevertheless limited. A general policy needs to be developed. You should take it upon yourself to go the minister, to come to an agreement of some kind and to see to it that guidelines are developed. Otherwise, every university professor might suddenly get the urge to spend the summer helping out in Iran, Zimbabwe or some other country. There is a limit, after all.
The government has made cuts across the boards. The number of hospital beds has been reduced and yet, judges continue to participate in initiatives around the world. Every day, I receive proposals from the minister. There is no end to them! I have been in this business for many years, but what I see happening now makes no sense. Occasionally, good old fashion common sense must prevail. Would you not agree with me?
Mr. Goulard: I totally agree with you, as do the chief justices of the Quebec superior court. I have an agreement with the chief justices. I cannot approach any of their judges without their prior approval.
Senator Bolduc: I am not talking about a one-week trip, or a one-day conference. I have no objections to a judge going to Cambridge, England for several days. I was referring more to the appointment of one thousand, important individuals who earn $150,000 and upwards a year. I do not object to their being paid that salary because they are qualified individuals. However, it is important that they provide to Canadians the services for which they are remunerated. I can understand the occasional special international mission, or someone being sent on a six-month assignment because of extenuating world circumstances. However, I think we need the Justice Minister to set down a clear policy on the matter.
Mr. Goulard: I rather doubt that the minister wants to get involved in how judges manage their time. She is more cautious than that. However, chief justices are responsible for ensuring that judges manage their time well and they do. As for the projects in which my office is involved, these are confined to judges participating in conferences, or to Canada hosting judges from other countries. Our projects do not involve sending judges on two-month assignments. I am not saying that this might not occur in the case of other projects, but that is not the case for projects involving my office. If I were to start taking up too much of the judges' time, the chief justices would conspire to have me replaced.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to think that the Chief Justice would not have much to say about whether or not you are replaced. You just said that the Chief Justice would make sure that you would be speedily replaced.
Mr. Goulard: They have good connections with Chief Justice Lamer and the minister. I am an order in council appointment. I could be replaced. The only caveat is that the Federal Judicial Council must be consulted. So far so good -- and I like my job.
The Deputy Chairman: Your appointment is considered to be at the minister's discretion. That was my point. I am sure that the minister takes these appointments very seriously.
Mr. Goulard: I was kidding.
The Deputy Chairman: The Lawyer's Weekly interview that I had referred to, regarding "juges sans frontières," which featured the interview with Chief Justice Lamer was dated August 29, 1997. I am still eager to receive the information about the moneys and how these judges are paid and how all of that is handled. Perhaps you could send that information to me.
In 1996, Bill C-42 was before the Senate. I do not have to tell you how important it is to the Judges Act, particularly to sections 54 through 57. The intention of those clauses was very clearly to ensure that judges were to receive no moneys other than by the public purse of Canada. In addition, judges were only to confine their activities to only those under the authority of the Parliament of Canada. That was very important because there was a long history of judges who used to be commissioners of baseball or whatever. These things were all brought about in the interest of judicial independence.
When Bill C-42 was before us, the senators almost unanimously were of the opinion that judges should not be involved in these international activities across the world. When we looked at Bill C-42, most senators agreed for many different reasons, albeit reluctantly, to allow Madam Justice Arbour to be the sole exception. I think that if you look at the Judges Act, she is cited by name, which is both peculiar and unusual.
I would have thought that because Parliament had clearly stated what its view of judge's activities internationally should be, that it would have constrained or at least informed you of your role. I would have thought that one's enthusiasm for sending judges across the world would have declined a little bit in the face of a clearly expressed statute, which clearly articulated the will of Parliament. In your opinion, what is the impact of the Senate's amendment on Bill C-42 on your role vis-à-vis coordinating judges' international activities?
Mr. Goulard: I see no relationship between that bill or the amendments and what we are doing. We are usually just facilitating the efforts of Canadian judges to help in terms of their attendance at conferences, their writing of papers, and by their receiving foreign judges in their courts and in their homes. They are receiving no funds whatsoever for their efforts, and they are providing a lot of their energy and time, in addition to their judicial duties. They are not leaving their functions. There is no comparison between that and what is covered in the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: Parliament very clearly looked at the issue of judges doing extrajudicial duties. I am not the least bit concerned, nor is anybody in this committee, about judges receiving judges from other parts of the world to entertain them in their homes. No one is concerned about that kind of thing. No one is concerned with the kind of meeting Senator Bolduc was discussing, these meetings at Cambridge. The Senate and Parliament are concerned about these kinds of activities that you are currently coordinating under the umbrella of CIDA. Parliament was trying to say at the time that judges must confine their activities to judicial activities, not political ones.
The material is all on the record, if you will remember. The intention of Bill C-42 is to allow these judges to do the activities you have described. As a matter of fact, it is fair to say that these projects were well under way when Bill C-42 came before us and that Bill C-42 was intended to facilitate these projects.
Parliament withdrew from that intention. It did not think that these activities were a suitable use of dollars and funds and so on for Parliament. Mr. Justice Lamer has been quoted as saying that in the public mind, "where there is a will, there is a way." On other occasions, he has suggested that senators did not understand the intention of the amendments. How do you see the will of Parliament, as expressed in Bill C-42, in terms of your role as Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs in coordinating the international activities of judges?
Mr. Goulard: My understanding is that there is a request for a leave of absence of the type that would allow a judge to leave his or her judicial functions for an extended period of time with or without pay. It was granted only for Justice Arbour. What we are doing has nothing to do with a judge's receiving a leave of absence from his or her judicial duties. It does not affect his or her judicial duties. That is why I fail to see that what Parliament, and especially the Senate, expressed at that time would have anything to do with our involvement in these very short-term judicial involvements.
The Deputy Chairman: Why then would Mr. Justice Lamer say that he has found a way to do it? He said that "where there is a will, there is a way," and that he would go to Madam Labelle at CIDA.
Mr. Goulard: I cannot comment.
The Deputy Chairman: I thank Mr. Goulard. He has been very generous with his time. I believe that on Tuesday we will be meeting at 5:30, which is a little unusual. I shall introduce those two reports this afternoon.
The committee adjourned.