Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 13 - Evidence - May 27, 2014 - Afternoon
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 27, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 2:34 p.m. to study the subject matter of Bill C- 31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this afternoon we will continue our study of the subject matter of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
[English]
Honourable senators will recall that five other committees looked at parts of Bill C-31, in addition to the work of National Finance on the subject matter of portions of Bill C-31. Various committees had designated portions of the subject matter of Bill C-31 mandated for pre-study by the Senate as a whole. When the bill comes to the Senate, which likely will be in a week or two, it will be referred to the National Finance Committee, which will be expected to deal with all clauses including those looked at by other committees. It is for that reason we requested some help from other committees. We have their reports, but we would like to understand better what they studied.
From the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we are very pleased to welcome a former member of this committee, Senator Runciman, chair, and Senator Baker, deputy chair. They will discuss the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 6, Division 5, clauses 164 and 165 entitled "Judges Act." In the English version, it is at page 131 of the budget implementation bill.
I would ask colleagues to give us an overview of the purpose of these clauses are and their views, if any, in relation thereto.
Hon. Bob Runciman, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, as an individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I see you're keeping your witnesses at a safe distance. It is good to be here. We appreciate the invitation.
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014, the committee received an order of reference to study the subject matter of some elements of Bill C-31. Specifically the Senate requested our committee to examine the provisions related to the Judges Act that are contained in Division 5 of Part 6 of the bill. We were asked to conduct public hearings and report our findings to the Senate by June 19 so that both the Senate and your committee could consider the evidence and the comments that we gathered on this part of the bill. I will summarize what the division proposes to do. A very straightforward amendment is proposed.
The federal government appoints and pays the salaries and pensions of Superior Court level judges in the provinces and territories under the terms of the Constitution Act, 1867. The number of these positions to be funded by the federal government is set out by jurisdiction in the Judges Act.
In the February budget, the federal government allocated $4.4 million over two years to fund six additional federally appointed judges, four in Quebec and two in Alberta. The budget states that this is in recognition of increases in the number of complicated, high-profile criminal and civil cases that have caused significant delays in conducting hearings at the Superior Court level in those provinces. The additional positions are intended to reduce those delays and ensure that criminal charges are not being dropped because they cannot be heard in a timely way.
Division 5 of Part 6 of the bill correspondingly amends the Judges Act to increase the number of judges of the Superior Court of Quebec and the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta. We heard from Justice Canada officials who outlined the amendments proposed and explained the reasons for them. The committee also heard from the Canadian Bar Association, which supports the proposed amendments. We also invited the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Alberta, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs and the Barreau du Québec to appear. However, they did not do so during our public hearings.
Some committee members raised questions about the consistency of the criteria applied by Justice Canada to requests made by the provinces for additional judges. The committee was nonetheless supportive of the elements of Division 5 of Part 6 of Bill C-31 that would make the necessary amendments to the Judges Act. We included these comments in our report to the Senate, which was tabled May 13. We have brought with us a copy of all the briefs and submissions as well as the unrevised transcripts of our meetings for your committee's consideration.
Perhaps the deputy chair has additional comments.
Hon. George Baker, Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, as an individual: No, basically you have covered the matter, except to point out that in Division 5, the Judges Act, the salary of $288,100 is actually a little bit over $300,000 a year per Superior Court judge, as of April 1. Please keep that in mind.
It says here 144 puisne judges of the court. Puisne judges simply refers to all judges who are not the chief justice of the court.
The two provinces involved, Quebec and Alberta, had requested more judges than they received, but they are happy with the numbers that they did receive. I think, chair, this was the evidence we heard.
One observation is that some committee members were concerned about the consistency of the criteria employed by Justice Canada in approving these amounts of monies for the salaries. Let's not forget that the provinces pay for the office spaces and the provinces pay for the court facilities. The institutional resources are paid for out of the provincial budget and not the federal budget. It is understandable that, in requesting these judges, the provinces have to consider what their budgets are. Some members were concerned about the consistency because of what the chair pointed out and what is in your budget speech, which is to ensure that criminal charges are not being dropped because they cannot be heard in a timely fashion.
That, as you know, Mr. Chair, is due to section 11(b) of the Charter, and this only applies to criminal matters, in which you have a situation where a court cannot, for one reason or another, properly dispose of that case within a reasonable period of time. The time of the case runs from the moment that you are arraigned for plea until the end of your sentencing.
The Supreme Court of Canada, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, has laid out in Askov in 1990 and in Morin in 1992 the specific time periods that are justifiable for institutional delay and other types of delay. Any delay beyond that can be judged to be unreasonable and the criminal charges are all dropped.
You see in each province this pattern. We're making the laws more complicated, Mr. Chairman, as you know, on Parliament Hill. It takes longer in some of these complicated cases to adjudicate them properly within a period of time, so pre-trial arguments are made, and charges are just dropped. That's the particular problem that this legislation you are considering today as part of the budget seeks to address.
Some members of the committee were saying, well, just a minute now. In New Brunswick, where you are from, Mr. Chair, they have cases all the time that are thrown out because they're not prosecuted within a period of time. The only thing I would point out is that it is not always because of the lack of judges or judicial spaces. It could be because of time constraints that are alleged to be caused by the Crown or by the police in a particular matter.
Those are all the comments I have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Runciman and Senator Baker. I have honourable senators who may have some follow-up questions perhaps for clarification or otherwise.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Thank you for your appearance; I read your recommendations attentively. I am surprised to see that the Attorneys General of Alberta and Quebec, as well as the Quebec Bar, did not make an appearance. I suppose that they are the ones who made the request to the Department of Justice, and that they probably did not want to come to reiterate or justify the request. I believe the minister had everything he needed to make the recommendation, correct?
[English]
Senator Runciman: The indication given to us was that they were content with the decision that Justice had made with respect to the four and two appointments. If they had had any significant concerns, my view is that they would have made an effort to respond in some fashion, whether it was an appearance before the committee or in writing, which did not occur.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: So there was no appearance and no written report. They did not appear.
Senator Runciman: No.
Senator Rivard: My last point is going to make a lot of people smile, I suspect. Since 2006, the budget has been rechristened and is now known as the Economic Action Plan. In your report, you only refer to the "budget". What is the legal term? Is it "the budget" or is the term "Economic Action Plan" strictly used when the budget is brought down?
[English]
Senator Runciman: Noted.
The Chair: That's as close to a "yes" or "no" we have had in a long time.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for appearing and for your explanation. I take it really there were no concerns. You say the committee members raised questions about the consistency of the criteria but, as far as the witnesses that came before you, there were no concerns raised.
Senator Runciman: George can elaborate if he wishes. I think the bar was supportive of the original application from the provinces, the six and four requests which were reduced to four and two. Overall, they were supportive of the amendment. I believe my recollection is their only criticism, if you will, was the fact that they did support the original numbers in the application.
Senator Callbeck: Okay, thank you.
Senator Baker: In fact, they made it very clear to us that no other province had requested additional judicial resources. No other province had requested. Now, that's not to say that the chief justices of the Superior Courts in the provinces didn't ask the provincial government for more resources. It is just that the provincial government didn't ask the federal government to pay for any more salaries.
Senator Callbeck: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Just as a point of clarification, in clause 165, the 57 other judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, is that for both Alberta and Quebec?
Senator Runciman: Is that the supernumerary judges we're talking about?
Senator Baker: No.
The Chair: This is Division 5, clause 165, and it is just an amendment to the act, obviously. It is going up to 57. Could you tell us how many, and is that the combination of just those two provinces?
Senator Baker: Yes. As you know, Mr. Chair, some provinces have what is called the Court of Queen's Bench. You are well aware of that.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Baker: Other provinces call it the Superior Court. So you would have the Court of Queen's Bench in three provinces, that I recall, and in seven provinces you would have the Superior Court of that province.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Baker: In the province of Ontario it, is the Superior Court. It is not the Supreme Court. There is the Superior Court of Ontario and the court of Ontario, but they mean here to make a distinction between Superior Courts as distinct from Courts of Queen's Bench. Same court, same issues. It is just that it is called differently in the different provinces, but salaries are paid for by the federal government. Again, it is a little over $300,000 and not the $288,000 you have shown.
The Chair: Can you explain that to us, Senator Baker?
Senator Baker: The budget was presented in February, as I understand it. On April 1, there was a scheduled increase in the salaries of all Superior Court judges, all Courts of Queen's Bench Judges, the Tax Court of Canada judges and the Federal Court of Canada judges. That scheduled increase came into effect on April 1, so that figure should read 300,008; $300,008 is what they receive as a base salary starting April 1.
The Chair: Presumably when this budget implementation bill passes, it will be retroactive to the date of the announcement, which is before April 1, so there will be another increase for these judges. One they got April 1 and the other, when this bill passes, will take them back before April 1.
Senator Baker: Let's hope that it's $300,000 and not $288,100.
The Chair: Is the $4.4 million noted in your report, in the government's budget, is that just an indication of how much it is going to cost for this increase?
Senator Baker: That's for the additional judges. As I understand it, that's a separate vote in the budget.
The Chair: Were there any questions on any of those points?
Can you refresh our memory as to how many new judges there are in the Court of Queen's Bench? Fifty-seven is a new number. What was it previously?
Senator Baker: I'm not too sure. Quebec would be the Superior Court.
The Chair: The effect of these amendments is that there will be 144 puisne judges of the Superior Court, which is a new number; and 57 other justices for Courts of Queen's Bench in other provinces, which is a new number. Each of them will receive an increase at the time of the announcement to $288,100; and that will increase to $300,008.
The Chair: Seeing no other questions, it is for me to thank you both for taking the time to help us so that we're ready for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Senator Baker: Thank you.
The Chair: We're very pleased now to welcome the Chair, Senator Lang, and the Deputy Chair, Senator Dallaire, of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. We will deal with the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 6, Division 1, clauses 102 to 105 entitled "Payments — Veterans Affairs," found at page 84; and Part 6, Division 7, clauses 168 to 171, entitled "National Defence Act," found at page 133. These are in the English version.
Senator Lang, we have a copy of your report before us.
Hon. Daniel Lang, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleague commented when we sat down that we almost need binoculars. You are a long way down there. At any rate, we shouldn't be too long.
I would like to report that we have no observations or amendments proposed by the Committee on National Security and Defence.
As was stated, our committee was authorized to examine the subject matter of the elements contained in Divisions 1 and 7 of Part 6 of Bill C-31. Because it dealt with veterans, the committee had the formal review done by the Subcommittee on Veteran Affairs, chaired by my colleague Senator Dallaire. We divided it into two parts. I will deal with the first part with regard to the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act. It was very straightforward.
The amendments recognize the historic names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force, while at the same time preserving the integration and unification achieved under the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act. They also provide for the designation of rank and circumstances of use as prescribed in regulation made by the Governor-in-Council.
We had witnesses from the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Legion. The Legion was supportive of the recommended changes here for your consideration. Being a committee on finance, you would want to know whether there was any monetary question put in this part of the amendment. The question was put when the witnesses appeared before the committee. It was indicated that if there were any financial commitments, they could be done totally in-house. They were not asking for more money as far as that amendment is concerned.
I now pass the floor over to Senator Dallaire in respect of the payments that have been asked for to compensate for deductions where amendments are being put forward for the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re- establishment and Compensation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War-related Benefits Act.
Hon. Roméo Dallaire, Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, as an individual: Bill C-31 brings two of the new pension benefits to veterans under the New Veterans Charter in line with a decision that was taken regarding disability pensions under the old charter/pension act imposed by the courts in the Manuge case. Where previously people were having deducted from their disability pensions an amount of earnings equivalent to that pension, that has been terminated. It is dated May 29, 2012, for the New Veterans Charter, and the decision on Manuge was implemented in 2013. It has resolved the cases of 4,500 veterans, which ultimately has cost about $600 million. The New Veterans Charter amounts are much lower because at this time the readjustment affects only hundreds of veterans.
It also helps to bring into line two very old disability pensions: the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1930; and the Civilian War-related Benefits Act, 1946. The second one might be of particular interest because it involved civilians, not those in uniform, who were committed to the war effort, many of them overseas, like nurses, members of the Red Cross and the Knights of Columbus. Many were getting disability pensions because they had been injured overseas. The compensation and benefits they received were deducted from that amount.
The government decided it wouldn't go retroactive to 1930 or 1946, and you can imagine the scale involved. We recognize that these were veterans of World War I, World War II and Korea, who are fewer in number today, of course.
There will be some question raised about retroactivity with regard to the New Veterans Charter. Although we have recognized, by court order May 2012, that the process should be changed, we're going retroactive to May 29, 2012, for all those under the New Veterans Charter. People under the old charter or pension act will be treated separately under a different scenario.
It seems complicated, but essentially the government has made it fair, much fairer, that all earnings loss benefits will not be deducted from disability pensions, as it is two separate things. As an example, if someone under the disability pension was getting, let's say, $4,000 a month but then was getting compensation for pain and suffering for $1,500 a month, one was deducted from the other and not added to the other. In fact, his original pension went from $4,000 to $2,500, but then we gave him the other amount, $1,500, and brought him back to $4,000 where, in fact, he should be getting $5,500. So the Manuge decision has finally solved that. It was a pain in the backs of veterans for decades, so it was a worthy initiative.
The current New Veterans Charter number we estimate is about 19.2 million to cover that back pay.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dallaire.
Can you tell us what the magic was of May 29, 2012?
Senator Dallaire: I nearly used those same words. We had both the Director General of Policy from Veterans Canada and of course the people from the Legion who also had analyzed it. Although it was recommended that we should go back to the April 2006 date of implementing the New Veterans Charter, the government staff, because of the significance of bringing together these four, nearly five, different pension processes, particularly under the New Veterans Charter, felt that they couldn't administratively be fair all the way around unless they picked a date that was reasonable to meet the challenges of the different pensions, and that's why they're only going back to 2012. It is not an overtly satisfactory response. It is very much an administrative fairness response perceived by bureaucratic staffing.
The Chair: Was April 12 the day of the Manuge decision?
Senator Dallaire: No, it was May 1, 2012.
The Chair: There's nothing we can tie to May 29, 2012?
Senator Dallaire: It is all process.
Senator Lang: Perhaps I could add to this. There was a period of time between when the government announced their intentions until when legislation was passed. So subsequently it was felt that the day of the announcement should be the day that these particular benefits were to come into effect. That's why it is going retroactive to that day when the actual announcement was made, because of the fact that in some cases I think the legislation was even delayed for whatever reasons. There is a reason for the retroactivity and to have a set period of time.
The Chair: Thank you.
I'm looking at Part 6, Division 1, clause 102, and they talk about the period that began on May 29, 2012, and ended on September 30, 2012. That's just one day.
Senator Dallaire: Because it was implemented.
The Chair: On that day?
Senator Dallaire: Yes, the next day. So it stopped. They were not doing —
The Chair: They were not doing it anymore.
Senator Dallaire: They actually implemented it even before we went through this. We're just cleaning up some of that retroactivity.
Senator Lang: It will be a great benefit to quite a number of veterans. The Legion appeared before us, and their membership were quite pleased to see that obviously as one of the issues they have been bringing forward.
The Chair: The Manuge case was the reason that this is being implemented.
Senator Dallaire: Yes.
The Chair: Who brought the Manuge case to court? Do we know?
Senator Dallaire: Him, Manuge.
The Chair: He was an accountant that lived downtown?
Senator Dallaire: No, a veteran, but he was supported by thousands of veterans. In my previous duties as the ADM in personnel, I remember the incredible fights of trying to bring the legal beagles to accept the premise that this was an erroneous methodology, and we were getting absolutely nowhere.
This government actually did react ultimately to what was ordered by the courts, and that's one thing, but all the rest of what's in C-31 is bringing all the other pension programs in line with that and have already been implemented, but now we're just seeking the funding for the retroactivity.
Senator Lang: For the record, it should be pointed out that this decision before you was discretionary. It wasn't ordered by the court to go back in retroactivity, but it was felt that it would be the fairest thing to do in view of the time of the announcement.
The Chair: The only issue that we might take with this would be the choosing of when it came into effect, how far back retroactively.
Senator Lang: That's right.
The Chair: But we're all in support of the court decision.
Senator Dallaire: Yes, and the retroactivity, as Senator Lang indicated, was a political decision. The bureaucrats felt that was a manageable date also. The Legion did indicate that it will be worried about some comments, of course, regarding going back to April 1, 2006.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Lang, just to confirm, at page 133, this change to the National Defence Act, was this prompted by anything in particular? Is this housekeeping, or is this back to the future? Why was this necessary?
Senator Lang: One can argue whether it was necessary or not, but it was a decision that was taken from the point of view of looking at the history of our military and to bring back into effect the names for our various parts of the military so that they could go back in time as members and as the public to recognize the historic significance of those that have served in the past. It was a political decision that was taken. Actually, the decision itself was taken a number of years ago, and this actually puts it into effect.
Senator Dallaire: I was the first class to graduate under the new unification uniforms. We have had forces now for the last 45 years under this rank structure, the current one. This one is bringing us back to pre-unification rank structures, both in titles, names and accouterments. It is very similar to the British system that existed and that we had adopted and that we had been using up until unification. All of that is coming back.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that.
Senator Eaton: Just to follow up, Senator Dallaire, that means there will be commanders in the navy, captains in the army?
Senator Dallaire: No, a commander in the navy is a lieutenant-colonel in the army.
Senator Eaton: That's what I meant.
Senator Dallaire: Sorry.
Senator Eaton: That's fine. You will go back to wearing a naval uniform. In other words, if I look at somebody, I can tell right away who they belong to?
Senator Dallaire: The Mulroney government in 1986 brought in the three uniforms from the original, what used to be called CF green, and at a tune of about 46 million. The air force got its air force blue back, the navy got its navy dark blue back, and the army stayed with what was then adjusted to be the rifle green, which is an honorary colour for rifle regiments. What we're doing now is sorting out the rank accoutrements on that.
Senator Eaton: On those uniforms?
Senator Dallaire: On those uniforms to bring them back in line with what used to be before unification, which was built on the British model, which was fine. That's the model we had.
With that also, however, the names comes back, so you will have squadron commander in the air force, which is a lieutenant-colonel. He or she is a commander in the navy, and he or she is a lieutenant-colonel in the army. All those terms will come back. They will do a great job of confusing the civilians, and we're quite happy about that.
Senator Eaton: There was great discussion, I remember, although I was quite a young person at the time, that it was very demoralizing to the military when unification took away their uniforms and their ranks.
Senator Dallaire: Yes.
Senator Eaton: This has obviously been greeted with by enthusiasm by the ranks?
Senator Dallaire: Unification essentially pretty closely killed the soul of the army, the navy and the air force by trying to turn it into a marine corps. It just threw the militia regiments mostly, who fought the dress codes all the time, that they were able to work their way back in. In 1986, when the three uniforms were officially brought back in, there was a big debate on whether or not the 46 million was worth it or not. The question was how much of a percentage increase of operational effectiveness in organizations that build on cohesion and ésprit de corps and ethos is being given to the forces with the uniforms. Is it a 10 per cent increase in operational effectiveness, 20 per cent, because they feel more pride? Many of us debated that it was a significant increase.
With these rank structures, however, we now have nearly nobody left who wore the old uniform, the old rank structures, because they all grew up in the new rank structures. There's a debate. Some of them prefer staying with the current one. Others are quite happy to go to the old ones. There will be a bit of a mishmash in that debate, but it is not pejorative because what it is doing, however, is recognizing the three services as distinct elements upon which you can build your regimental or affiliation pride and thus be, I think, at a higher level of performance.
The Chair: I have no other senators who have indicated an interest in participating. You have explained it well. We understand the bottom line is that your committee, which has studied both of these divisions, is supportive of the initiatives in here.
Senator Lang: That's correct.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, if I could have a motion to go in camera for a short while, I can explain to you where we're going from here. Senator Callbeck, thank you.
And then a motion that staff can stay. Senator Bellemare, thank you.
Colleagues, we will go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)