Honourable senators, I will be very brief. I will refer to a Supreme Court judgment, Valente v. The Queen, 1985 Supreme Court Reports 673. I understand the rationale behind the amendment is to make federal judges similar to provincial judges in connection with their suspension and the disciplinary process. The judgment says:

Section 11(d) cannot be construed and applied so as to accord provincial court judges the same constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and security of salary and pension as superior court judges for that construction would, in effect, amend the judicature provisions of the Constitution. The standard of judicial independence cannot be a standard of uniform provisions but rather must reflect what is common to the various approaches to the essential conditions of judicial independence in Canada.

I will not repeat what I said previously on security of financial independence, but, quite frankly, to use the case of provincial laws and to try to apply that to federal judges is certainly done, I guess, with a certain lack of understanding of the law.

Senator Batters, do you have a question?

No.

He said “no.”

Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

I think the nays have it. I see two senators rising.

Is there advice on the length of the bell? It will be one hour. The vote will take place at 5:38.

Call in the senators.

The question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oh — may I dispense?

All those in favour of the motion will please rise.

I didn’t hear the motion.

I asked, and they said “dispense.”

I would like to hear the motion.

That Bill C-9 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) in clause 12, on page 8,

(i) by adding the following after line 22:

“(e.1) suspend the judge with salary for a period that the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances;”,

(ii) by replacing line 25 with the following:

“graphs (a) to (e.1);”;

(b) on page 23, by adding the following after line 26:

“12.1 Paragraph 102(f) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(e.2) suspend the judge without salary for a period of up to 30 days;

(f) take any action that the panel considers to be equivalent to any of the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e.2);”;

(c) on page 25, by adding the following after line 32:

“Coming into Force

17 Section 12.1 comes into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed, on division.)