This
document was prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Research Branch
to provide Canadian Parliamentarians with plain language background and
analysis of proposed government legislation. Legislative summaries are
not government documents. They have no official legal status and do not
constitute legal advice or opinion. Please note, the Legislative Summary
describes the bill as of the date shown at the beginning of the document.
For the latest published version of the bill, please consult the parliamentary
internet site at www.parl.gc.ca.
LS-398E
BILL C-12: JUDGES
ACT AMENDMENTS
Prepared by:
Nancy Holmes
Law and Government Division
8 March 2001
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF BILL
C-12
HOUSE
OF COMMONS
|
SENATE
|
Bill
Stage |
Date |
Bill
Stage |
Date |
First
Reading: |
21 February
2001
|
First
Reading: |
24 April 2001
|
Second
Reading: |
26 March 2001
|
Second
Reading: |
9 May 2001
|
Committee
Report: |
4 April 2001
|
Committee
Report: |
17 May 2001
|
Report
Stage: |
6 April 2001
|
Report
Stage: |
|
Third
Reading: |
6 April 2001
|
Third
Reading: |
29 May 2001
|
Royal Assent: 14 June 2001
Statutes of Canada 2001, c.7
N.B. Any substantive changes in this Legislative
Summary which have been made since the preceding issue are indicated
in bold print.
|
|
|
|
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
DESCRIPTION
AND ANALYSIS
A.
Judges' Salaries - Clauses 1-16
B.
Judicial Allowances - Clause 19
C.
Judicial Annuities - Clauses 20-25
1.
Cession of Contributions - Clause 25
2.
Early and Special Retirement Provisions - Clauses 20-21
a.
Early Retirement - Clause 21
b.
Special Retirement Provisions for Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada
- Clause 20
3.
Survivor Benefits - Clauses 22-24
D.
Other Benefits - Clause 20
1.
Life Insurance - Proposed Section 41.2(1)
2.
Health and Dental Benefits - Proposed Section 41.3
3.
Survivor Benefits Following Death on Duty - Proposed Section 41.4
E.
Funding of Representational Costs of Judges - Clause 18
COMMENTARY
APPENDIX:
SALARIES OF FEDERALLY APPOINTED JUDGES
BILL C-12:
JUDGES ACT AMENDMENTS*
INTRODUCTION
On 21 February 2001, Bill
C-12, An Act to amend the Judges Act, was introduced in the House of Commons
by the Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan. The bill essentially
deals with judicial salaries and allowances, judicial annuities and other
benefits. It will also make some technical amendments to the Judges
Act. For ease of reference, the description and analysis portion
of this paper will consider the bills proposed amendments under
these headings.
Bill C-12 is an implementation
of the Governments response to the May 2000 Report and Recommendations
of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.(1) Pursuant
to the amendments made in 1998 to section 26 of the Judges Act,
the Drouin Commission (chaired by Richard Drouin, O.C., Q.C.)
is the first judicial remuneration commission mandated to review judges
salaries and benefits every four years.
The Commission is comprised
of three members: one person nominated by the judiciary; one person
nominated by the Minister of Justice; and a chairperson nominated by the
first two members. The Commission is required to commence an inquiry
on 1 September of every fourth year and submit a report with recommendations
to the Minister of Justice within nine months of its commencement.
In conducting its inquiry, the Commission is required by section 26(1.1)
of the Act to consider:
(a) the prevailing
economic conditions in Canada, including the cost of living, and the
federal governments overall economic and current financial position;
(b) the role
of the judiciarys financial security in ensuring judicial independence;
(c) the need
to attract outstanding candidates to the judiciary; and
(d) any other
objective criteria that the Commission considers relevant.
Upon receipt of the Commissions
report, the Minister is thereafter required to table a copy in Parliament
within ten sitting days, and respond to the Commissions recommendations
within six months.
The new quadrennial process
emerged partly in response to the Supreme Court of Canadas 1997
decision in Reference Re Remuneration of Judges,(2)
and partly as a result of the work of previous triennial commissions (Scott
(1996), Crawford (1993), Courtois (1990), Guthrie (1987), and Lang (1983)).
These commissions found that the idea of an independent body to review
and make recommendations on the salaries and benefits of federally appointed
judges, although sound in theory, was not put into practice under the
triennial system. Successive governments largely ignored the extensive
work of these bodies, except to lay commission reports before Parliament,
almost as if by doing so, they had absolved themselves of their constitutional
obligations in the area of judges compensation.
The Supreme Court of Canada
in the Reference case also recognized that government delays or
complete inaction in responding to the reports of judicial compensation
commissions can diminish judges morale and the independence of the
judiciary. The Court reiterated that judicial independence is a
fundamental constitutional tenet containing three core characteristics:
security of tenure; financial security; and administrative independence.
The financial security aspect is critical, not only for maintaining judicial
independence and impartiality, but also for attracting persons most suited
by their experience and ability to be excellent candidates for the Bench.
The Court held that governments are therefore under a constitutional obligation
to establish independent, effective and objective judicial compensation
commissions, i.e., bodies which are necessary to prevent political interference
by the executive and legislative branches of government in the determination
of judicial remuneration. Specifically, the Court held that a government
must formally respond to a commissions report within a specified
period of time and, where the government chooses not to accept one or
more of the commissions recommendations, it must provide a reasonable
justification for its decision. The reasonableness of the governments
response can be subject to review by the courts on the basis of the legal
standard of simple rationality.
DESCRIPTION
AND ANALYSIS
A. Judges
Salaries Clauses 1-16
Currently, sections 9 to
22 of the Judges Act set out the salaries to be paid to federally
appointed judges on a court-by-court basis. Section 25 of the Act
provides the formula for the periodic adjustment and revision of those
salaries. Essentially, the adjustment is made annually, on 1 April,
by multiplying the previous years salary for judges by the Canadian
Industrial Aggregate Index, up to a maximum of 7%. In addition to
this annual adjustment, sections 25(5) and (6) provided a phased-in increase
to judicial salaries of 8.3% over a two-year period commencing 1 April
1997. This increase was in response to recommendations of the 1996
Scott Commission Report.
The Drouin Commission salary
recommendations (Recommendations 1 and 2) differ with respect to three
categories of judicial office: 1) puisne judges(3);
2) Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice; and 3) Chief Justice of
Canada and Supreme Court of Canada Justices. According to Department
of Justice officials, the best way to implement these recommendations
is to amend two parts of the legislation. Amendments to sections
9 to 22 of the Judges Act (clauses 1-14 of the bill) set
out judges final salaries effective 1 April 2000; they also add
a method for calculating final salaries for the periods commencing 1 April
2001, 1 April 2002 and 1 April 2003. Section 25 is amended (proposed
new section 25(1)) to provide the formula for calculating the annual adjustment
necessary to determine final salaries in new sections 9 to 22 for the
three-year period commencing 1 April 2001. The effect of these amendments
will be an 11.2% increase in judicial salaries as of 1 April 2000.
Effective 1 April 2004, the current method of calculating statutory indexing,
as well as judges final salaries, within section 25 of the Judges
Act will resume pursuant to a new section 25(2) (clause 16 of the
bill).
The Appendix of this paper
sets out how the salaries of federally appointed judges will be determined
for the years commencing 1 April 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 if Bill
C-12 becomes law. Bill C-12 will also affect the salaries of such
officers of Parliament as the Auditor General, the Privacy Commissioner,
the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner of Official Languages and
the Chief Electoral Officer, whose salary levels are deemed by their governing
legislation to be equal to that of certain federal judicial offices.
Under the bill, puisne judges
will each receive $198,000, inclusive of statutory indexing as of 1 April
2000. Effective 1 April 2001, 2002 and 2003, these judges will receive
$2,000 plus statutory indexing. The statutory indexing for each
year will be determined pursuant to the formula set out in a new section
25(1) (clause 16 of the bill), which essentially multiplies the previous
years salary for these judges, plus $2,000, by the Canadian Industrial
Aggregate Index. In arriving at these salary recommendations, the
Drouin Commission considered a combination of comparative factors, including
the salaries and performance bonuses of the most senior level of deputy
ministers in the Government (DM-3s), the earnings of private-sector lawyers,
and the significance of judicial annuities in recruiting outstanding candidates
to the bench. It also heard arguments from representatives of the
judiciary that judicial salaries be increased by 26.3%, a position which
contrasted with the Governments submission that a 5.7% increase
as of 1 April 2000 was the maximum that could be justified.(4)
The Commission also considered
and recommended (Recommendation 2) the continuation of the approximate
10% differential that has long existed between the salaries of puisne
judges and Chief/Associate Chief Justices. Indeed, no party before
the Commission suggested that this differential be altered. Thus,
clauses 2-13 of Bill C-12 set the salaries of Chief Justices and Associate
Chief Justices at $217,100, inclusive of statutory indexing, as of 1 April
2000. For the years commencing 1 April 2001, 2002 and 2003, Chief
Justice and Associate Chief Justice salaries will reflect the proportionate
relationship that exists between their proposed salary and that of puisne
judges as of 1 April 2000.(5)
Clause 1 of the bill provides the Chief Justice of Canada with a salary
of $254,500, inclusive of statutory indexing, as of 1 April 2000.
Also effective that date, Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada will
receive $235,700. For the next three years, these salaries will
be increased to maintain the same proportionate relationship as $254,500
and $235,700, respectively, bear to the salary of puisne judges as of
1 April 2000.(6) There is
no separate annual adjustment calculation (i.e., statutory indexing) for
any of these salaries because they are based on the puisne judges
final salary, which already includes the annual adjustment.
B. Judicial
Allowances Clause 19
Section 27 of the Judges
Act provides judges with various annual allowances:
-
The
incidental allowance permits them to purchase items and equipment
such as robes, law books and computers which assist
in the execution of judicial duties.
-
The
Northern allowance is intended to compensate for the higher cost of
living in the territories.
-
The
representational allowances reimburse Chief Justices and other senior
judges for travel and expenses actually incurred as they discharge
such extra-judicial obligations as representing their courts at conferences
or public events.
Clause 19 implements the
recommendations of the Drouin Commission (Recommendations 3-5) that as
of 1 April 2000:
-
increase
incidental allowances from a maximum of $2,500 to $5,000 per year;
-
adjust
Northern allowances from a yearly allowance of $6,000 to $12,000 per
year; and
-
increase
representational allowances from $10,000 to $18,750 for the Chief
Justice of Canada; $7,000 to $12,500 for the Chief Justices of the
Federal Court of Canada and the Chief Justice of each province; and
$5,000 to $10,000 for Supreme Court of Canada Puisne Judges, Trial
Chief Justices and Other Designated Chief Justices and Senior Judges.
Incidental and Northern
allowances have not been increased since 1989. Representational
allowances have not changed since 1985.
In 1990, the Courtois Commission
recommended that representational allowances be increased to $15,000,
$10,000 and $8,000 respectively. These recommendations were reflected
in Bill C-50, which received first reading in December 1991 and died on
the Order Paper in 1993. In 1993, the Crawford Commission
endorsed the Courtois Commissions recommendations concerning representational
allowances. In Recommendation 5 of its report, the Drouin Commission
indexed the Courtois Commissions recommendations, as if implemented
in 1990, to 1999 levels using both the Industrial Aggregate Index and
the Consumer Price Index.
C. Judicial
Annuities Clauses 20-25
1. Cessation
of Contributions Clause 25
Before 1975, federally appointed
judges did not have to contribute towards the cost of their statutory
annuities; however, amendments to the Judges Act resulted in a
set of requirements for judges contributions pursuant to section
50. Judges appointed before 1975 must contribute 1.5% of their annual
salary in order to offset the costs of annuities for their surviving spouses
and children; they do not have to contribute to the cost of their own
annuities. Judges appointed after 1975 must contribute 6% of their
annual salary toward the cost of their own annuities as well as to those
of their surviving spouses and children. Also, judges appointed
after 1975 must contribute 1% of their salary towards indexing their pensions
as provided for by the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
After considering submissions
by representatives of the judiciary and the Government,(7)
the Commission concluded that contributions toward judges annuities
should not continue past the point where a judge is eligible to receive
that annuity. The Commission found that, at present, additional
contributions were being required in circumstances where no additional
benefit was forthcoming, something that is not the case in employer-sponsored
pension plans.
In recognition of the fact
that the current 7% contribution includes 1% towards the indexing of judges
pensions, the Commission recommended (Recommendation 6) that contributions
toward a judicial annuity be reduced from 7% of salary to 1% for the period
during which a judge is entitled to receive a full annuity but continues
to work in either a full-time or supernumerary capacity. Clause
25 of Bill C-12 amends section 50 of the Judges Act to implement
this recommendation. New section 50(2.1) applies the same cessation
of contributions provision to Supreme Court of Canada judges who fall
under the special retirement provisions proposed by clause 20 of the bill
(see Part 2.b. below).
2. Early
and Special Retirement Provisions Clauses 20-21
a. Early
Retirement Clause 21
Currently, judges are not
permitted early retirement benefits. A judge must serve at least
15 years on the Bench, with a combined age and years of service that total
80, before she or he can qualify for a full annuity. If the judge
serves any less time, the only compensation is a return of her or his
contributions with interest (section 51 of the Judges Act).
The Drouin Commission found
this lack of an early retirement option to be inflexible and unfair, especially
because judges contributions account for only a small portion of
the value of their annuities and they are denied RRSP room for the entire
time they are making contributions to the annuity program. The Commission
also believed that many of the alleged inequities in the judges
annuity scheme would become substantially less difficult if judges could
elect to retire with some pension benefits after a reasonable period of
service. Moreover, the Commission believed that consideration of
early retirement benefits should be made in light of the changing demographic
and gender characteristics of todays judicial appointments.
Clause 21 of Bill C-12 implements
Recommendations 9-12 of the Drouin Commission Report by introducing an
early retirement option for judges based on a pro-rated benefit.
Proposed section 43.1 of the Judges Act will allow a judge, who
has served at least ten years and is at least 55 years of age,(8)
to take early retirement and exercise the option of receiving an immediate
or a deferred annuity. The amount of a deferred annuity is calculated
by multiplying two-thirds of the judges salary at the time of the
early retirement election by a fraction calculated as the number of years
of service divided by the number of years of service necessary for that
judge to become eligible for a full pension. Pursuant to the Supplementary
Retirement Benefits Act, the pension would not be payable before the
age of 60 and it would be indexed by the Consumer Price Index in each
of the years for which it was deferred. If a judge wants to elect
a pro-rated annuity that is payable immediately, the deferred annuitys
value will be reduced by 5% per year for every year that the annuity is
paid in advance of age 60. Finally, proposed section 43.1(5)
provides that where a judge had been granted a deferred annuity, or is
in receipt of an immediate annuity, and the judge dies, the judges
survivor will be granted an annuity that is calculated as if the judge
was in receipt of a deferred annuity.
b. Special
Retirement Provisions for Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada
Clause 20
Justices of the Supreme
Court of Canada are required by law to participate in the deliberative
process and judgement-writing on cases they have heard, for a period of
up to six months after retirement.(9)
Recommendation 16 of the Drouin Commission Report proposed that these
Justices should, with the certification of the Chief Justice, be eligible
for full salary and pro-rated allowances for the period of time they are
called upon to complete their work. Clause 20 of Bill C-12
will create these special retirement provisions. Proposed section
41.1 of the Judges Act specifies that a retired Supreme Court Justice,
who is participating in judgements, shall receive her or his salary less
any amount otherwise payable under the Act. In short, this is a
top-up provision whereby the judges pension would be topped up to
the judges salary level for the specified time period. The
portion of incidental or representational allowances that a judge would
receive for this time period is covered by proposed subsections 41.1(2)(b)
and (c) of the Act.
3. Survivor
Benefits Clauses 22-24
Section 44 of the Judges
Act provides for the payment of survivor annuities. The survivor
of a judge who dies while still in office receives an annuity equal to
one-third of the judges salary. On the death of a retired
judge already in receipt of an annuity, the survivor receives an annuity
equal to one-half of that granted to the judge. Section 44(3), however,
prevents a survivor of more than one judge from collecting more than one
survivors benefit.
The judiciary, for a long
time, has sought to increase survivor annuities to 40% of salary in the
case of a judge who dies in office, and 60% of the annuity where the judge
is retired. The Guthrie (1987) and Courtois (1990) Commissions both
recommended that survivor benefits be increased; however, neither addressed
the issue of who would pay for the benefit enhancement. Proposed
amendments to increase this benefit were contained in Bill C-50, which
died on the Order Paper in 1993. In 1996, the Scott Commission
took note of this long-standing issue, but chose not to make any recommendations
at that time because it believed that a salary increase was a higher priority.
Although the Drouin Commission
supported increasing survivors benefits, it was cognizant of the
question of who should pay for this enhancement. After due consideration
of the costing information it received from the Government and from Statistics
Canada in relation to the treatment of survivors benefits in public
and private pension plans, the Commission recommended (Recommendation
13) that effective 1 April 2000, the annuity provisions of the Judges
Act be amended to provide judges with the option to elect a survivors
benefit of 60% of the judicial annuity, with a consequent reduction in
the initial benefit calculated to minimize any additional cost to the
annuity plan. In Recommendation 14, the Commission supported the
ability of a judge to elect a higher survivor benefit up to 75% of the
annuitants pension with an actuarial reduction to initial benefits
that would make the election as close to cost neutral as possible.
It is interesting to note, however, that the Drouin Commission did not
refer in its recommendations to the judiciarys proposal that annuities
be increased for survivors of judges who die in office.
Although clause 23 of Bill
C-12 implements the specific recommendations of the Drouin Commission,
the system proposed in the bill is designed to minimize the cost and ensure
that the election will be as close to cost neutral as possible.
This would be achieved in three ways.
-
First,
the survivors benefit option will be exercisable at the time
of retirement, with a limited extended time period for currently retired
judges to elect an enhanced survivor benefit.
-
Second,
an exercising of the option will be void if the judge dies within
one year after making the election. In that case, original entitlements
would be reinstated.
-
Third,
a formula for actuarial reduction will be established by regulation
based on mortality tables adjusted over time to reflect the actual
experience of the judicial constituency.
Although the Drouin Commission
recommended that its survivors benefit recommendation be implemented
as of 1 April 2000, the Government did not find it feasible to provide
for the retroactive application of this benefit. Indeed, clause
27 of the bill provides for the coming into force of this provision on
a date to be fixed by Order in Council. Clause 27 is necessary to
ensure that appropriate regulations are in place to support the implementation
of clause 23.
In accordance with Recommendation
15 of the Drouin Commission Report, clause 22 of the bill repeals the
limitation contained in section 44(3) of the Judges Act which prevents
a survivor of more than one judge from collecting more than one survivors
benefit. According to the Commission, there is no justifiable basis
for the continuation of this provision. By way of example, no such
limitation exists with respect to public-sector workers or Parliamentarians.
Finally, clause 24 of the
bill makes some proposed wording changes to section 44.2 of the Judges
Act and adds a new section 44.2(3.1) to the legislation. Section
44.2 of the Act allows a judge in receipt of an annuity to reduce the
amount he or she received in order to provide for a surviving spouse who
would not otherwise qualify for an annuity under section 44. Given
that Bill C-12 introduces an early retirement option, including deferred
annuities, to the Judges Act, the current wording in receipt
in section 44.2 must be changed to granted to reflect this
amendment. Proposed new section 44.2(3.1) introduces the limitation
that an election made pursuant to section 44.2 is void if the judge dies
within one year after making the election. As with the survivor
benefits provisions in Bill C-12 (clause 23), the Government believes
that this limitation provision is necessary to ensure the survivor election
is as close to cost neutral as possible.
D. Other
Benefits Clause 20
1. Life
Insurance Proposed Section 41.2(1)
Currently, federally appointed
judges participate in non-statutory insurance benefits available under
the Public Service Management Insurance Plan (PSMIP). In contrast,
full-time Order-In-Council appointees and other senior public service
executives are covered under an executive group life insurance plan (the
Executive Plan available under the framework of the PSMIP)
from which they receive different benefits. For instance, whereas
benefits available to judges provide coverage of one or two times salary,
at the option and expense of the judge,(10)
basic life insurance coverage under the Executive Plan is available at
two times salary at no cost to the participants. Similar benefits
are available, without cost to the participants, to Parliamentarians under
their subplan of the PSMIP Executive Plan.
In their submissions to
the Drouin Commission, the Canadian Judges Conference, the Canadian
Judicial Council and the Government agreed on the need to improve life
insurance benefits available to the judiciary. The issue, however,
was how to structure an improved plan. For example, the question
of compulsory participation in the plan raised equality issues pursuant
to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As well, submissions considered the question of whether compulsory participation
could be accommodated within the umbrella of the PSMIP. After hearing
all submissions on these and other issues, the Commission recommended
(Recommendations 17 and 18) that a separate plan, under the general framework
of the PSMIP, be created for the judiciary to provide benefits equivalent
to those now enjoyed by members of the Executive Plan. In addition,
incumbent judges, at the time of the introduction of the plan, should
be able to opt out of life insurance coverage or elect to accept coverage
at 100% of salary, rather than 200% of salary.
In its response to the Commissions
life insurance recommendations, the Government agreed to accept Recommendations
17 and 18. It undertook to create a separate life insurance plan
for the judiciary and to take all possible steps to create the plan under
the general framework of the PSMIP.(11)
Proposed section 41.2 in clause 20 of the bill provides the necessary
amendments to the Judges Act to fulfil the Governments commitment,
and clause 27 of the bill defers the coming into force of these provisions
until a new plan is contracted under the PSMIP.
2. Health
and Dental Benefits Proposed Section 41.3
Clause 20 of Bill C-12 proposes
a new section 41.3 of the Judges Act to implement the Drouin Commission
recommendations (Recommendations 19 and 21) concerning health and dental
benefits for the judiciary. Specifically, the Commission had accepted
the judiciarys proposal that the current hospital benefit of $60.00
per day be upgraded to $150.00 per day to accord with hospital benefits
available to Deputy Ministers and similar Executives at no cost to the
participants in the plan. As well, the Commission had recommended
that retired judges be eligible to participate in the public servants
dental plan for retirees on the same terms and conditions as other retirees.
Currently, dental coverage available to the judiciary is identical to
that provided to all public-sector workers.
3. Survivor
Benefits Following Death on Duty Proposed Section 41.4
Recommendation 20 of the
Drouin Commission Report concerns survivor benefits resulting from an
accidental or violent death of a judge during the performance of his or
her judicial duties. The Commission noted that such survivors currently
receive limited benefits relative to Deputy Ministers and other senior
members of Government who die in like circumstances. The Commission
therefore recommended that benefits for accidental death and death caused
by acts of violence be provided to survivors of members of the judiciary
at the maximum level and on the same basis as now provided for the most
senior category of public-sector workers.
Clause 20 of Bill C-12 seeks
to implement this recommendation in a new section 41.4 of the Judges
Act. According to the Governments Response to the Drouin Commission
Report, the accidental death benefit would be consistent with the benefit
derived using the formula provided in the Government Employee Compensation
Act. The slain on duty benefit would be consistent with the
benefit derived using the same formula as contained in the Public
Service Income Benefit Plan for Survivors of Employees Slain on Duty.
E. Funding
of Representational Costs of Judges Clause 18
Clause 18 of Bill C-12 sets
out a formula for providing costs payable to representatives of the judiciary
participating in the commission process on a solicitor/client basis.
Accordingly, section 26.3 subjects the judiciarys legal representational
costs to review by an assessment officer of the Federal Court of Canada
for reasonableness, and the Government would then pay 50% of the resulting
total.
The formula set out in clause
18 contrasts the Drouin Commission recommendation (Recommendation 22)
that the Government pay 80% of the total representation costs of the Canadian
Judges Conference and the Canadian Judicial Council that were incurred
in connection with their participation in the commission inquiry.
The Commission, however, capped this amount at $230,000, inclusive of
the $80,000 that had already been contributed by the Government on an
ex gratia basis.
COMMENTARY
Bill C-12 has attracted
little attention and has therefore not been the object of widespread public
commentary.
Interestingly, however,
a number of studies seem to be evolving from the work of the Drouin Commission.
For example, although the Government was prepared to implement the Commissions
annuity-related recommendations, it believes that a comprehensive review
of the current judicial annuity regime is required. In the Governments
view, such a study would lay the groundwork for a longer term reform of
the judicial annuity scheme, consistent with the Judges Act requirement
of adequacy in support of judicial independence, the current
or changing demographics of the judiciary, and the evolution of contemporary
pension policy in response to societal changes. The review would
be designed with input from all interested persons and groups with the
hope that this undertaking would allow the next quadrennial Commission
to better address these issues.
Also in its response to
the Drouin Commission Report, the Government notes the difficulty in establishing
a true salary comparator for the judiciary. It therefore proposed
that steps be taken to improve the information base upon which salary
assumptions and comparisons can be made by the next quadrennial review.
Finally, the Government
stated that it was not prepared to accept the Commissions recommendation
(Recommendation 8) pertaining to supernumerary status for judges.
In its response, the Government points out that this recommendation would
have implications not only for the federal Government, but also for the
provinces and territories. Given that the Commission itself identified
the need for better information-gathering with respect to the contribution
of supernumerary judges to the workload of the courts, the Government
believes that this should be another element of the broader study that
it has proposed be undertaken in preparation for the next quadrennial
Commission.
SALARIES OF FEDERALLY
APPOINTED JUDGES
(1) Puisne Judges
The following chart illustrates
how the salaries of puisne judges will be determined for 2000 to 2003.
According to Statistics Canada, the Industrial Aggregate percentage for
1 April 2001 is 2.33%. For illustration purposes, this chart assumes
the following statutory indexing rates: 3.6% for 2002; and 3.7%
for 2003. The official figures of the Industrial Aggregate percentages
are available only as of April of each year.
YEAR
|
BASE
SALARY |
ECONOMIC
INCREASE |
ANNUAL
ADJUSTMENT |
FINAL SALARY
|
2000
|
$198,000
(incl. statutory indexing) |
|
|
$198,000
|
2001
|
$200,000 |
|
$4,660 (s. 25(1))*
|
$204,660
|
2002
|
$204,660
[previous year salary] |
$2,000
|
$7,440 (s. 25(1))
*
|
$214,100
|
2003
|
$214,100
[previous year salary] |
$2,000
|
$7,996 (s. 25(1))*
|
$224,096
|
(*section 25(1) formula:
Salary in previous year + $2,000 x Industrial Aggregate Percentage =
Annual Adjustment)
(2) Chief Justices
and Associate Chief Justices
The Commission set the final
salary (inclusive of statutory indexing) in the amount of $217,100 as
of 1 April 2000 for this category of judge. For the following years,
2001-2003, the salary will be increased to maintain the same proportionate
relationship as $217,100 bears to the salary of the puisne judge as of
April 2000 ($198,000). This ratio is 109.64 %. The salary
is based on the puisne judges salary for the same year multiplied
by the ratio, and therefore the annual adjustment is built into the final
salary of the Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices. The following
chart illustrates the method by which the salaries of Associate Chief
Justices and Chief Justices will be determined for 2001-2003.
YEAR
|
BASE
SALARY |
RATIO |
FINAL SALARY
|
2000
|
$217,100
(incl. statutory indexing) |
|
$217,100
|
2001
|
$204,660
(final salary of puisne judge in 2001) |
x 1.096
|
$224,307
|
2002
|
$214,100
(final salary of puisne judge in 2002) |
x 1.096
|
$234,654
|
2003
|
$224,096
(final salary of puisne judge in 2003) |
x 1.096
|
$245,609
|
(3) Chief Justice
of Canada and Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada
As with the Chief Justices
and Associate Chief Justices, the Commission set the final salary for
the Chief Justice of Canada and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada
as of 1 April 2000. The Chief Justice of Canada will receive (inclusive
of statutory indexing) $254,500, while the Justices of the Supreme Court
of Canada will each receive $235,700. For the following years, 2001-2003,
the Chief Justice of Canadas salary and the Justices of the Supreme
Court of Canadas salaries will be increased to maintain the same
proportionate relationship as $254,500 and $235,700 respectively, bear
to the salary of the puisne judge as of April 2000 ($198,000). The
ratio, in terms of the Chief Justice of Canada, is 128.53%; for Justices
of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is 119.04%. The salary is based
on the puisne judges salary for the same year multiplied by the
ratio, and therefore the annual adjustment is built into the final salary
of the Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices. The following
chart illustrates the method by which the salaries of the Chief Justice
of Canada and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada will be determined
for 2001-2003.
Chief Justice of Canada:
YEAR
|
BASE
SALARY |
RATIO |
FINAL SALARY
|
2000
|
$254,500
(incl. statutory indexing) |
|
$254,500
|
2001
|
$204,660
(final salary of puisne judge in 2001) |
x 1.285
|
$262,988
|
2002
|
$214,100
(final salary of puisne judge in 2002) |
x 1.285
|
$275,119
|
2003
|
$224,096
(final salary of puisne judge in 2003) |
x 1.285
|
$287,963
|
Justices of Supreme Court
of Canada:
YEAR
|
BASE
SALARY |
RATIO |
FINAL SALARY
|
2000
|
$235,700
(incl. statutory indexing) |
|
$235,700
|
2001
|
$204,660
(final salary of puisne judge in 2001) |
x 1.190
|
$243,545
|
2002
|
$214,100
(final salary of puisne judge in 2002) |
x 1.190
|
$254,779
|
2003
|
$224,096
(final salary of puisne judge in 2003) |
x 1.190
|
$266,674
|
Source: Justice Canada.
*
Notice: For clarity of exposition, the legislative proposals
set out in the Bill described in this Legislative Summary are stated as
if they had already been adopted or were in force. It is important
to note, however, that bills may be amended during their consideration
by the House of Commons and Senate, and have no force or effect unless
and until they are passed by both Houses of Parliament, receive Royal
Assent and come into force.
(1)
The Commission report can be found at http://www.quadcom.gc.ca/
and the Government response at
http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2000/juge.html.
The Government accepted Recommendations 1-7 and 9-21 of the Commissions
report; however, it was not prepared to accept Recommendation 8 relating
to supernumerary judges until further work is done in this area.
As well, the Government did not accept Recommendation 22 pertaining to
judicial representational costs. Instead, the Government chose to
propose an alternative formula in clause 18 of Bill C-12.
(2)
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 3.
(3)
The term puisne means ranked after and it refers to
all federally appointed judges who do not have the title Chief Justice
or Associate Chief Justice.
(4)
In its submission, the Government argued that the current level of judicial
salaries, coupled with automatic annual adjustments mandated by the statutory
indexation provision in section 25 of the Judges Act, reflects
an adequate and acceptable level of judicial remuneration. The Government
stated that if the Commission concluded that an increase in judicial salaries
was necessary, the maximum increase that could be justified would be 5.7%.
(5)
This ratio is 109.64%.
(6)
The ratio in terms of the Chief Justice of Canada is 128.53%; for Justices
of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is 119.04%.
(7)
Representatives of the judiciary had proposed that contributions to the
annuity scheme cease after 15 years of service, whether or not a
judge is then eligible to retire. The Government submitted that
contributions should be reduced from 7% to 1% of salary at the time that
a judge becomes eligible for a full annuity.
(8)
The Drouin Commission noted that it is the norm among most pension plans
in both the private and public sectors to set age 55 as a threshold for
early retirement eligibility.
(9)
Subsections 27(1) and (2) of the Supreme Court of Canada Act.
(10)
Variable premiums apply to judges based on the age and gender of the participant
in the plan.
(11)
The PSMIP is a plan established and insured contractually with a private
insurer. As such, it is administered by a board of Trustees.
The Government must therefore obtain both the consent of the insurer and
the concurrence of the Board to establish a new plan under the PSMIP.
|