JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 19, 1998

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): It's Thursday, November 19, 1998, and we are starting today a study of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in consequence.

For your information, the minister on this bill will be our last witness, which I think is a good way to sum this up. We're embarking on a little bit of history here, because we're creating a new justice system for a new territory.

We have today Howard Bebbington, who is counsel, criminal law policy section, of the Department of Justice, and Karen Markham, who is counsel, criminal law policy section. And for those of you who weren't with the justice committee, which is everyone except John Maloney, Karen travelled with us on the Young Offenders Act as well. So we're glad to welcome her back. We have Adair Crosby, counsel, judicial affairs unit, and Moray Welch, counsel, criminal law policy section. We also have John Merritt, who is senior adviser, Nunavut secretariat, northern program, from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I've also met him before in a briefing. Welcome to our committee.

Did you want to start, Mr. Bebbington?

Mr. Howard H. Bebbington (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Yes. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the standing committee.

I'd like to start my remarks this morning by thanking the committee for this opportunity to appear before you as you start your review of Bill C-57. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the clerk of the committee, Mr. Roger Préfontaine, for his kind assistance over the last few weeks as we prepared for our appearance this morning.

I understand from Mr. Préfontaine that he has distributed to you the legislation briefing book that we prepared for committee members' use during the study of Bill C-57. We hope these materials will be of assistance to you. There are a few things I'd like to point out quickly. In addition to the extensive clause-by-clause materials you will find under tab 6, you may also find of particular value the questions and answers at tab 3 of the binder, and there is a short three-page summary of the bill at tab 4. Of course the materials are bilingual, and I understand you have two volumes, one English, one French.

• 0915

The Chair: I want to make sure the department knows how much we appreciate your presenting these books to us whenever you appear. We know it's a lot of extra work for you. It allows us the luxury of actually letting our researchers go home for dinner at night.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Yes. We understand the importance of that.

The Chair: We don't want it to get out of hand. We do appreciate the support the department gives.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Thank you. I think you can take it, Madam Chair, as a regular practice now. We've done it for the last few bills. It seems to make sense. We're happy to provide information that will help people to focus on the content.

The Chair: We're very grateful.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Thank you.

Madam Chair, I would propose that my colleagues and I give you a short presentation on the purpose and effect of the bill. Following that, we would be happy to answer any questions you may have on the bill. If that meets with your approval, I would like to start with a statement about the purpose of the bill. In this regard, I can do no better than to refer committee members to the summary and explanatory note that appears on the first page of the bill.

If I may, I would like to just read the first part of this statement:

In response to a request made to the Minister of Justice by the parties to the Nunavut Political Accord entered into on October 30, 1992, and with the support of other Nunavut organizations, this enactment creates a single-level trial court system for the Territory of Nunavut in order to provide an efficient and accessible court structure capable of responding to the unique needs of Nunavut while, at the same time, maintaining substantive and procedural rights equivalent to those enjoyed elsewhere in Canada.

Madam Chair, perhaps a simpler way to state the same thing is to say that the purpose of Bill C-57 is to implement a new court structure for the Territory of Nunavut. When I say “new court structure” I use the word “new” in two senses. The first is the obvious sense that with a new territory Nunavut will have to have a court system of its own. The second sense in which I use this word is that the court structure we propose to implement for Nunavut is new in the sense that it is different from the court structure that exists in any other jurisdiction in Canada.

As committee members will know, in every other jurisdiction there are two levels of trial court, the provincial or territorial court, the so-called inferior court, and the supreme or superior court of the jurisdiction. What Bill C-57 proposes to do is to combine those two trial court levels into one trial court, called the Nunavut Court of Justice.

The reason for this is that, as members of the committee may know, justice services are delivered in Nunavut by flying the court party in and out of remote communities. The court party consists of the judge, lawyers, the clerk, often an accused person and police, often in the same plane. It is our belief that it makes little sense to fly in and out of remote communities two trial levels, neither of which can do everything.

Bill C-57 proposes to combine those into one trial court level that can fly into these communities on the court circuits and deal with everything on the court docket, from serious matters to minor matters, from matters of family, civil or criminal content. In doing so, we hope this system will be simpler and more efficient. We hope the system will reduce the number and hence the cost of court circuits, and reduce the delay faced by parties who are awaiting court appearances. We heard during second reading how devastating that delay can be on some members of the community as they wait for their court appearance.

It is also our hope that the single-level trial court will bring the court closer to the community, in that the communities will get to know the court and their judges better and the judges in turn will get to know the community. It is also our hope that the single-level trial court will provide sufficient flexibility so that the people of Nunavut may adapt their justice system to meet their needs after Nunavut comes into being on April 1, 1999.

I would now, if I may, like to turn to the content of the bill itself. If it meets with the committee's approval, my colleagues and I will give you a brief sense of what's in the bill.

Members will notice that the bill is divided into two parts. The first part makes amendments to the Nunavut Act itself. The second part is entitled “Consequential and Conditional Amendments and Coming into Force”. The title may be a little bit misleading. The second part is clearly the larger part of the bill. It contains the vast number of amendments. It contains amendments to the Criminal Code, the Judges Act, the Young Offenders Act, and a host of other federal statutes. The largest single component of the amendments are the Criminal Code amendments, and you will find those at clauses 25 to 58 inclusive.

• 0920

In a moment I'm going to call on my colleagues to help me explain the various amendments in part 2 of the bill. But before I do that, I'd like to tell you briefly what's in part 1. Again, members will notice that part 1 is divided into four parts. They're each called divisions, divisions 1 through 4. Part 1, division 1 makes amendments to part I of the Nunavut Act itself.

For the most part, these amendments are consequential, substituting names—for example, the Nunavut Court of Justice for the Supreme Court of Nunavut. But you'll want to pay particular attention to clauses 2 and 5. Clause 2 amends section 31 of the Nunavut Act, and by so doing establishes the single-level trial court called the Nunavut Court of Justice. Clause 5, by making an amendment to section 34 of the Nunavut Act, establishes the very important principle that the Nunavut Court of Justice will be able to do all matters—not just the matters that a superior court may do, but also those matters the so-called inferior courts, the lower courts and officials do.

Subsection 34(2), as proposed to be amended by Bill C-57, makes it very clear that no matter what the single-level trial court is doing, it retains its capacity as a superior court. This is again a very important concept in the notion of implementing a single-level trial court.

Division 2 makes amendments to part IV of the Nunavut Act dealing with transitional matters such as pending cases and the transfer, or potential transfer, of those cases to the new system in Nunavut. Division 3 makes a consequential amendment to the Northwest Territories Act, and division 4 amends schedule III to the Nunavut Act, which sets out a large number of consequential amendments.

The amendments in schedule III will be repealed, so the amendments in our bill, the consequential amendments—and again, you will see a vast number of these to various federal statutes in part 2 of this bill—for the most part substitute the name the Nunavut Court of Justice for the Supreme Court of Nunavut.

I'm going to call on my colleagues to give you a sense of what's in part 2, starting with my colleague Karen Markham, who will explain to you certain aspects or features of the Criminal Code amendments.

Karen.

Ms. Karen Markham (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Thanks very much, Howard.

I'd like to speak to two aspects, the first being the question of jurisdiction. As Howard was saying, this single-level trial court, the Nunavut Court of Justice, is intended to deal with everything, and in the criminal law context, obviously, everything in the Criminal Code.

At clause 50 of the bill there's proposed subsection 573(1), which essentially confers the power on the Nunavut Court of Justice to have all the powers, exercise all the duties and functions of any criminal court and/or judicial official in the code.

The second part of that section confirms that when the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice exercises those powers, whatever they might be, he or she does so as a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice, as a superior court judge. Essentially, that was to avoid the fragmentation of the functions of that judge into what we call a persona designata, to confirm in fact that when the court acts, regardless of the function it's performing, it does so as a superior court. And that's very important, in terms of this concept of a unified court.

The second thing I'd like to speak to you about relates to appeals. The appeals clauses are set out at clauses 55 to 57. I'd just like to indicate that really, the only substantive change we are making relates to summary conviction appeals in instances where summary conviction matters are heard by a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice. As members may well know, in most jurisdictions, in fact in every other jurisdiction across Canada, the superior court usually acts as the court of first appeal from a summary conviction matter. So of course in Nunavut we were faced with the question of where the appeal ought to go when the decision, in the first instance, is made by a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice.

To achieve the objectives we've identified, and Howard talked of, in terms of maintaining substantial equivalent rights of appeal and choosing a route that does not aggravate the difficulty of delay in the north when you're dealing with circuit systems, the route we're proposing to take in this section as set out in clauses 55 to 57 is to allow a summary conviction appeal at first instance from a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice to a single judge of the court of appeal. Then there would be a secondary right of appeal, as there is elsewhere in Canada, on much more restricted grounds to a full panel of the court of appeal. We have maintained the grounds for appeal, so there is no change in that respect. We've simply modified the route.

• 0925

I think it's important to say that with regard to appeals in indictable matters and the appeal routes and grounds in situations where a justice of the peace might hear a matter, those have all been maintained so they're exactly the same in Nunavut as they are elsewhere in Canada.

Those are the main points I wanted to make vis-à-vis the appeal. I'll refer back to my colleague, Howard.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Thank you, Karen.

In second reading a question was raised by an opposition member about the appeal structure. We want to emphasize that the single-level trial court—the combining of the two trial court levels—deals with the trial level, not the appeal. The appeal structure will be roughly the same with the changes Karen referred to, so the appeal rights will be preserved substantially as they exist elsewhere.

The Chair: Mr. Bebbington, may I just interrupt you for a minute?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Please.

The Chair: There are several lawyers around the table, and I'll bet their heads are going where mine is. Could you just tell us where the appeal judges will come from? Just give us an outline of that so the committee understands there's no court of appeal created in this bill.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Of course. The appointments have yet to be made and it's not a matter I can speak directly to in terms of the appointment. But in terms of the basic policy approach, we can tell you the core of the NWT Court of Appeal is the Alberta Court of Appeal. Chief Justice Catherine Fraser of Alberta is also the Chief Justice of the Northwest Territories.

When we were involved in consultations and discussions with people in the north about the most suitable court system for Nunavut, part of the debate and discussion was what structure the appeal court should take. As you may know, there's a great deal of interest in the north to have a northern and resident court of appeal. But this involves having appellate judges who live in the north full-time, and there are considerable difficulties and logistical problems with this.

There isn't unanimity of agreement across the north about a pan-Arctic court of appeal that could serve all three territories. So with the absence of a clear consensus in terms of the way to go, and given the relatively short time period between now and the creation of Nunavut and all that needs to be done to have that jurisdiction fully operational, it was decided to set that question aside and leave it to the Government of Nunavut, when it comes into existence, to resolve those issues for itself.

The current plan is that we will continue, at least for a transitional period, the current NWT Court of Appeal as the Nunavut Court of Appeal.

Does that help you?

The Chair: I have a bunch of questions. Why would we use Alberta when Iqaluit is closer to Montreal? Why would we use Alberta when Rankin Inlet is closer to Winnipeg or Ottawa?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Those are extremely good questions. There are a number of potential models. On a northern court of appeal that resides in the north and takes care of all three territories, although the distance between Whitehorse and Iqaluit is immense, hypothetically one could imagine the core of the court of appeal for Nunavut being farther east than Alberta because of the lines of communication between Ottawa or Montreal and Iqaluit.

But those decisions need to be taken with a great deal of deliberation and consideration, and I really believe it is better for the Government of Nunavut to consider those questions itself and decide what is most appropriate. The NWT Court of Appeal also contains members of the NWT Supreme Court, so there will be judges in the north—I think in both Iqaluit and Yellowknife—who can be called into service to assist in the appeal structure.

For the transitional period it seemed best to use a court structure we know works and is already familiar with that geography. As you may also know, the NWT court structure makes use of judges from jurisdictions other than Alberta, such as Saskatchewan.

The Chair: Or Windsor.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: All sorts of things are possible.

The Chair: There is a deputy judge from Windsor. I articled for him, that's why I know.

• 0930

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Deputy judges and ex-officio judges from the south are used in the trial courts as well. Nunavut will have to be very flexible in how it approaches this, but this question on the appeal structure for Nunavut seemed best to leave for Nunavut to consider after April 1, 1999. Frankly, the difficulty of attempting to develop a new structure and revise the Criminal Code and other federal statutes to implement this structure for Nunavut was enough of a challenge to achieve by, and sufficiently in advance of, April 1, 1999, in order to make sure it is effective.

On that particular point, it's important to understand we have not just until April 1. There's a great deal that has to be done in the north to get ready for this new court structure. The people in the north will need to know if the legislation is passed sufficiently in advance, so things like rules of court may be prepared and registrars, registries and structures can be adapted to suit the single-level trial court. Again, the time line is quite difficult.

The Chair: But if there were a conviction on April 10 and it were appealed, there would be somebody to catch the appeal and do it in the end.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Yes, absolutely.

We're doing everything possible to make sure there is absolutely no gap at all. I'm sure you will hear more from the Minister of Justice from the Northwest Territories when he appears before you, but territorial legislation is being developed in advance of April 1, 1999 that will be brought into force for Nunavut, so there will be no gap; there will be nothing missing.

The Chair: I'm sorry to take you off your tack there.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Not at all. Please feel free to do so at any time.

I would just like to call on my colleague, Moray Welch. There are certain other features of the Criminal Code amendments we'd like to explain to you.

Mr. Moray Welch (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): I would just like to take you through some of the more technical things. One of the consequences of establishing a single-level trial court at the superior court level is that what's known as the extraordinary remedies or the prerogative writs according to the common law will no longer apply.

This bill goes some way toward replacing those remedies where they still have a certain practical use in criminal procedure in our time. As an example, for search warrants and review of preliminary inquiries, the criminal procedure in Canada still uses those writs as the principal vehicle for reviewing in certain situations. So we have codified similar recourses in statutes for decisions of the single-level trial court that otherwise would not be subject to review, for example, when it does a preliminary inquiry, which elsewhere in Canada is done by an inferior court judge, who is automatically subject to a writ.

It's also a limited recourse to certain very precise points. It's also limited to those decisions that elsewhere in Canada, as a general rule, are made by inferior court judges. If a decision elsewhere in Canada is made by a superior court judge it will not be subject to review, as is the case in the rest of Canada.

I should also say on this regime, like the regime for summary conviction of appeals, this remedy will be had before a single judge of the court of appeal. Like the other extraordinary remedies, there will be a further full appeal before a three-judge panel of the court of appeal.

If you had time to flip through the bill you may have noticed that the major part of the amendments to the Criminal Code, articles 35 to 49, is made up of fairly technical material. I can explain those amendments to you fairly quickly because conceptually it's not complicated. These are amendments to what's known as the election scheme, the elections as to mode of trial scheme in Canada. They're designed to take into account the fact that there is no longer a provincial court judge or an institution called a provincial court judge in Nunavut. We have replaced that mode of trial with the new option of trial by judge with no preliminary inquiry and no jury.

• 0935

So we maintained the three options as to mode of trial that exist elsewhere in Canada, and these amendments are all about adjusting the Criminal Code, or the way the Criminal Code works, to take into account that we no longer have two courts; we only have one court. We have three modes of trial, but only one court now. I would be happy to answer any questions on that, but for the most part it's very technical and slow-going.

The last point I'd like to make is that in terms of judicial interim release, we anticipate most of the decisions in respect of judicial interim release will be made by justices of the peace, as they are now. That regime will stay in place. Where, however, a decision to release or not release a person accused of a crime is made by a judge of the superior court of the Nunavut Court of Justice, that decision will be reviewed by a judge of the same court.

We have not changed, however, the rule that states for certain very grave crimes, any decision that is made by a superior court judge to release or not release an individual is appealed to the court of appeal. There I'm speaking of murder and the other section 469 offences.

Those are some of the more technical aspects of the bill, and we may get into them, but I think I'd like to pass the microphone to Adair Crosby.

Ms. Adair Crosby (Counsel, Judicial Affairs Unit, Department of Justice): I'd like to speak to you about the Judges Act amendments that are contained in the bill. As members will know, the federal government is responsible for payment of the salaries, allowances, and benefits of all superior court judges and federally appointed judges in Canada, and those provisions must be authorized by Parliament and are found in the Judges Act.

The Chair: Do we really have to go here? I'm joking, I'm joking. You've been here.

Ms. Adair Crosby: As my colleague Howard has pointed out, this will be a superior court, so the Judges Act has to be amended to provide for the authorization of the judges who will sit on the Nunavut Court of Justice.

The bill does three things in respect of the Judges Act. The provisions are found in clauses 72 to 77. The most important thing the bill does is to provide for the payment of three judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice, whose salaries will be the same as any other superior court puisne judge in Canada.

The second thing the bill does is a result of the provision of the salaries, and that is to extend to the superior court judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice the same benefits as any other judge either in the north or in the south would receive. So there are a number of technical amendments in there, which extend things like the northern allowance, the representation allowance, and the removal allowance.

The final thing the bill does that is of some importance is to provide for the full membership on the Canadian Judicial Council for the senior judges of each of the three territories in the north. As members will know, the Canadian Judicial Council is the body comprised of the most senior members of the judiciary, whose primary statutory responsibility is to receive and consider complaints concerning the federally appointed judiciary. It also serves as an important forum for discussion and consultation on topics of interest to the judiciary.

What this bill will do is provide for full membership for each of the senior judges. Up until now, the current statutory regime provides that the senior judges in the NWT and the Yukon rotate every two years so their membership is shared.

The balance of the amendments in the bill, as I mentioned, are quite technical. There are some definitional changes to accommodate the fact there will be the establishment of a court on a certain date, with three judges coming in at the same time. So there's an issue of who will be the senior judge in the event all three are appointed on the same date.

Other than that, if there are no questions, I'll turn the floor back to my colleague Howard.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Thanks, Adair.

I'm going to turn now to Karen again to give us just a quick sense of the last block of the bill, which is on the Young Offenders Act.

Ms. Karen Markham: Thank you very much, Howard.

I would like to emphasize that none of the changes to the Young Offenders Act, which are set out in clauses 86 to 89, represent policy changes to the act. These are really more of a technical nature, to accommodate the operation of a single-level trial court in Nunavut, and the fact that the youth court in Nunavut will be the Nunavut Court of Justice.

• 0940

In that regard, I think it's important to note that whoever else in Nunavut is authorized to act in any capacity as a youth court—and I'm thinking specifically of justices of the peace—the only official able to do murder trials in youth court will be a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice. We've set that out in the new proposed section 19.1. That addresses the elections available to a young person who is charged with murder in youth court. The election there will be between judge alone or judge and jury.

The other modification we've made is with respect to appeals on summary conviction matters. Elsewhere in Canada those appeals, the first-instance appeals from a decision of a superior court judge who is sitting as a youth court, are to a three-person panel of the court of appeal.

We are concerned about the interests of symmetry with the adult system, and we again have regard to issues of delay and substantially preserving equivalent rights in the summary conviction context. Therefore, where that matter is heard by the youth court comprised of a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice, that appeal will be to a single judge of the court of appeal.

Those are two aspects of the youth system that I wanted to bring to your attention, and they are reflected in the amendments.

Thank you.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: I would like to just make a quick point about the Judges Act and the Young Offenders Act, and repeat what Karen has said.

Both of those acts, of course, raise larger policy questions that this committee will come to consider, and has already considered. In the context of our bill, they are purely technical types of amendments to facilitate the single-level trial court. So, as the chair has already indicated, there are large questions raised by the Judges Act amendments, but also by the Young Offenders Act.

We are not dealing with major policy issues in relation to either one of those two statutes. The amendments in this bill simply are necessary to implement the court structure that we are proposing for Nunavut.

Now I'll just conclude with the final clause of the bill, clause 92. It sets out the rules for coming into force, and I won't bore you with those. I think they're fairly clear on their face.

Madam Chair, that concludes our presentation. We'd be happy to answer any questions members may have.

The Chair: I have to tell my colleagues that I have some questions, too.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): We'd be happy to fit you in, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks.

I'm just warning you: we have until 11 o'clock, so I'll give the rest of you three minutes. No.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Chuck, go ahead.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing today.

I just have a couple of questions. On the assumption that the new court is established, any new system usually runs into glitches somewhere along the line. I was just wondering who will be monitoring the functioning of the court. How will that be monitored? How will that be reported, and how will it be remedied? That's my first question.

Other parts of the country, like the territories, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, parts of British Columbia, the northern parts of Quebec, are just as remote. They have remote access for courts. I mean, is this being considered as a possible template for other parts of the country? If so, what kinds of changes will we have to have constitutionally if we're going to go into the provinces and do these kinds of things?

Those are my two questions.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Thank you for those questions.

Your first point was about monitoring glitches. When you're attempting something new there's always the potential for unforeseen events, and of course no one is perfect, so there may be problems that develop.

Both the Nunavut Department of Justice and the federal Department of Justice are involved now in establishing an evaluation framework. That will keep a close eye on this new entity as it comes into being, as it starts to operate. We will want to keep a close eye on it. We will also hopefully want to retain a capacity to respond if problems develop.

Again, the structure is new. There's no blueprint out there. This has never been tried before in Canada. I think members of the public might be surprised when we say this is new or controversial. They might see this as a fairly simple, small change. In the justice system it is a significant change that will change the structure from what has existed since Confederation.

So we will be watching it. I can assure you that the Nunavut Department of Justice will be keeping a close eye on it. It will be evaluating the changes, and if problems develop, it will want to respond very quickly.

Now I will turn to your second question about other remote regions. It is true that some of the problems and some of the unique ways in which justice services are delivered in Nunavut can be seen in other remote regions in other provinces.

• 0945

The work we are doing here is to structure a court system that is appropriate for the unique circumstances of Nunavut. At this point it is not part of a justice department or federal initiative to change the court structure across the country.

Our main point is that the people of Nunavut were involved in discussions with us about the court structure that would be most appropriate for them. A decision was made by northern leaders that the single-level trial court would be most appropriate, and we are responding to their wishes to implement that. We believe the structure has considerable potential advantages and benefits for the north.

I must say that this creates a great opportunity for other jurisdictions to watch the single-level trial court structure, to learn from it, to see what lessons it may offer for the other jurisdictions.

If other jurisdictions are interested—I hope they will be, and I hope they will watch and monitor as well—we're certainly open to discussions with them about implementing some changes to their system that would go along this way. That would raise larger questions that we're not able to address fully at this point.

I don't believe that constitutional changes would be required to implement those, but we would have to look at each jurisdiction specifically. Some members of the committee may know that in New Brunswick there's been an interest for some time in a unified criminal court or a single-level trial court structure. Those discussions have gone back and forth, off and on, over a long period of time, and difficulties have been encountered with respect to the idea of implementing that in New Brunswick.

Each jurisdiction will have to think about the issue for itself. It ought to take advantage of the circumstances in Nunavut, monitor that, and see if there are lessons they can learn.

We're quite prepared to discuss that with them as they wish.

Colleagues, Karen, Moray, does anybody want to add to that?

Ms. Karen Markham: I don't really have anything else. Thank you.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Does that help?

The Chair: I want to get to Mr. Lee.

Go ahead, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I want to thank you all for being here. It is a very interesting, very exciting time, I'm sure, for the justice system in Nunavut.

I had a few concerns about the use of JPs in this system. I noticed that in the briefing note, in the documents we were provided, there was a passage that said:

With appropriate training, there is potential for greater use for justices of the peace to conduct some preliminary inquiries and summary conviction trials.

Now, I take it from your remarks today that they're going to play a significant role in hearing preliminary inquiries and making decisions on bail. As you know, JPs have some discretion to do that now with respect to bail. But are you suggesting that justices of the peace are going to play a significant role in that area? Are they going to be making decisions on bail for serious offences, section 469 offences, as well?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: That's a very important question.

Karen, would you like to respond to that?

Ms. Karen Markham: Yes, I can respond to that. I think it's very important to be clear that we're not proposing any kind of expansion of the legislative jurisdiction for justices of the peace.

In the code now, as you know, the definition of “justice” includes either justice of the peace or provincial court judge. Either of them are empowered to do a preliminary inquiry now. They are not empowered to do section 469 bail decisions, and they would not be in Nunavut. We would not propose to expand the jurisdiction. The note would be referring to a recognition that with the appropriate training— We're talking about a long-term training project.

We're not proposing that on April 1, 1999, justices of the peace who've never done preliminary inquiries, for example, start doing them. With the appropriate training in the north, we're suggesting that it may be possible for justices of the peace to start to fulfill some of those legislative jurisdictional roles, if you like, that are set out in the Criminal Code. This would be to a greater degree than is currently being done.

This would have the advantage of allowing matters to be dealt with, initially at least, in the communities, as opposed to perhaps waiting for the court circuit to come in.

So there's some issue with respect to access to justice that the justice of the peace can fulfil. But we're not proposing at this time—

And of course the regulation of the activities of justices of the peace and an indication of their jurisdiction coextensive with their appointment is a territorial responsibility. That will be closely governed by the territorial authorities.

Specifically we expect that this will be governed by the senior judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice, in terms of what their designations allow them to do. What we see in the long term is perhaps them being able to do more than what they are doing now.

• 0950

Mr. Peter MacKay: I take your answer at face value. The reason I asked the question is I know even in the short time I've been here that we've expanded the potential for JPs to be more involved.

You'll recall the Feeney decision. That decision resulted in changes to warrant applications. There is also a concern that police officers more and more are going to be using the services of JPs. Their availability I think is a real concern in this country throughout the provinces, and I'm sure the territories as well.

I'm a little bit apprehensive about us going in this direction where we're going to be giving JPs basically more responsibility and it's going to cut into their time, their availability to do preliminary inquiries. I know that they presently have the power to do that. I've never seen that happen. I've never seen a preliminary inquiry before a JP. And quite frankly, without a significant amount of training I'd be very concerned.

So to put it into a question, who is going to pay for that training? I assume it will be the federal government. The training is going to have to be significant, because, with respect, JPs do not have law degrees for the most part. A lot of them are retired police officers or people who are in communities who have had some experience in a court, but they don't have the formal legal training to make decisions. A bail hearing or a decision on a warrant can be a very technical thing now, as you know, and has far-reaching ramifications. So I would hope the training would be significant and I hope this isn't going to happen in a relatively short time just to expedite this new bill.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Your concern is a very valid one, if I may say. Obviously you speak from a background in the criminal justice system.

One of the important points I would add to what Karen has already said is that it's important to remember that what JPs do in Nunavut will be very much up to the supervision of the senior judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice. We believe we can rely on the judges of the Nunavut Court of Justice, and particularly the senior judge, to ensure that JPs are not doing matters that it is inappropriate for them to do.

As you say, preliminary inquiries are not done now by justices of the peace anywhere that I'm aware of, although I hear once in a while about an odd experiment. But we have to remember the difficulty of delivering justice services in the north and the great potential that JPs have, because they are located in the communities, for bringing the justice system closer to the communities.

It's true they are not legally trained and they're not likely to be lawyers up in Nunavut, but the judges of the single-level trial court will in all likelihood be resident in Iqaluit flying into the remote communities, whereas the justices of the peace will be people drawn from the community who live in the community. We think there's a great potential here for making the justice system reach out and really integrate well with the communities, but that potential has to be developed over time, and the territory is very well aware of the difficulties.

With respect to funding, I believe there are plans currently under way for the Department of Justice to help the Nunavut Department of Justice in funding JP training. I understand there are plans currently under way to have a full-time coordinator of justices of the peace who will have several functions, including a public legal education outreach component, but in addition to that, working with justices in the community having a view to things like appointments of appropriate justices and clearly training. This is something that will be extremely important.

Just to go back to what I started with, I think we can rely on the senior judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice not to have justices of the peace doing things it's inappropriate for them to do or that they're not competent to handle.

Just as an anecdote, I would add that a year ago, in November 1997, we all were in Iqaluit and met with a number of justices of the peace and court workers from the communities. We had a chance to talk to them about what they see about the system, what they feel able to do, what types of training and support they need. And I can assure you that the leaders of Nunavut, who were also participating in that conference, are quite aware of those issues and that they are extremely important.

Karen, have I missed anything here?

Ms. Karen Markham: No. I think actually the aspect of the training that Howard mentioned is very important and has been identified as a priority by the deputy minister of the Nunavut Department of Justice. So there's a great deal of awareness about the need for training if we're going to encourage the greater use of JPs.

• 0955

Mr. Peter MacKay: Further to that, is there an actual training program that's being devised for JPs in Nunavut?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: I believe there is one being developed. I can't speak to the details of that, but I think you have coming before you next week two officials from the interim commissioner's office, one of whom is the deputy designate of Nunavut justice. I think these would be wonderful questions to pose to them, as well.

The Chair: Who appoints the JPs, us or the territory?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: The territorial government.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You mentioned the judicial advisory committee for Nunavut. Do you have any idea when that's going to be up and running?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Adair, do you want to speak to that?

Ms. Adair Crosby: The minister has indicated her intention to establish a committee in Nunavut. I understand the process is ongoing. From what I understand, letters have been written to the people who would nominate members of the committee and there's an expectation that it will be done quite soon. Other than that, I'm not aware of the details.

Mr. Peter MacKay: What would that committee comprise? It seems to me there's a potential for overlap here, because some of the people who were perhaps appropriate for JPs—and I've been to the north, I know some of these communities are tiny—in that community might also be the most appropriate persons to be on this advisory committee. I'm wondering how far-reaching it's going to be.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Sir, we're a little confused about your question. When you mentioned advisory committee, we assumed you meant the advisory committee for appointment of the superior court judges, but you may be talking about the community justice committee—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, I'm sorry, I should have clarified that.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: I must say that this is difficult for us to answer. I think it might be a better question for you to put to some of the people from Nunavut. In addition to the interim commissioner's office, I understand NTI, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, will be appearing. These are people who are quite knowledgeable about how the justice committees work in the particular communities. I would hate to leave you with a false impression about it. We, in the end, aren't people who live in those communities. It might be a good idea to pose the questions to them.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure.

I have one final question, if I may. This question is for you, Ms. Markham. I'm not picking on you, but you had spoken of the young offenders, and, as I'm sure you're aware, there are potential changes coming soon.

I'm concerned about the issue of transfers. You spoke of how we're basically having superior court and provincial court collapsed into one, and the transfer elements only permit, as I recall, a jury trial if the person is in fact elevated. There's the presumption of transfer now, and the presumption has switched, but are we eliminating this transfer provision? Is this still going to have the same procedure? Will it still follow the same steps where you have essentially now the one level?

Ms. Karen Markham: I'm only able to speak to the current Young Offenders Act—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure.

Ms. Karen Markham: —and its operation in Nunavut. For clarification, the transfer scheme will operate the same in Nunavut as it does elsewhere in Canada. So the transfer hearings will be heard by a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice, and if the individual then is transferred to adult court, they will of course then be dealt with by perhaps the same court but in a different context, the adult context.

Just for clarification, as you know, with respect to murder trials only, there is an election, even if the individual stays within the youth court, to have a judge and jury trial—

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's right.

Ms. Karen Markham: —or a judge alone. That will not be changed. Have I answered your question?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, by virtue of you saying that it will stay the same. I was just concerned about that.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Under our bill.

Ms. Karen Markham: Under our bill, yes.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Of course we're not involved directly in what changes may be proposed in the near future, so we cannot comment on those. But what we're looking at is attempting to provide a youth justice system that for all intents and purposes operates the same in Nunavut as it does anywhere else, given the fact there will be one trial level. And of course the youth court will be the single-level trial court, or the youth court judges will be.

There is some potential, ultimately, for justices of the peace to sit as youth court judges, depending on how the territory decides to implement that. But as Karen has said, for all intents and purposes, in the context of our bill the system will operate the same as it does elsewhere.

• 1000

Mr. Peter MacKay: Similarly, and I believe you've covered this, the appeal process, for all intents and purposes, would be the same as well. If by virtue of having a trial you made an appeal to— You're basically just saying it would be a different judge. It's all the same level, but you would get an opportunity to go before a single judge of the Nunavut court, and then have that third or second stage of appeal where it would be before a panel.

Ms. Karen Markham: I should clarify that you may have misunderstood or I may have misspoken about that. With respect to summary conviction matters, that's the only area where the route has changed. As you know, in section 27 of the Young Offenders Act, where the youth court is a superior court, the appeal route is normally to the court of appeal.

What we have done is maintained the symmetry, if you like, with the adult changes to the summary conviction routes we're proposing. So the first level of appeal would be to a single judge of the court of appeal. A second appeal then, as is available elsewhere in Canada, would be to the three-person panel.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So a youth court appeal doesn't circumvent that. You're saying that's the only natural change.

Ms. Karen Markham: That's the only change. Only the route has changed, not the grounds. Nothing else has changed. The indictable appeal routes will be the same. That's the only substantive change, if you like.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This may just be a penetrating statement of the obvious, but you would never have a situation where you would have a judge who heard one appeal sitting on the same panel. I'm just thinking in terms of availability of judges.

Ms. Karen Markham: In terms of the appeal court?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Ms. Karen Markham: You mean the single judge of the court of appeal? That will no doubt be a scheduling matter that will be dealt with, I would expect, by either the chief justice or the person who's designated as responsible for the administration of the appeal court in Nunavut.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But it's not explicitly stated.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): I think we'll move on.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure, that's fine.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): We'll get back to you on round two.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, the creation of a unified court sounds simple, but I can see it's very complex.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: That's certainly the way we feel, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Most of the discussion here today has been with reference to the Criminal Code. I take it that this statute also sets up the court to handle all civil matters. What about family law matters? Is it the same thing?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Yes.

Mr. Derek Lee: What about the Federal Court?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: The Federal Court will remain the same. It's a separate entity, and it has a jurisdiction of its own. So it's untouched. It will continue to have some application in the north as it does now. This will be akin to the superior court of any province or territory, and it will have plenary jurisdiction to deal with all serious or minor civil, family, or criminal matters.

Mr. Derek Lee: But it won't deal with Federal Court jurisdiction matters.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: Now there was some discussion about the prerogative writs. I believe our witnesses has indicated that there's been kind of a recodification of these things.

Mr. Moray Welch: Yes, there's a codification.

Mr. Derek Lee: Prerogative writs are in common law. The habeas corpus writ is a right, but the others are there in common law, and they exist for Canadians. So if there's a codification happening, then it's pretty important for us to know what that does, because we may not just be setting up a court, we may be altering the common law rights of the citizen, given the original intent of the prerogative writs.

Can you tell me a little bit—just go about an inch and a half deep, not a foot deep—to indicate to me that a citizen in Nunavut hasn't got less access to what the prerogative writs would have allowed him or her to have?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Let me just start on that, then I'll ask Moray to finish up on it.

You'll appreciate, Mr. Lee, that our difficulty in trying to develop the single level for our court structure is that all of the judges will be superior court judges. At common law, those judges are not amenable to review by way of prerogative writ. It simply goes against the theory of it.

The concern about developing this structure is that when you do away with the inferior court level and put all of the trial at the superior court level, you have, by virtue of this, completely eliminated the prerogative writ review.

Now an outcome that would be unacceptable to us from a policy perspective and I think perhaps also from a legal perspective, would be to do away, as Moray was saying, with the vital form of expeditious and often interlocutory review that is available in all other jurisdictions.

• 1005

So what we have attempted to do is provide the same mechanism statutorily. You advert to the problems of codification. Of course, that's obviously correct. When you codify, there's a possibility that you haven't gotten all of it or that you've gotten a little more than what exists elsewhere.

In the process of developing our amendments in this bill, we have used experts liberally—you'll pardon the word—from across the country who know a great deal about prerogative writs. We have the involvement of a professor at Queen's University who's an expert in this area. We consulted our own prosecutors and a number of lawyers and judges across the country.

I can't guarantee you that we've got it 100% right. But what we've tried to do is provide the basics of the system. We've tried to get what's essential to make sure that participants, parties before the court, have equal opportunity and access. That's what we attempted to do. Whether we've been successful, only time will tell.

Moray, can you continue?

Mr. Moray Welch: I don't think I can add too much to that, other than to say that—

Mr. Derek Lee: That got us in about an inch deep; I'd like to go an inch and a half deep.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: We'll go a half-inch more.

Mr. Moray Welch: I start from the same point. Right away, you have a different situation in Nunavut because every decision that will be made will be made a superior court. That's different from the situation in the rest of Canada, where great classes of decisions are almost always made by inferior courts, and therefore are almost always subject to review. Some might say it's an advantage for Nunavut, in that they'll have more qualified judges. In the criminal context, we're not so sure about that.

We're not after creating exactly the same regime as exists elsewhere in Canada. We have a different regime. We start from that proposition, then we identify the areas where the prerogative writs elsewhere in Canada, from a policy perspective but not necessarily from a charter or constitutional perspective, continue to play a role in the criminal procedure that we need to continue in Nunavut in order for there to be an efficient and well-organized judicial system.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Mr. Moray Welch: Because it's a superior court, we don't feel—

If this is part of your question—

Mr. Derek Lee: I hope you're not going to say you don't feel they're going to make mistakes.

Mr. Moray Welch: There may very well be mistakes. There may be mistakes in what we codified. I hope there aren't.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Mr. Moray Welch: But we don't feel that there will be an impact on the operation of the prerogative writs elsewhere in Canada. I should add that where decisions are made in Nunavut by inferior court officials, there will be no provincial court, but there will be justices of the peace and there may be other tribunals. The prerogative writs will continue to apply in Nunavut as they do elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: We may have reached that depth of an inch and a half. I'm not sure. Again, there are those in our consultations who may have argued that superior court judges, because they are superior court judges, would not make mistakes, hence don't need this type of review.

As a policy choice, we have opted for trying to extend into the Nunavut single level trial court system the basic essentials that are there to preserve the rights of the parties. So we have not accepted the premise that superior court judges are infallible. In fact, we have attempted to, through a statutory mechanism, provide an analogous form of review. It's not identical, but analogous.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. It's becoming clear to me then that the basket of prerogative writs available to the citizen is going are to be, in some respects, circumscribed by the codification that's taking place here.

I would like to ask you whether you have put together a summary document of those impacts. Is that available? Is there a document that collates the expert opinion that you sought that attempts to summarize the impacts on the prerogative writs, including habeas corpus? Do you have such a document? Has anybody used an accounting book to add up the pluses and minuses?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Mr. Lee, as I said, we engaged a professor from Queen's University law school to do an extensive review of prerogative writs as they exist. His opinions to us are long and extensive. I don't doubt they would serve your purpose. From that, we developed a draft. The draft is set out so it would clearly articulate—

• 1010

One of the things we've attempted to do in codification is set out those points in the criminal justice system where some type of review is essential. If you look at clause 50 of the bill, the short answer is we don't have such a document. It simply does not exist. But if you look at proposed subsection 573.1(1), six categories of particular decision points in the criminal justice system where some type of review is necessary are listed: decisions relating to a warrant or summons; decisions relating to the conduct of a preliminary inquiry, including an order to discharge or commit; orders relating to subpoenas; orders relating to publication of broadcasting of information or access to the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings; decisions relating to quashing of an information or an indictment; and decisions relating to the detention, disposal or forfeiture of things seized.

Mr. Derek Lee: That's a good basket of Criminal Code items, but keep in mind we also have a whole civil jurisdiction here. Is there a basket available for the civil jurisdiction matters?

Mr. Moray Welch: Our responsibility is federal legislation. In the territories there is a new judicature act for the Nunavut Territory that will be passed simultaneously with this process.

It is my understanding that they have not retained the prerogative rights in the civil or family context. I can check that for you and will tell the Minister of Justice for the Northwest Territories you specifically asked that question.

Mr. Derek Lee: Are you able to tell us who the expert from Queen's University was in this analysis?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Yes. It was professor Allan Manson who assisted us with this process. We've also had the benefit in our consultation of many judges and lawyers reviewing this process.

On the civil or family side, much of the law in that area is contained within the territorial legislation. You may well want to put these questions to the Minister of Justice for the NWT when he appears. As Moray said, we'll try to let them know this is an area you're interested in.

Mr. Derek Lee: Do you have the charter habeas corpus right nailed down cold? Is that protected?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: It's protected. I doubt that in our bill we could do anything to affect it. We do that in proposed section 573.2.

Mr. Derek Lee: You've looked at it and you've covered it off.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: We're sure it's been fully covered off.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

In these courts there is a likelihood there will be a high use of the aboriginal language, Inuktitut. I suppose it's up to the people of Nunavut to figure out how they want to run the courts, but I'm curious if you'd made any pre-judgments or if there's anything in the legislation that would attempt to sort out the language the courts will be using, given that one would expect French and English to be there, but there will be a lot of Inuktitut spoken when the man or woman goes out to deliver the summons.

Has there been an attempt to sort that out from a practical point of view now, before the court kicks in, or will it be left to the people of Nunavut to sort out?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: The short answer is our bill doesn't and cannot deal with that. It is a matter that must fall to court officials, judges and territorial officials to sort out.

John Merritt, our colleague from IAND may wish to add a word, and perhaps Karen as well.

John.

Mr. John Merritt (Senior Adviser, Nunavut Secretariat, Northern Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Howard.

As you're probably aware, Nunavut itself will grandfather through territorial legislation, including official languages legislation. That legislation does have guarantees for the status of English and French, as well as reference to aboriginal languages.

There is an expectation in Nunavut that after April 1 there will be a lively debate about language policy and how the territories may move to promote the use of Inuktitut as a working language. The Nunavut Act gives the legislative assembly of Nunavut an act of jurisdiction to preserve and promote Inuktitut, but as of yet there haven't been legislative proposals developed. We would anticipate that the Department of Justice and the courts will be an area where people will want to debate the use of language as well as other aspects of government.

There was a rather large language conference organized a few months back, and people were talking, but as of yet there are no specific proposals. We certainly anticipate that language use in the courts will be very much canvassed, as well as language use in other aspects of public services.

• 1015

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Lee, I think we're going to have to move on.

Mr. Derek Lee: This isn't a question, it's simply a request. If available, could you provide the committee with a copy of Professor Manson's opinion or paper that would have been delivered at some point in the discussion on the prerogative writs on the common law?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: I'll have to check into that.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Mr. John MacKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Witnesses, this is quite intriguing. This “one size fits all” court doesn't quite fit, in a southern context. I take it that geography, resources and population density basically drive the decision. It certainly makes eminent good sense. But the way jurisprudence is developing here, the philosophies behind a family court, a youth court, a criminal court, and a superior court are frequently very different philosophies, and sometimes almost irreconcilable philosophies.

This question is somewhat of a general nature, but have you given thought to how jurisprudence is developing in the rest of Canada, while jurisprudence may actually take off in a different direction because of your choice to have a “one court fits all” approach in Nunavut? By setting up this structure, are you in fact developing an entirely different stream of jurisprudence and philosophy? Have you given that any thought? That's the kind of big picture question.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: That's an important question.

There's been some suggestion that somehow we're creating a completely different system of law up there, and that's not the case. We are changing the court structure, but the system of law that will apply in Nunavut will be the same as anywhere else. Common law will continue to pertain, and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada will be as relevant in Nunavut as anywhere else. The substance of federal law that applies across the country will continue to apply more or less the same way in Nunavut as anywhere else. It's not a completely new legal system, but we are changing the structure.

Let me give you a couple of examples to help you understand. Not too long ago—I'm maybe sort of indicating the age of my call—we used to have county and district courts in many jurisdictions. Over the last couple of decades they have gone the way of obsolescence and have disappeared.

The court structuring issue is akin to that. In Ontario there's a divisional court, and that apparatus doesn't exist in other places. It's a matter more of the structure, the number of trial levels, and the way procedural routes are developed. But the actual system of law, both statutory and common, will continue the same in Nunavut as anywhere else.

Because of the structural change, we clearly have to make changes to the Criminal Code, Judges Act, the Young Offenders Act and other statutes to enable the structure and the procedure, so some issues will be slightly different. Karen has talked to you about summary conviction appeal routes, and there may be case law that focuses on those appeal routes. There may be case law that focuses on the statutory review scheme. So those elements will be slightly different in Nunavut from anywhere else.

It's an important point to bear in mind that for the most part, the legal system itself will not change. The way it's administered, its procedural aspects will be different in Nunavut from elsewhere. In one consultation session we used the analogy that we're sort of plumbers. We're taking care of some of the internal infrastructure of the system, but it does not change the substantive law per se.

Karen and Moray, is there anything you'd like to add to that?

Mr. Moray Welch: Just to follow up on what Howard says, it is a structural issue. If I understand your question correctly, you're asking about the different culture that develops in different courts that have different mandates. Because of the situation in the north, regardless of whether you have two courts or one court, these are both necessarily generalist courts. Our court will be a generalist court. There's really nothing we can do about that. There is not the critical mass of judges to develop a separate culture. They will have to do each of the things that in the south, where there is a greater population and a greater rationale for specialization— That simply doesn't exist in the north.

• 1020

Karen, I don't know if you want to speak.

Ms. Karen Markham: The only thing I would add to that—and I appreciate the thrust of your question about— I think Moray just touched upon it in terms of a sensitivity to the fact that for instance when you're dealing with a youth, the philosophy of the Young Offenders Act is very different from the philosophy of the adult criminal system.

I think one can take some assurance from the fact that— It depends of course on the judges who are appointed and their familiarity with the north. The superior court currently deals with adult and youth matters—the more serious youth matters, obviously—so it depends on the particular individuals who take up those positions. But I think there's an opportunity, one could say, with a single-level court flying into the smaller communities. There's an opportunity for those judges, and the communities, to have more frequent contact and get to know each other. And that is an advantage, because you have the single circuit. The three judges would be the ones who come in and deal with all matters all the time.

Mr. John McKay: I wouldn't argue with you that you are in some respects just changing the plumbing, and a lot of this is structural change and tightening up gaps where the structural change leads to an inequity between what you would get in the rest of Canada and what you would get here. But the additional overlay is you're dealing with a profound cultural difference between the rest of Canada and there, and I guess my sense would be the plumbing changes, along with the greater recognition of the significant impact of that culture, may well yield a body of jurisprudence that goes in a direction that may not necessarily be consistent with how the rest of Canada approaches justice.

That may lead to conflict. I'm off in the realm of speculation here. But I guess the side question is how do you structurally teach superior court justices—who may be, as we would call them, black-letter justices—to be youth court justices one day, criminal court justices another day, family court justices another day, and black-letter justices the following day, and recognize that the approach of the Inuit to justice may well be far different from ours? How are you going to set that up in a structural way so that continues to happen, so we don't have an irreconcilable bridge between the rest of Canada and this particular territory?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Again, it's important to remember to some extent the issues you're referring to exist already, and I don't think our structure will do much to change that—differences in culture from one end of the country to another. And of course the territorial-provincial courts of appeal make decisions that are sometimes in conflict with each other. That's to some extent what the Supreme Court of Canada is there for. When the issue is sufficiently important, the Supreme Court of Canada will bring some consistency across the country.

It is of course true to say— We hope it will be true that the unique culture of the Inuit will affect their justice system, and the system will adapt to it. We hope it won't do so in a way that will result in a substantially different area of law. It certainly cannot be a different regime of law, and consistency, under section 15, and other constitutional principles must exist.

Your point about how to get a superior court judge trained in all of these areas again is one that very much exists now, because the superior court judges are not assigned, generally, to specific specialties. They will hear a murder jury trial one day and a civil cause of action another day. That, of course, will continue to exist in Nunavut. We're expanding that a little, because they will be doing everything.

• 1025

I believe that the appointment of the judges to the Nunavut Court of Justice will be critical. These will have to be judges who are particularly sensitive to the cultural milieu within which they work. And if they are not so to start with, I would think that after some period of time of providing justice services up there, they will become so.

It is unique, a very specific environment. Part of the beauty of simplifying the court structure—and it's not a lot more than that—is that it brings those judges into closer contact with the community. The community gets to know who they are, and vice-versa.

Where it's appropriate, the culture must have an impact on the law and the legal system. But this should not happen in such a way that you have an enclave of law for Nunavut that is so different from what exists anywhere else that you have a different kind of law. I don't suspect that will happen. I don't think it can happen under our current legal structure and constitutional system.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: I'm not sure we're getting to the heart of what's troubling you, but it is—

The Chair: Sometimes you can't.

Mr. John McKay: No, that's true—

Mr. Peter MacKay: But that's the heart of darkness.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: It is a concern that exists across the country now. I think there may be some focusing on it because we're creating a different kind of plumbing in Nunavut from what exists elsewhere.

Actually plumbers probably do better than most lawyers these days. Maybe we're flattering ourselves, but it is something akin to that. We're not touching the substance of the law that applies.

Mr. John McKay: But sometimes structures drive substance, and that's the issue, I suppose.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: I think we'll all have to monitor this closely, see that it doesn't have untoward effects, and that the implications aren't beyond what anyone hopes and intends.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): We'll come back.

Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: A territory is a very different animal from a province, and some of our colleagues may not know the extent of the involvement of the federal government in the justice system in Nunavut.

I understand, for instance, that all crowns are federally appointed. Also, do first-time employees come from the Department of Justice?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Yes, that's correct.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Do we use any per-diem crowns in Nunavut?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Not to my knowledge. I must say that I can't answer you with assurance, but I think not. We have full-time prosecutors in Iqaluit, and of course the Yellowknife office has been servicing much of the eastern Arctic through the same circuit process.

Members of the committee may know that in many jurisdictions there's an interest in talking about devolution of prosecution. Those discussions are still at a fairly early stage, but there's been some discussion in the Yukon and the NWT about devolution. The discussions in the NWT have very much been put aside because of the focus on division and the implications of that.

Hypothetically—and I'm purely speculating—there may be a time when the territory will want to take on the responsibility for prosecutions. That's not what currently exists.

There are plans under way to have a regional office in Iqaluit, fully staffed with a regional director from the Department of Justice. A number of prosecutors will be out there. So we won't need to continue the prosecution service throughout the eastern Arctic from the west, from Yellowknife.

So your point is an extremely good one. The Department of Justice is very much involved.

Constitutionally there's a difference between a territory and a province, but my sense of it is that we all very much try to treat them as an autonomous jurisdiction like a province. But one of the differences, of course, is with the prosecution.

Colleagues, do you have anything to add to that?

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Merritt, I just want to make sure that you're included today.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Put him through his paces, please.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: In the few times I've been in the north one of the things I've noticed is that there's a sea change culturally when you go from the Yukon to the new, smaller NWT, to Nunavut. That has as much to do with the cultures of the indigenous populations as it has to do with daylight, trees, and all those things.

Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development keep an eye on justice, in terms of respecting, or at least being sensitive to, cultural differences? Are they able to do it on their own? I didn't mean that the way that—

Mr. John Merritt: Yes, I guess I don't. The only personal experience I could draw on would be the development of this bill. I would say that this bill has been put together on the basis of very close-working collaboration between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Justice. That collaboration is also extended to the range of organizations that Howard mentioned earlier. In fact the genesis, in terms of the idea of a unified court system, goes back to the report of the Nunavut Implementation Commission, the commission set up to advise on the design of the government in the 1993 act. That commission was made up of all Inuit commissioners.

• 1030

That idea was very much promoted in 1996 in the first report of that commission. This was as a first step to a reform of the justice system. It was based on the kind of public discussion process I've participated in, organized by the Department of Justice, but involving a lot of people from the north.

I would say that a lot of people in Nunavut view simplifying the structure as really the first step, not the last step. Certainly a lot of people are interested in examining, for example, a very much enhanced community justice system.

There is an acknowledgement that serious criminal matters will still have to rely on the circuit system for some considerable length of time. There's a realization at the moment that there is only one Inuk from Nunavut who is a member of the bar. So there's a recognition that it will be some time before Inuit take on the top jobs in the formal system.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I think he's just about to be called to the bar.

Mr. John Merritt: Just about to be called.

So there is a realization that major improvements in the justice system will take time, but it does make a lot of sense to overcome some of the structural confusions and frustrations that people feel in the immediate future.

Of course you will be hearing from witnesses from the north next week, but I expect that what you hear from them is that there is a longer agenda. This is a logical step, but there is more to come as Nunavut gets on its feet, and people start to organize their thoughts more clearly about some ideas for further change.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: There is something I wanted to get on the record. Some of us had the opportunity to have an informal discussion with the minister, and she said something that is important for us to know and have on the record. She said to us that this is not a justice system designed by us, the federal government, to represent what we think Nunavut wants. Rather it's the justice system that Nunavut has requested. It's been designed by them, and we're implementing it for them.

Is that a fair statement, Mr. Bebbington?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: It's a fair statement, and one I'm very happy to have on the record.

I might just point out to members that we have a briefing note included in your briefing materials. It sets out the process of the development of the bill.

This is very much the case. When the leaders of Nunavut were considering what court system they would like, they asked us to consult with them. We provided them with advice on the options available, but the decision was very much made by northern leaders. As John said, it started quite early on with the implementation commission and its Footprints II report. This is an interest that has developed there.

We have provided advisory services to them. We did a discussion paper so the options could be considered, but the choice was made there and the request came from there. We of course believe that it is a good choice for them to make, and we believe it has great potential. But I recommend that you have a look at the briefing note.

Just to add to what John said, we in the department relied very much on our partnership with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the briefing note will tell you, there was a working group set up that included both federal departments, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and the interim commissioner's office for Nunavut and the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. You will be hearing from both of them.

The working group oversaw the development of both the territorial and federal legislation, and I believe the model worked extremely well. We certainly found the input and the discussions quite valuable.

I hope that next week you will get a chance to hear from witnesses who will be able to tell you their perspective on that working partnership. From my perspective, the development of this bill would have been impossible without that type of process.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Welch, if I were charged with an indictable offence in Iqaluit, and I appeared before a JP to make my election, what election would I have? How would that—

Mr. Moray Welch: First, you would have to exclude the less serious or least serious indictable offences. In the rest of Canada these would be under the absolute jurisdiction of provincial court judges.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I'm going to be charged with robbery.

• 1035

Mr. Moray Welch: Robbery would be an electable offence, and you would have the election of judge and jury with a preliminary inquiry, which may or may not be waived, judge without jury with a preliminary inquiry, which may or may not be waived, and judge alone with no preliminary inquiry. It's that third option that corresponds to what exists in the rest of Canada, the provincial court judge—

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Judge alone.

Mr. Moray Welch: —because there's only one court now. Your election would have no impact on which court you were tried before. It would only have an impact on the mode of trial.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: So my rights to mode of trial are the same if I'm charged with robbery in Iqaluit as they would be if I were charged with robbery in Windsor.

Mr. Moray Welch: Essentially, you have three options. It varies from province to province, and each court has its own characteristics, its own docket. You have two courts, and it has been known that criminal practitioners play on that to delay the trial as long as possible.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Oh, Mr. Welch, these are myths.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: No one at this table would do that.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: No one at this table would do that.

Mr. Moray Welch: In the case of Nunavut, there would be one court and one docket.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Now, in my preliminary hearing in this robbery trial the presiding justice makes a serious mistake that's going to result in evidence coming in that in my counsel's view shouldn't, so I instruct my counsel to move to prohibit the judge from taking the step he's just made. If we were in Windsor, I could just go down the street—actually, in a few months I'll be able to just go down to the third floor—and apply to a judge for an order. What happens to me in Iqaluit if I need to take an extraordinary remedy during a preliminary hearing?

Mr. Moray Welch: You need to see a judge of the court of appeal.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: He's in Edmonton or Calgary.

Mr. Moray Welch: He may be in Edmonton, or she may be in—

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Good point.

Mr. Moray Welch: —Whitehorse or Yellowknife.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: How do I get that hearing when I have a judge who's going full bore on this preliminary hearing?

Mr. Moray Welch: I think you're going to have to wait until the end of the preliminary hearing or ask the judge to stay the proceedings and say “I have a serious issue with what you've just done there, and I'm going to the single judge of the court of appeal, so it would behove you to stop proceedings here”. It's within the discretion of that judge, and if the judge did not want to do that, you can bring an application to a single judge of the court of appeal and ask that judge to stop the proceedings. You have a possibility of asking for interim relief.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: But I'm unemployed, and I need to access this judge in Whitehorse, which, as you know, is a very long distance. How do I get that interim order to prohibit this justice from proceeding with the preliminary hearing until I can get my assistance?

Mr. Moray Welch: This will depend in large part on the infrastructure that is set up by the Nunavut justice system, and they have responsibility for the administration of justice. Given the distances involved, I would not deny that the problem you pose represents serious practical difficulties.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: It's not going to happen very often.

Mr. Moray Welch: No.

Just as an aside, there was, to our knowledge, one prerogative writ in Nunavut in 1996.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Okay. Would there be room here for teleconferencing?

Mr. Moray Welch: I was just going to say that is a thing the chief judge of the Court of Appeal of the Northwest Territories has expressed interest in. We don't know, as Howard said, if she will be appointed the chief judge of Nunavut, but we assume that for the first little while for the purposes of continuity she will be. She has expressed her interest to the deputy minister of justice for Nunavut, and I know that those possibilities are being looked at very seriously.

Especially if it were a cut-and-dried legal issue, the possibility of videoconferencing is quite promising. If it were hinging more on credibility, then I'm afraid you might have to take your lumps, wait until the end of the inquiry, and get the judge to come to Iqaluit in a matter of weeks.

• 1040

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Now, in— I'm sorry, Mr. Bebbington.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: I just wanted to add to that, Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen. I think you've put your finger on the nub of the difficulty of delivering justice services in the north, and that is the distances and the need to quickly access people. In much of our structural work, we have tried to make sure there's quick access. That's why there's peer review in the bail context, where there has to be an immediate availability.

Although we don't get involved in the appointment of members to the court of appeal, there is a real possibility that some of the single-level trial court judges in Iqaluit might also be ex-officio members of the court of appeal. For instance, the senior judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice might be an ex-officio member of the court of appeal, which would give an opportunity to the participants to go immediately to a judge that's right there in town.

But apart from that, the interest in technology, whether it's audio or video-type technology, to hold some types of hearings is a very strong need in this type of environment, not just in Nunavut but in the other territories and parts of other jurisdictions of provinces as well.

It is something the department has been looking at in the context of criminal procedure reform and other areas. Chief Justice Fraser has been a leader in terms of pushing the system to consider the innovative use of technology, and of course the technology is now developing where these things are quite feasible. All of these things will need to develop over time.

Your point is an extremely good one, that we need to make sure the system can respond quickly and effectively to particular needs. That's why we've gone to such great lengths to provide a statutory review mechanism to make it to a single judge of the court of appeal rather than a panel of judges, which would be much more difficult and time-consuming to get to. Our hope is that—and again, these decisions are not in our hands—there will be judges, possibly in Iqaluit, certainly in Yellowknife, who could respond quickly to needs of that nature.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: I just have a couple of other things. Emanating from the department, not necessarily from the people who are here, a discussion paper has been released and is public that if implemented would frankly reduce the availability of preliminary hearings to accused who are being tried for certain offences. Is there anything in this bill that creates a situation where people being tried in Nunavut will have less access as a right to the preliminary hearing mechanism than elsewhere in the country?

Mr. Moray Welch: Absolutely not.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): This will be your last question, Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: All right, one more. Just remember that I get that gavel back, Mr. Maloney.

You made me lose my train of thought.

Are we worried about how we're going to assemble a jury panel up there? Is a jury panel for a murder that's committed in Resolute Bay always going to consist of people who live in Iqaluit? Those are two very different milieus.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: This is a serious problem. It's one that exists now. Regrettably, it's one that our bill does nothing to assist or, hopefully, to exacerbate. But it is a great difficulty. The language spoken within the jury room is a great difficulty. These are serious problems.

Again, I would like to be able to pretend for a moment that we're solving some of these long-term, serious problems in the justice system. We are not. We are changing some plumbing. We hope it provides some of the tools and some of the flexibility to the people in Nunavut to do the hard work that will have to follow to make the system work in an extreme environment, I think, with its own challenges. But again, this is an issue that will have to be dealt with by Nunavut. And hopefully the department will assist to the full extent we can, but it's not something the bill speaks to.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: This may be better asked of you, Mr. Merritt. I think we'll be asking this question throughout, because we'll have witnesses coming. The Dene still have some serious territorial questions with regard to the creation of the new territory in general, and I'm wondering if there are things in this bill that are going to impact. I know that we're going to hear from them, and I'm sure that's what they're going to tell us. But have we done anything to address any of their concerns with regard to the creation of this justice system? Can you maybe give us a synopsis of the conflict or disagreement that exists between the Dene and the federal government, the Dene and the Inuit?

• 1045

Mr. John Merritt: There are a number of groups, aboriginal peoples who live adjacent to Nunavut, who have in the past expressed concern about what the implications will be for them of creating this new political jurisdiction. In some parts of the Nunavut boundaries there have been negotiations resulting in substantive boundary agreements, overlap agreements. In other areas there have not been agreements that have been worked out in detail. So there are a number of aboriginal peoples, Dene peoples in the Northwest Territories, the Denesuline from Manitoba and Saskatchewan—

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Yes, we've heard from them.

Mr. John Merritt: There have also been some concerns from Quebec Crees about what its creation will mean for them.

Going back to the bedrock Nunavut agreement, which contained the commitment to create this new territory, that agreement made explicit that the aboriginal and treaty rights of adjacent peoples were not compromised by the Nunavut agreement. I would imagine the justice department would advise that Nunavut would have no legal capacity to compromise another aboriginal people's rights in any event.

The 1993 Nunavut Act does not contain any provisions that would in any way abrogate or derogate from the rights of adjacent aboriginal peoples. And of course this bill, which deals only with the court system, is also silent. So there is from the point of view of our department no prejudice to the rights of adjacent aboriginal peoples.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Peter MacKay.

Mr. DeVillers, did you have any questions?

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): No, that's fine, thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Is there anyone else on the government side?

I have one quick question. It's interesting to note that currently there are eight judges in the Northwest Territories. This legislation proposes three. How do we arrive at that figure for Nunavut?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: You have to remember that currently there are superior court judges and territorial court judges. There are four positions, but three appointments in NWT. There are four or five territorial court judges. Does anyone remember?

A voice: Five.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Five.

Concern about judicial independence of course means that judges cannot be moved or told to move into a new jurisdiction, so there will be no changes made with respect to that.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to your question. Maybe Adair can help out. If you were creating a two-level court for Nunavut, there would have to be territorial court judges and superior court judges. So we think the number of judges would be greater than the three we are planning for the single-level trial court. Again, by compressing, by combining into one, we think those three judges who can do everything will achieve some efficiency. So we think in the end it would probably result in a reduced number of judges throughout that area.

Of course we have no plans at this point for the judges who are now sitting, the three superior court judges and the territorial court judges. There's nothing the department or the territorial governments will be doing. They will continue to service that area. If there is some excess capacity some of those judges, particularly the superior court judges, may serve in an ex-officio capacity in Nunavut. For instance, the superior court judges in Yellowknife will be ex-officio—by operation of statute—members of the single-level trial court in Iqaluit. So they will be available to help out.

It's also true that by virtue of the transitional provisions in Bill C-39, which passed this spring and were slightly modified in our bill, the pending cases will presumptively be in the NWT system. So the NWT courts will help deal with that group of pending cases and the new cases will start in the Nunavut system. I may have given you more detail than you need.

Adair, is there something we can add to that, in terms of the number of judges?

Ms. Adair Crosby: No. I think at the end of the day, at the superior court level there will be a net increase of two superior court judges, and that's by virtue of the creation of the new territory. You have to have a critical mass of judges able to do the work.

As Howard pointed out, there are four positions on the NWT Supreme Court, three of which are filled, and there's been a demonstrated need already that the fourth appointment be filled for the eastern Arctic. Basically what this proposal will do is fill that position on the Nunavut Court of Justice. So that one position would have been filled anyway in the NWT Supreme Court.

• 1050

With the establishment of the unified court you need additional superior court judges. We've determined that based on the workload and representations from the people in the north, there's probably a minimum of— Three judges will be required to fulfil the functions that would have been fulfilled by the territorial court in the eastern Arctic as well as the superior court. You won't have a territorial court, so there will be an actual reduction in the total number of judges who would otherwise have been required had a supreme court been established in Nunavut rather than the Nunavut Court of Justice.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: This is a follow-up to your question, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just trying to picture this practically. With civil court, family court, youth court, and potentially a provincial court and superior court all being administered by potentially one judge, is it going to occur that—I realize the circuit court system is different—you're going to have a judge going into a community to perform all of those tasks on one day?

I picture in my mind sort of a bizarre scenario when it comes to an election by a youth, or anyone for that matter. Say I elect to have a trial by a superior court judge sitting alone. If the judge has just been sitting as a provincial court judge, is he going to leave the room and come back with a robe on? Will he say okay, the court is now open as the superior court? How is that going to happen practically? Where is the break going to occur between civil, provincial, and family courts? Where are the robes for all of that?

Mr. Howard Bebbington: That's extremely important. I appreciate this question.

This judge will not be sitting in some cases as a superior court judge and in other cases as a provincial court judge. There will be different capacities. In some contexts, this judge will sit as a youth court judge. In other contexts, this person may sit as an adult court judge.

Other than that, this judge will be a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice. They will ask you for your docket, and they will hear all cases in a logical, sensible order.

Where there are things that require the judge to make some decisions that would question impartiality with respect to others, then they would have to be put off to another circuit. Otherwise, this judge will have one set of robes to sit and hear everything. It will not be a matter of changing hats. This will be a judge who says, if you'll pardon the expression, that they're a one-window shopping sort of experience. They can and will deal with everything.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You can appreciate where I'm coming from, though. We have such a codified set of rules basically for these different levels of courts. I guess further to that question, the judges that fill these roles are going to have to be very good and very specialized in their ability to define themselves in these various roles.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: There definitely is a very significant potential change to the legal culture involved in this. I think you quite nicely put your finger on that. This will have to be a different court that operates in a different capacity from that of any others.

Karen.

Ms. Karen Markham: The only thing I wanted to add concerns clause 50, which I spoke about earlier. If you noticed, the wording in proposed subsection 573(1) tries to clarify that when that Nunavut Court of Justice judge sits, while he or she may perform all the functions that are set out in the Criminal Code that normally are done by persons other than superior court judges, he or she does so as in a supreme court, which is the Nunavut Court of Justice. So in the opening and closing you may have a distinction with respect to youth court and family court, but otherwise, in the adult criminal context, it's the Nunavut Court of Justice.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Here's one of the questions I posed. You can imagine a superior court judge coming into this region saying that you have to call him “My Lord” and wearing the whole gown.

I believe that type of culture will have to shift over time. We'll have to see. It depends on the judges. The judges will need to be extraordinary people. They'll need to be very sensitive to that environment.

It's a potential change not just of them coming, but of judicial culture as well. I think you're quite right to seize on that. It's something we can't tell exactly how it's going to work out. It will require some thinking, adaptability, and goodwill.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's evolving already, I think, more so in rural communities, where you have judges going into that role already. So I can see how it's going to take time.

This is just a final question along the same lines. Look at the workload. Are there figures, statistics, as to what percentage of the workload is civil, as opposed to criminal, and further to that, in youth court, as opposed to provincial and family courts?

• 1055

Mr. Howard Bebbington: We have certainly an anecdotal sense from talking to many people. We have some statistics, but I have to tell you it's been a difficult thing. The most obvious difficulty is that any statistics would be pan-NWT, so it's difficult to break them down into the eastern Arctic versus the western. So that's part of the difficulty. Also, different courts have different capabilities in terms of keeping statistics, so we've had some difficulty finding hard data we would be comfortable enough to share with the committee, for instance.

Workload is always a difficult thing to assess. I suspect that the creation of the territory itself will increase, at least for some period of time, the potential workload. If you can think about the economic activity, for instance, that will occur now in Iqaluit that hadn't occurred before, I suspect there may be contract and other types of issues that hadn't gone to the courts before. But it's a little bit of crystal ball gazing.

We want to make sure that the structure is able to deal with the challenges it has to meet. But again it's a little bit like crystal ball gazing to give you a sense of the numbers or the breakdown between civil and criminal, between indictable and summary, the number of jury trials, those sorts of things. So other than speaking in general terms, it's difficult to say more.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you. I commend you for your efforts. It's a massive undertaking. As I said in my first remarks, it must be exciting, because you're basically building a justice system. It's very interesting. Thanks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

I have one final little question, and you may not be in a position to answer, but you've described a very special individual, or individuals, for your judiciary. Keeping in mind that Nunavut is an outpost, if I might say, it's a special area in terms of distances, adverse environment from time to time, weather, etc., is there a large pool of candidates for these positions?

Ms. Adair Crosby: The pool of candidates under the Judges Act is Canada-wide. Unlike in the provinces, where you're required to be a member of the bar, in the territories potentially the pool is enormous. The reality, of course, is that the specific individual the minister will be looking for I suspect will be somebody with some very definite and committed ideas, some very specific expertise and experience in the north. The minister is on the record for having indicated that she is committed to finding individuals who are able to respond to the unique needs of Nunavut, but the pool is definitely going to be unlimited.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you very much, panel. We appreciate your time and your responses to our questions. It certainly was very interesting for us, as it was for you as well.

Mr. Howard Bebbington: Thank you. I must say we hope to come back perhaps for clause-by-clause. We will certainly be here throughout the hearings, and if there's anything we can do in terms of answering questions or assisting it would be our great pleasure to do so.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Bebbington.

The meeting is adjourned.