Bill No. 103 - Justices of the Peace Act. - Third Reading

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Mr. Speaker, we also have concerns which we have registered in the Committee of the Whole and at second reading about this bill, in particular the change to the role of the independent commission.

As I mentioned at third reading, Presiding Justices of the Peace have qualifications and experiences that are similar to Provincial Court Judges. Nova Scotia has eight Presiding Justices of the Peace who work out of the Justice of the Peace Centre in my constituency, and two Presiding Justices of the Peace who are based in Sydney. A PJP is on duty in Nova Scotia 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. These PJPs play an important role in the criminal justice system. Non-binding commission recommendations compromise judicial independence by politicizing the judicial compensation process.

Nova Scotia created a binding commission to address remuneration for Provincial and Family Court Judges and this process worked well for many years, until the province made the commission recommendations non-binding in 2016. In their 2016 submission to the Law Amendments Committee the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges referred to binding commissions as the gold standard of judicial independence.

Mr. Speaker, it is lost on me why we would want to compromise that gold standard, but ultimately I think the courts will make a decision. The Nova Scotia government is now engaged in litigation with the judges of the Provincial Court and the Family Court of Nova Scotia regarding the constitutionality of the change to the non-binding recommendations.

An effective judicial compensation commission process depoliticizes the setting of judicial compensation, discourages litigation, is cost effective, ensures timely implementation or review of commission recommendations, protects the structural separation of the branches of government, and promotes public confidence in the judiciary. A binding process meets each and every one of these objectives, again, the gold standard.

We also appreciate the submission put forward by the presiding Justices of the Peace at the Law Amendments Committee. Their position is that the outcome of the litigation surrounding the commission for the judges will serve as a precedent for this situation. Our sense is that we may be back at this bill again, but for now we register our concern with challenging this gold standard of judicial independence by politicizing and making the compensation process non-binding.