LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGIS­LATIVE AFFAIRS

Tuesday, August 9, 2022

TIME – 2 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere)

ATTENDANCE – 6     QUORUM – 4

Members of the committee present:

Hon. Mr. Helwer

Ms. Fontaine, Messrs. Guenter, Micklefield, Sala, Teitsma

PUBLIC PRESENTERS:

Ms. Susan Dawes, Prov­incial Judges Association of Manitoba (by leave)

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Report and Recom­men­dations of the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee, dated April 19, 2022

* * *

Clerk Assistant (Mr. Tim Abbott): Good afternoon, everyone. Need my gavel. Will the Standing Committee on Legis­lative Affairs please come to order.

      Our first item of business is the election of a Chairperson.

      Are there any nominations?

Hon. Reg Helwer (Minister of Labour, Consumer Protection and Government Services): Yes, I nom­inate MLA Teitsma for Chair.

Clerk Assistant: Mr. Teitsma has been nominated.

      Any other nominations?

      Mr. Teitsma, please take the Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Thanks, everyone.

      Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson.

      Are there any nominations?

Mr. Helwer: I nominate Mr. Teitsma–or, sorry, Mr. Micklefield as Vice-Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other nominations?

      Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Andrew Micklefield is elected Vice-Chairperson.

      This meeting has been called to consider the Report and Recom­men­dations of the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee, dated April 19th, 2022.

      Before we get started, I'd like to provide the com­mit­tee with some back­ground infor­ma­tion on the process followed in the past when dealing with Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee reports.

      At previous meetings, repre­sen­tatives from the judges association and other groups have appeared, by leave, before the com­mit­tee, and the minister respon­si­ble has made an opening statement, following–followed by a statement from the official op­posi­tion.

      I would also like to remind members that prior to concluding con­sid­era­tion of this report, pursuant to the provisions of section 11.1(27) of The Prov­incial Court Act, a motion will be required in order to adopt or reject some or all of the recom­men­dations in the JCC report.

      Ms. Susan Dawes of the Prov­incial Judges Association of Manitoba has asked permission to speak to the com­mit­tee today.

      Is there agree­ment from the com­mit­tee to hear Ms. Dawes? [Agreed]

      Are there any sug­ges­tions for how long we should sit this afternoon?

Mr. Helwer: I suggest we sit for an hour and rise earlier if that is the case.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, a proposal has been made to sit for one hour and rise earlier if–by will of the com­mit­tee. Is that agreed? [Agreed]

      I will now call on Ms. Dawes to make her pre­sen­ta­tion.

      Ms. Dawes, welcome to the com­mit­tee. Do you have any written materials to be distributed?

Susan Dawes (Prov­incial Judges Association of Manitoba): Thank you, and yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: All right, and just a reminder that you're limited to 10 minutes for your pre­sen­ta­tion.

      You can start whenever you're ready.

S. Dawes: All right, good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson and members of the com­mit­tee. So, I'm Susan Dawes, counsel for the Prov­incial Judges Association of Manitoba, and you have before you for con­sid­era­tion the report and recom­men­dations of the 2020 Judicial Compensation Committee–the 2020 JCC, as I will refer to it.

      The 2020 JCC made recommendations about appro­priate compensation for judges for the period April 1st, 2020 to March 31st, 2023. The JCC process is required by our con­sti­tu­tion. It's been recog­nized that whenever the expenditure of public funds is involved, the decision is inherently political and the Supreme Court of Canada has deter­mined that in order to protect the in­de­pen­dence of the judiciary, the setting of compensation for judges must be depoliticized.

      And in order to remove politics to the greatest extent possible, each province must put in place an in­sti­tutional sieve, as the court called it, a filter, to depoliticize the setting of compensation for judges. The gov­ern­ment must make its proposals to this in­de­pen­dent, objective and effective tribunal, which then makes recom­men­dations about what constitutes ap­pro­priate compensation.

      In Manitoba, the standing com­mit­tee and ultim­ately the Legislature then considers the report and recom­men­dations and may choose to implement or vary them. If the decision is to vary, the Legislature must justify its decision by provi­ding legitimate reasons for doing so, which are based on a reasonable, factual foundation.

      The Prov­incial Court Act sets out the process for Manitoba. It requires a three-person panel: nominee of the association, of the Province and a chairperson. The 2020 JCC was chaired by Mr. Michael Werier. This is the sixth JCC chaired by Mr. Werier, who has chaired every one since 2002, with the exception of 2008. He has a proven track record of making fair and reasonable recom­men­dations, and undoubtedly that's why he was chosen.

      The 2020 JCC held hearings in summer of 2021. They were originally scheduled for the fall of 2020, but with the uncertainty of the pandemic, there was an unprecedented agree­ment to delay the hearings. The association and the Province both provided detailed written submissions to the com­mis­sion–or the com­mit­tee, rather–and the com­mit­tee then heard oral argument from the Province and the association. The association provided expert economic evidence from Dr. Eugene Beaulieu, who is a professor in the de­part­ment of economics at Uni­ver­sity of Calgary, and the Province also provided sig­ni­fi­cant economic data as part of its own submission, but didn't require Mr.–or Dr. Beaulieu to be produced for cross-examination.

      The Province's repre­sen­tatives, both its counsel and the civil servants who were involved in pre­paring the submissions, worked hard to advance the Province's position about what compensation was ap­pro­priate for judges for the years in question, and, following the deliberations, the com­mit­tee provided a unanimous report between the chairperson, the Province's nominee and the association's, and the report makes it clear that all of the submissions received were carefully considered by the com­mit­tee in light of the factors that are set out in The Prov­incial Court Act.

      I'll focus on the most sig­ni­fi­cant recom­men­dation, and that is the judicial salaries for the three fiscal years begin­ning April 1st of 2020. The JCC recom­mended a salary of $280,500 effective April 1st, 2020. In making its recom­men­dation for that year, the JCC considered the extensive evidence and arguments provided by both the Province and the association regarding ap­pro­priate salaries for Prov­incial Court judges. In its analysis, it properly focused on the six factors that are identified in The Prov­incial Court Act.

      From an economic perspective, the JCC accepted the gov­ern­ment's position that Manitoba continues to sit in the mid-range economically among the provinces across Canada, and the JCC's economic analysis included con­sid­era­tion of the impact of COVID and the party's basic agree­ment that, notwith­standing the pandemic, Manitoba economy continues to be in the mid-range of Canadian economies.

      Like past JCCs, it found that other prov­incial judges in Canada are the most im­por­tant comparators, and that Manitoba's salary should be in the mid-range of that paid to other judges, similar to how the–Manitoba's economy falls vis-à-vis the others.

      One sig­ni­fi­cant con­sid­era­tion, which is identified in the act, is–and has been a focus for JCCs in the past, as well–is the three-province or designated average. And the act provides that if the salary figure that is recom­mended is less than or equal to the designated average, which is certified by the chairperson of the JCC, then it is binding.

      The designated average is the average of judicial salaries in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, and so based on the salaries actually paid at the time of the JCC's report being issued, the certified designated average was $272,766. That's April 1st, 2020.

* (14:10)

      However, only Saskatchewan had finalized its salary for that year at that time. And so the 2020 salaries for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were yet to be deter­mined. Accordingly, based on the salaries that were available to be certified by the chairperson, the 2020 salary is not binding.

      However, I've provided you today with an updated chart, which shows the most current infor­ma­tion about judicial salaries across the country, and I have prepared and provided updated calculations of the three-province average based on the salaries that are now known.

      And you will see that Nova Scotia has now esta­blished a salary for 2020 of $269,198 following the conclusion of lengthy litigation in that province that went up to the Supreme Court of Canada. That figure is con­sistent with what this association had esti­mated for Nova Scotia before the JCC.

      New Brunswick's salary has still not been deter­mined. The JCC there has conducted its hearings, but a report has not yet been released, so we don't have a final average. But simply based on the final Nova Scotia salary being included, the 2020 Manitoba salaries are below the three-province average for each of puisne judges, associate chiefs and the chief judge.

      So, in other words, but for the delay in esta­blish­ing Nova Scotia's salary, due to the Nova Scotia gov­ern­ment's actions and the ensuing litigation, Manitoba's 2020 recom­men­dation would have been binding under section 11.1(23) of the act. And for the later years, the recom­men­dations will be close to or below the average once New Brunswick sets a salary.

      So you can see from national chart that the 2020 salary puts Manitoba judges' salaries within a group of juris­dic­tions at the low end of judicial salaries, well below Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the federal juris­dic­tion, and the same will be true for the 2021 and 2022 years.

      So that salary–the JCC went on to make a number of other recom­men­dations. I won't address those unless you have questions about them.

And, in closing, I'd like to make some general comments about the importance of the judicial compensation process.

      As I said at the outset, both parties put forward extensive written and oral submissions to the JCC. It is critical that these recom­men­dations are respected or all of that work is for nothing. And I'll reiterate some­thing that I say each time I come down here and speak to these reports.

      We're talking about 42 judges. If you implement some­thing other than what was recom­mended, it's not going to impact the Province's bottom line in any meaningful way. And as such, whatever you decide is symbolic more than anything else.

And there's two types of symbolism to choose from. The first is respect for the in­de­pen­dence of the judiciary and the significance of this constitutionally mandated process. The second is the desire of a gov­ern­ment to send a message to groups with whom the Province is engaged in collective bargaining.

      The very purpose of the JCC process is to depoliticize the setting of judicial compensation. Now is not the time to look at this politically. The Province's position was carefully considered by the JCC. All of its arguments were taken into account. The report is unanimous. It's well reasoned. It takes into account the reasoning of past JCCs in Manitoba and the position advanced by the Province.

      So we urge you to respect the process, the need to protect judicial independence and to depoliticize the setting of judicial remuneration. You can do that by accepting in full the recom­men­dations of this very ex­per­ienced, in­de­pen­dent and objective panel.

      So if you have questions, I would be pleased to do my best to answer them, but otherwise, on behalf of the association, thank you for granting us leave to speak to this matter.

Mr. Chairperson: And thank you, Ms. Dawes, for your pre­sen­ta­tion. Just slightly over time, but I'll–I can allow that as the Chair.

      So, are there any questions for Ms. Dawes?

Ms. Nahanni Fontaine (St. Johns): Miigwech for your presentation. I do always enjoy the op­por­tun­ity to hear you speak at com­mit­tee, and so I really ap­pre­ciate that.

      You did mention a couple of times about depoliticizing the process, and I know in your final comments you noted that it is to accept the report. I mean, perhaps you can't answer this and maybe I'm probably putting you on the spot, do–but do–have you found that the process has become more politicized in the last many years?

      And again, we recog­nize that there is, you know, we've had–we've been dealing with COVID and so there's been some gaps and hiccups in respect of dealing with this, but is it a concern that this process has become more politicized in the last many years?

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Dawes–and before I acknowl­edge you, I just want to make sure everybody's aware we have about five minutes for questions.

      So, go ahead, you can respond.

S. Dawes: Believe me, I could go on about this for much longer than five minutes, so I ap­pre­ciate the reminder.

      Since the process was created–or sort of proclaimed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997, it has been an ongoing concern, politicization of the process across the country. There's been litigation across the country from coast to coast. It arises periodically in all of the juris­dic­tions, I would say–or most of the juris­dic­tions that have chosen to have a process such as this one, where gov­ern­ment can reject the recom­men­dations, and we take the view, of course, that a binding process makes eminent sense, removes that element and that op­por­tun­ity for politics to creep back in.

      But in terms of this process, you know, the submissions went in before the com­mit­tee. It did its work. Now's the time when we can keep the process on track, so to speak, by respecting the recom­men­dations and honouring the work of the com­mit­tee.

Ms. Fontaine: I ap­pre­ciate that response. And on behalf of–I'm–certainly, our colleagues on this side, I would imagine colleagues on the opposite side, just to convey our sincere miigwech for the im­por­tant work that goes into these recom­men­dations. So, on behalf of that, miigwech for that work.

Mr. Helwer: Thank you for your pre­sen­ta­tion and for the recom­men­dations of the com­mit­tee. I–we'll see what the com­mit­tee judges here.

      I do want to remind the com­mit­tee that then-Attorney General Andrew Swan, the NDP minister, declined the recom­men­dations of the com­mit­tee and went to court, and in the light of how we're moving to work closer and easier with people that have collective agree­ments, that's certainly not the recom­men­dation that I would have.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Dawes, would you like to respond to that at all?

S. Dawes: I would not.

Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions from members of the com­mit­tee?

      Okay, then. Question period is over. We'll now consider the report and–or the recommendations.

      Thank you, Ms. Dawes.

      Does the hon­our­able minister wish to make any opening remarks today?

Mr. Helwer: No.

Mr. Chairperson: None.

      Does the official op­posi­tion critic wish to make any remarks?

Ms. Fontaine: So, once again, I want to say miigwech to Ms. Dawes for taking the time to present this im­por­tant report to the com­mit­tee and to help us better understand the process that was under­taken and has been under­taken and the importance of that work.

      I would like to say miigwech to com­mis­sioner Werier and the panel members and to all those who were involved in preparing these–this report. Certainly, it represents hours of research and hard work, and our Province is no doubt better off, thanks to all of this im­por­tant effort.

      There is no question that the issue of judicial compensation is very im­por­tant. We want to attract the best and brightest and retain the best and brightest judges in Manitoba to ensure that we have a more wholesome, com­pre­hen­sive, repre­sen­tative judicial.

      I ap­pre­ciate the J-J-C is in­de­pen­dent from the Province of Manitoba and the Prov­incial Judges Association of Manitoba, and strives to provide an objective analysis of judicial compensation and make recom­men­dations accordingly. The J-J-C helps find an ap­pro­priate middle ground between the Province and the association's recom­men­dations, which we clearly saw outlined in this report.

      So, again, miigwech to everyone for being here today, for presenting and certainly in the pre­par­ation of this report. Miigwech.

* (14:20)

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Fontaine.

      Are there any questions from any members of the com­mit­tee on the report?

      Seeing no questions, does the hon­our­able minister have a motion?

Mr. Helwer: I do, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: You may move it.

Mr. Helwer: I move

THAT the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs: accept the recommendations in schedule A; and recommend the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved–[interjection]–oh. He needs to finish. Does he have to read the entire schedule A? [interjection]

      All right, minister, you must read the schedule A, apparently, so.

Mr. Helwer:

SCHEDULE A

Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee accepted by the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs

      That the annual salaries for the puisne judges are:

(i)   April 1st, 2020 to March 31st, 2021 is $280,500;

(ii)  April 1st, 2021 to March 31st, 2022–a cumulative adjustment equal to the annual percentage change in the average weekly earnings for Manitoba on April 1st, 2021;

(iii) April 1st, 2022 to March 31st, 2022–cumulative adjustment equal to the annual percentage change in the average weekly earnings for Manitoba on April 1st, 2022.

The percentage change in the average weekly earnings shall be calculated based on the percentage change over the preceding calendar year.

This recommendation should apply to all who were judges as of April 1st, 2020, including those who retired or otherwise leave the bench prior to imple­mentation.

2.   That the salary differentials for the chief judge and the associate chief judges remain in place as of April 1st, 2020. This will mean a salary of $320,940 for the chief judge, and $294,525 for the associate chief judges.

      This recommendation shall apply to all judges who were either a chief judge or an associate chief judge as of April 1st, 2020, including those who retire or otherwise leave the bench prior to imple­men­ta­tion; simple interest–

3.   Simple interest shall be paid, from April 1st, 2020 to the date of retroactive payment of salary increase or increases including the differentials for the admin­istrative judges and related per diems for senior judges, in accordance with the relevant prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates as set out in the The Court of Queen's Bench Act.

4.   Prejudgment interest shall be payable from April 1st, 2020 to the date the salary and per diem recommendations are imple­mented, whether by vote of the Legislature or by virtue of s.11.1(29) of the act, and post-judgment interest should be payable from that date to the date that judges are paid the retroactive adjustments.

5.   No interest shall be payable in respect of the period from October 22nd, 2020 to July 20th, 2021.

6.   That effective April 1st, 2020, each full-time and senior judge's annual education allowance should be increased from $3,000 to $3,500. This shall apply to all who were judges as at April 1st, 2020, including those who retire or otherwise leave the bench prior to implemen­tation. The combined amount of the education allowances of full-time judges and senior judges shall be provided to the court in an amal­gamated fund to be administered by the chief judge in accordance with the principles set out below:

      Individual full-time judges and senior judges shall continue to have access to their educational allowance in order to fund their attendance at con­ferences and seminars, and/or for other edu­ca­tional purposes, as approved by the chief judge in accordance with court policy. With the consent of each individual full­time judge and senior judge, unused portions of each full-time judge and senior judge's education allowance may be used to the benefit of the court as a whole in relation to judicial education. All uses of the allowances are subject to approval by the chief judge in accordance with court policy.

7.   That mandatory retirement be set at age 75, in accordance with The Courts Modernization Act. Consistent with the transitional provision in The Courts Modernization Act, judges who are over the age of 75 will continue to hold office until six months after the recommendation is implemented.

8.   That changes to the CSSA via the super­annuation amendment act will apply to the portion of judges' pensions that are held in the Civil Service Superannuation Fund. For the purposes of the supple­mentary judicial pension, the commuted value shall continue to be calculated in accordance with the standard set out in The Pension Benefits Act and regulation as if it were a registered plan, as amended from time to time. For greater certainty, notwith­standing the amendments to the civil service super­annuation plan as set out in bill 43, the calculation of the commuted value of judges shall not be affected, and the supplementary plan shall fund any difference resulting from the change to The Civil Service Superannuation Act.

9.   That the parties engage in a process to create an administrative document that provides guidance on the judges' supplemental pension plan and retirement insurance and that the Province contribute to the association's reasonable legal and actuarial costs to a maximum of $7,500 for reviewing the Province's draft document.

10.  Effective April 1st, 2020, a senior master who resigns as senior master after serving at least seven years, and thereafter carries out the functions of a master shall be entitled to receive the greater of the current annual salary of a master and the annual salary they received immediately before the resignation.

      This should apply to all who were senior masters as at April 1st, 2020, including those who retire or otherwise leave their position as masters of the Court of Queen's Bench prior to implementation.

11.  The Province shall pay 75 per cent of the association's reasonable legal costs to a maximum aggregate of $55,000.

12.  The Province shall pay 100 per cent of the association's disbursements including the costs of experts to a maximum of $30,000.

13.  That, unless otherwise stated, all changes shall be effective on the date of approval by the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

14.  In these recommendations, date of approval means

a.       the date that the vote of concurrence referred to in some section 11.1(28) of The Provincial Court Act takes place with respect to these recommen­dations; or

b.       if the recommendations must be implemented because of subsection 11.1(29) of The Provincial Court Act, the first day after the end of the 21-day period referred to in that subsection.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister for his extensive motion.

      I'm just going to ask if it's the will of the com­mit­tee to accept this motion or to use this motion as it was written in front of you? I think there was a couple of very minor faux pas, but if it's acceptable to the com­mit­tee, we will use the written copy. Agreed? [Agreed]

THAT the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs: accept the recommendations in schedule A; and recommend the same to the Legislative Assembly.

SCHEDULE A

Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee accepted by the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs

1.       That the annual salaries for puisne Judges are:

(i)      April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 is $280,500;

(ii)    April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 - a cumulative adjustment equal to the annual percentage change in the average weekly earnings for Manitoba on April 1, 2021;

(iii)  April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023 - cumulative adjustment equal to the annual percentage change in the average weekly earnings for Manitoba on April 1, 2022.

The percentage change in the average weekly earnings shall be calculated based on the percentage change over the preceding calendar year.

This recommendation should apply to all who were Judges as of April 1, 2020, including those who retired or otherwise leave the Bench prior to implementation.

2.       That the salary differentials for the Chief Judge and the Associate Chief Judges remain in place as of April 1, 2020. This will mean a salary of $302,940 for the Chief Judge, and $294,525 for the Associate Chief Judges.

This recommendation shall apply to all Judges who were either a Chief Judge or an Associate Chief Judge as of April 1, 2020, including those who retire or otherwise leave the Bench prior to implementation.

3.       Simple interest shall be paid, from April 1, 2020 to the date of retroactive payment of salary increase(s) including the differentials for the administrative Judges and related per diems for Senior Judges, in accordance with the relevant prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates as set out in the The Court of Queen's Bench Act.

4.       Prejudgment interest shall be payable from April 1, 2020 to the date the salary and per diem recommendations are implemented (whether by vote of the Legislature or by virtue of s.11.1(29) of the Act), and post-judgment interest should be payable from that date to the date that Judges are paid the retroactive adjustments.

5.       No interest shall be payable in respect of the period from October 22, 2020 to July 20, 2021.

6.       That effective April 1, 2020 each full-time and Senior Judge's annual education allowance should be increased from $3,000.00 to $3,500.00. This shall apply to all who were Judges as at April 1, 2020, including those who retire or otherwise leave the Bench prior to implemen­tation. The combined amount of the education allowances of full-time Judges and Senior Judges shall be provided to the Court in an amalgamated fund to be administered by the Chief Judge in accordance with the principles set out below:

Individual full-time Judges and senior Judges shall continue to have access to their educational allowance in order to fund their attendance at conferences and seminars, and/or for other educational purposes, as approved by the Chief Judge in accordance with Court policy. With the consent of each individual full­time Judge and Senior Judge, unused portions of each full-time Judge and Senior Judge's education allowance may be used to the benefit of the Court as a whole in relation to judicial education. All uses of the allowances are subject to approval by the Chief Judge in accordance with Court policy

7.       That mandatory retirement be set at age 75 in accordance with The Courts Modernization Act. Consistent with the transitional provision in The Courts Modernization Act, Judges who are over the age of 75 will continue to hold office until six months after the recommendation is implemented.

8.       That changes to the CSSA via The Super­annuation Amendment Act will apply to the portion of Judges' pensions that are held in the Civil Service Superannuation Fund. For the purposes of the supplementary judicial pension, the commuted value shall continue to be calculated in accordance with the standard set out in The Pension Benefits Act and Regulation as if it were a registered plan, as amended from time to time. For greater certainty, notwithstanding the amendments to The Civil Service Super­annuation Plan as set out in Bill 43, the calcu­lation of the commuted value of judges shall not be affected, and the supplementary plan shall fund any difference resulting from the change to The Civil Service Superannuation Act.

9.       That the parties engage in a process to create an administrative document that provides guidance on the Judges' supplemental pension plan and retirement insurance and that the Province contribute to the Association's reasonable legal and actuarial costs to a maximum of $7,500.00 for reviewing the Province's draft document.

10.   Effective April 1, 2020, a Senior Master who resigns as Senior Master after serving at least seven years, and thereafter carries out the functions of a Master shall be entitled to receive the greater of the current annual salary of a Master and the annual salary they received immediately before the resignation.

This should apply to all who were Senior Masters as at April 1, 2020, including those who retire or otherwise leave their position as Masters of the Court of Queen's Bench prior to implementation.

11.   The Province shall pay 75% of the Association's reasonable legal costs to a maximum aggregate of $55,000.

12.   The Province shall pay 100% of the Association's disbursements including the costs of experts to a maximum of $30,000.

13.   That, unless otherwise stated, all changes shall be effective on the date of approval by the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

14.   In these recommendations, "date of approval" means

a.       the date that the vote of concurrence referred to in subsection 11.1(28) of The Provincial Court Act takes place with respect to these recommen­dations; or

b.       if the recommendations must be implemented because of subsection 11.1(29) of The Provincial Court Act, the first day after the end of the 21-day period referred to in that subsection.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is in order, but now I have to say this. Sorry.

      It has been moved by Minister Helwer

THAT the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs: accept the recommendations in schedule A; and      recommend the same to the Legislative Assembly.

SCHEDULE A

Recom­men­dations of the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee–

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you–dispense.

      The long look was sufficient to catch the attention of my fellow com­mit­tee members.

      The motion is in order and the floor is open for questions.

      Any questions from members of the com­mit­tee?

      Seeing no questions, is the com­mit­tee ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the motion pass? [Agreed]

      If there are no further questions or comments, is it the will of the com­mit­tee to report to the House that we have completed our con­sid­era­tion of the Report and Recom­men­dations of the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee, dated April 19th, 2022? [Agreed]

      The hour being 2:30 p.m., what is the will of the com­mit­tee?

Some Honourable Members: Rise.

Mr. Chairperson: Com­mit­tee rise.

COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 2:30 p.m.


 

 

TIME – 2 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mr. James Teitsma (Radisson)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere)

ATTENDANCE – 6     QUORUM – 4

Members of the committee present:

Hon. Mr. Helwer

Ms. Fontaine,
Messrs. Guenter, Micklefield, Sala, Teitsma

PUBLIC PRESENTERS:

Ms. Susan Dawes, Prov­incial Judges Association of Manitoba (by leave)

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

Report and Recom­men­dations of the Judicial Compensation Com­mit­tee, dated April 19, 2022

* * *