- Reaction score
- 26,622
- Points
- 1,090
The MJCC have released their report, recommending a 15% pay increase for the four military judges.
Hmm. Those four judges made submissions on their own behalf.....presumably the time spent on that work was not "judgy stuff".The MJCC have released their report, recommending a 15% pay increase for the four military judges.
The whole MJCC system was set up at the time of the Supreme Court challenges to the military judges' impartiality. There was (and remains) case law that states that judicial impartiality has three components: 1) security of tenure; 2) financial security (i.e. pay and benefits must be established by law and not arbitrarily controlled by the executive); and 3) independence of the administration of the judicial functions.Hmm. Those four judges made submissions on their own behalf.....presumably the time spent on that work was not "judgy stuff".
It would be interesting to see the results if soldiers could also make submissions on their own behalf in response to the governments' position, and then have it adjudicated by an independent panel.
At least it is better than MPs voting on their own increases.....
The MJCC mandate is time bound. Their role was to examine 2019-2023. Ideally, their recommendations would have been in advance (something they note in the submission).Talk about cherry picking what is a factor and what is not to justify a salary increase…. Picking 2020 as the year to pick the number of days sitting/decisions rendered by Federally Appointed Judges to prove they also don’t do too much work is dishonest….
I'd argue that we have shifted from arbitrary termination of tenure for CAF members to excessive security of tenure; the standard required to terminate a CAF member from the organization is elevated. Madame Arbour advocates for easier termination of early enrolment personnel in her report.Maybe soldiers should be protected by " 1) security of tenure; 2) financial security (i.e. pay and benefits must be established by law and not arbitrarily controlled by the executive); and 3) independence of the administration of the military functions."
I always thought that "beyond a reasonable doubt" covered that.Uhuh.
Lawyers be lawyering.
Whatabout a soldiers impartiality? Is that just a given?
Yes, but that's within the judicial chain of command. Impartiality requires being separate of the standard military chain of command. It's a bit of an apples and oranges thing.You know....that whole unlimited liability thing.
Any Mil Judges subject to that?
That's a tough one. In a lot of ways, all of those are in fact in existence by way of various laws, regulations and policies. In effect a covenant between the people of Canada, its government and individual soldiers exists but is so disjointed that most people have troubles understanding and accessing the system. The problem is where the rubber meets the road. Are these policies sufficient and are they arbitrarily instituted and administered by the government?Maybe soldiers should be protected by " 1) security of tenure; 2) financial security (i.e. pay and benefits must be established by law and not arbitrarily controlled by the executive); and 3) independence of the administration of the military functions."
By giving the federal legislature exclusive jurisdiction in these areas it not only empowers the feds with the right to act but, IMHO, it also imposes a moral, if not a legal, obligation to act on behalf of all Canadian citizens', service members' and veterans' best interests. Obviously the Feds prefer to see the powers as permissive rather than obligatory.the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, ...
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
...
I was surprised that they didn't mention the lack of a chief military judge - it's been filled by an Acting judge for years. That plus the delays in appointment of the committee are suggestive of a GiC process that's not working optimally.
Whole heartedly agree.I'd argue that we have shifted from arbitrary termination of tenure for CAF members to excessive security of tenure; the standard required to terminate a CAF member from the organization is elevated. Madame Arbour advocates for easier termination of early enrolment personnel in her report.
Military Judges are getting a raise.
Response of the Minister of National Defence to the 2024 Report of the Military Judges Compensation Committee - Canada.ca
Response of the Minister of National Defence to the 2024 Report of the Military Judges Compensation Committeewww.canada.ca
$1.3 million per year to hear an average of 45 courts martial a year (That's 11 for each of the judges). And that's just for the four judges and not counting their staff of the mob at DMP and DDCS. DND is running a Ferrari solution for what is a Chevy problem.Military Judges are getting a raise.
Response of the Minister of National Defence to the 2024 Report of the Military Judges Compensation Committee - Canada.ca
Response of the Minister of National Defence to the 2024 Report of the Military Judges Compensation Committeewww.canada.ca
Military Judges are getting a raise.
Response of the Minister of National Defence to the 2024 Report of the Military Judges Compensation Committee - Canada.ca
Response of the Minister of National Defence to the 2024 Report of the Military Judges Compensation Committeewww.canada.ca
$1.3 million per year to hear an average of 45 courts martial a year (That's 11 for each of the judges). And that's just for the four judges and not counting their staff of the mob at DMP and DDCS. DND is running a Ferrari solution for what is a Chevy problem.
Honestly, I'd fire half of them and put the money towards a company of vehicle techs for the army.
On another note providing OTC meds for the troops. Just sayin....I put it into filling our bins in Supply.
Nah! Volkswagen (early 0ne)!$1.3 million per year to hear an average of 45 courts martial a year (That's 11 for each of the judges). And that's just for the four judges and not counting their staff of the mob at DMP and DDCS. DND is running a Ferrari solution for what is a Chevy problem.
Honestly, I'd fire half of them and put the money towards a company of vehicle techs for the army.
$1.3 million per year to hear an average of 45 courts martial a year (That's 11 for each of the judges). And that's just for the four judges and not counting their staff of the mob at DMP and DDCS. DND is running a Ferrari solution for what is a Chevy problem.
Honestly, I'd fire half of them and put the money towards a company of vehicle techs for the army.
I agree that there would be although one could debate the number.There's a minimum viable size, and I suspect it's probably 3 or 4 judges.