Phyllis Thomas, Enterprise Editor
William 'Bill' Clarke, chief executive officer and president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, chaired a 2003 committee which reviewed the salaries of judges. The Government is yet to act on the committee's recommendations. - WINSTON SILL/FREELANCE PHOTOGRAPHER
IT IS becoming difficult. Increasingly difficult. Like pulling teeth.
Pardon us for believing that because we made the requests under the Access to Information Act, that it would be a simple matter of looking for the document and giving us access to it, as long as it does not fall in the exempt category.
No. It's more than that. Ever since the publication of a number of revealing articles, including the travel pattern and expenses of Prime Minister P. J. Patterson, things have changed.
The powerful feet of the authorities have slammed the brake.
Getting results is now tediously slow. There is a lot of rigmarole and skirting round that leaves you dizzy.
MATTER OF JUDGES' SALARIES
Take the matter of the judges' salaries, for example. They are getting between $3 million and $4 million per year, based on a scale that was approved for them in 2002. According to the Judiciary (Salaries) Order 2002, signed by the Minister of Finance on June 1, 2002, the salaries of the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal increased from $3.5 million to $4 million per annum in April 2002; that of Judge of the Court of Appeal moved from $3 million to $3.5 million per annum; Senior Puisne Judge from $2.75 million to $3.25 per annum and the Puisne Judge from $2.5 million to $3 million per annum for the same period.
Our information is that a committee headed by Bill Clarke, reviewed the salary structure and submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice in 2003. We wanted to know what has happened to the review.
REQUESTING A REPORT
Our request, under the Access to Information Act, was for the report reviewing the salary of judges that was done by the committee and submitted to the Minister of Justice. We also included other questions regarding the same matter. Our request was submitted to the Ministry of Justice. The response was prompt. They never missed a beat in putting us in our place about the 'sneaked-in' questions. Access to Information is about documents, not answering questions!
With regard to our request for the document, we were told, in a response signed by the acting Responsible Officer, Brenda Smith: "I have been advised to inform you that the report done and submitted for comments, to form part of a Cabinet submission, is not for public access. The matter of compensation/emoluments to judges is dealt with by the Ministry of Finance and Planning." But what we found a bit strange was the fact that another letter, with the same date and bearing the same reference number and signature, was delivered to us on the same day as the one referred to above. In fact, both envelopes were stapled together. This other letter said in part: "Efforts will be made to identify the existence of such report and to provide the copy if and when this is identified."
Anyone else picked up the foul odour?
We turned our attention to the Ministry of Finance, this time asking for documents that the ministry relied on to determine current and past salaries of judges. So hear the response (in part): "The Ministry of Finance and Planning is not involved in the determination of judges salaries..."
We looked again at the response from the Ministry of Justice. "The matter of compensation/emoluments to judges is dealt with by the Ministry of Finance and Planning."
Back to the Finance Ministry's response: "The Judiciary Act (1st April, 1973) sets out the procedures for the determination of these salaries. Under the said Act an ad hoc committee, the Judiciary Commission, is appointed every two years by the Ministry of Justice to whom the Commission submits their recommendations in a resolution that is tabled in the House of Parliament..."
