VII. Conclusions and Recommendations

It is the Committee’s conclusion that only parity of remuneration between military judges and other federally appointed judges will comply with Parliament’s direction to us to determine what adequate remuneration for military judges would be. The conclusions of this sixth Committee are based in constitutional imperatives reflected through proper statutory construction which reflect Parliament’s intent in enacting s. 165.34 of the NDA. This Committee’s conclusions are not based on a “single factor.” Indeed, it is a global consideration of all the factors mandated by Parliament in s-s. 165.34(2) of the NDA that leads the Committee to its conclusions.

To sum up, parity of remuneration with other federally appointed judges is not just a “factor” under s-s. 165.3(2)(d), rather it is a product of the Committee’s careful analysis under s-s. 165.34(2) which takes into account all factors to be considered pursuant to s-s. 165.34(2). There is nothing philosophical about our conclusions, we considered the evidence and arguments before us, applied the test established for us by Parliament, and arrived at a conclusion. This is not an exercise of attempting to compare apples to oranges, to somehow find a judicial position outside the military that most closely fits the duties of military judges, and then seize upon that remuneration as what the Committee should recommend, rather the Committee must consider all evidence, arguments and statutory direction in their totality in coming to conclusions.