SASKATOON CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION PROVINCIAL COURT COMMISSION for SASKATCHEWAN

Transcription

1 SUBMISSION of the SASKATOON CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION TO THE 2017 PROVINCIAL COURT COMMISSION for SASKATCHEWAN October 25, 2017 Contact Information: Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association Inc. Attention: Andrew Mason, President 306 Ontario Ave., Main Floor Saskatoon, SK S7K 2H5 Telephone: (306) Fax: (306)

2 SUBMISSION TO THE 2017 PROVINCIAL COURT COMMISSION of the Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association I. BACKGROUND OF OUR ORGANIZATION The Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association Inc. ( SCDLA ) was established in 1979 as a Non-Profit Corporation. It is made up primarily of criminal defence practitioners in the Saskatoon area, although we have members who attend from as far away as Meadow Lake Saskatchewan. Our members include Legal Aid lawyers as well as private defence counsel. The SCDLA serves as a forum for its members to discuss developments in criminal law and to share experiences and knowledge in relation to criminal law matters. From time to time the organization has taken public stands in relation to proposed changes in the criminal law. The goals of the SCDLA are to develop and maintain a strong criminal defence bar, to defend individuals rights vis-à-vis the state and to ensure that governments do not infringe those rights. The SCDLA is committed to advancing reasoned positions with government, the Law Society, the judiciary and other organizations in respect of reform and improvements in the criminal law to protect the rights of accused persons. II. MANDATE OF THE COMMISSION The SCDLA recognizes the importance of the Commission to the administration of justice in this province. The members of the SCDLA have a particular perspective on the functioning of the justice system in general, and of our Provincial Court in particular. We offer our submissions out of a sense of professional duty in relation to the administration of justice in our province.

3 Page 2 Section 38 of the The Provincial Court Act sets forth the mandate of this Commission: s. 38(1) A commission shall inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the following: (a) the salaries to be paid to: (i) the chief judge; (ii) an associate chief judge; (iii) judges other than the chief judge, associate chief judges and temporary judges, and (iv) temporary judges. (b) the remuneration to be paid to judges who perform administrative duties assigned to them pursuant to clause 8(f); (c) the allowances to be paid to judges who reside in the Northern Saskatchewan Administration District; (d) professional allowances; (e) vacation leave; (f) pension benefits and additional retirement benefits. (2) A commission may inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the following: (a) the support staff, facilities, equipment and security of the court; (b) the benefits to be provided to judges pursuant to regulations made pursuant to clause 65(d). The existence of this Commission follows naturally from the need to maintain an independent judiciary, which is essential in a free and democratic society. Provincial Court Judges are employed by the state but they also sit in judgment on matters to which the state is a party. So it is appropriate that the determination of judges salaries, benefits and working conditions be made by an independent body this Commission. In July 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the role of independent judges commissions, such as this Commission. In The Provincial Court Judges Association of New Brunswick v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice); Ontario Judges Association v. Ontario (Management Boards); Bodner v. Alberta; Conference Des Juges Du Quebec v. Quebec (AG), 2005 Supreme Court of Canada 44, [2005] 2 S.C.R.286. The Court stated at paragraph 14: 14 The Reference laid the groundwork to ensure that provincial court judges are independent from governments by precluding salary negotiations between them and avoiding any arbitrary interference with judges' remuneration. The commission process is an "institutional sieve" (Reference, at paras. 170, 185 and 189) - a

4 Page 3 structural separation between the government and the judiciary. The process is neither adjudicative interest arbitration nor judicial decision making. Its focus is on identifying the appropriate level of remuneration for the judicial office in question. All relevant issues may be addressed. The process is flexible and its purpose is not simply to "update" the previous commission's report. However, in the absence of reasons to the contrary, the starting point should be the date of the previous commission's report. Then at paragraph 17 the Court stated: The commission must objectively consider the submissions of all parties and any relevant factors identified in the enabling statute and regulations. Its recommendations must result from a fair and objective hearing. Its report must explain and justify its position. III. SUBMISSION ON THE REVIEW OF JUDICIAL SALARIES With respect to judicial compensation, the SCDLA submits that the public interest is best served if: i) the process for setting judges compensation and the result promotes public confidence in the administration of justice generally, including actual and apparent judicial independence; and ii) if the compensation itself promotes a strong and independent judiciary by providing compensation that attracts the most qualified members of the legal profession to the judiciary. Public confidence in the administration of justice is important. We submit that it is in the public interest to ensure that the hierarchy of the Canadian court system does not create a perception that there is a hierarchy in the quality of justice being delivered. For this reason, it very much in the public interest to ensure that there is not a significant disparity between the compensation paid to judges of Superior Court and to Provincial Court judges.

5 Page 4 1. Historical Comparison: Compensation for Federal and Provincial Court Judges The table below lists and compares the salaries for Queen s Bench and Provincial Court judges since : Year Queen's Bench Sask. Prov.Court Difference Percentage Judge s Salary Judge s Salary (QB-SPC) (SPC/QB) 1985 $105,000 $71,000 $34, % 1986 $115,000 $73,130 $41, % 1987 $121,300 $80,052 $41, % 1988 $127,700 $90,000 $37, % 1989 $133,800 $90,000 $43, % 1990 $140,400 $90,000 $50, % 1991 $147,800 $90,000 $57, % 1992 $155,800 $90,000 $65, % 1993 $155,800 $92,250 $63, % 1994 $155,800 $94,556 $61, % 1995 $155,800 $94,556 $61, % 1996 $155,800 $94,556 $61, % 1997 $165,600 $112,961 $52, % 1998 $175,800 $112,961 $62, % 1999 $178,100 $112,961 $65, % 2000 $198,000 $143,000 $55, % 2001 $204,400 $143,000 $61, % 2002 $210,941 $143,000 $67, % 2003 $216,600 $158,000 $58, % 2004 $232,300 $161,634 $70, % 2005 $237,400 $165,190 $72, % 2006 $244,700 $195,000 $49, % 2007 $252,000 $198,900 $53, % 2008 $260,000 $204,552 $55, % 2009 $267,200 $220,915 $46, % 2010 $271,400 $229,753 $41, % 2011 $281,100 $238,943 $42, % 2012 $288,100 $248,010 $40, % 2013 $295,500 $254,458 $41, % 2014 $300,800 $260,819 $39, % 2015 $308,600 $272,295 $36, % 2016 $314,100 $282,184 $31, % 2017 $315,300 $290,848 $24, % 1 These figures are from the office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

6 Page 5 In 1978 The Provincial Court Act created the Provincial Court for Saskatchewan, replacing the former Magistrates Court. At that time a Provincial Court judge s annual salary was $44,400 compared to $45,000 for a federally-appointed District Court judge and $52,000 for a federally-appointed Superior Court judge. By 1985 a Queen s Bench judge was paid $105,000 per year while a Saskatchewan Provincial Court judge received only $71,000. It is seen from the above table and the figures from 1978 that the difference between salaries of Saskatchewan s federally appointed judges and the salaries of the judges of Provincial Court has gone from $600 ($45,000 - $44,400) in 1978 to as high as $72,210 in Since 2005, this gap has consistently narrowed and is now down to $24,452, the provincial court salaries. While we certainly commend the efforts of Provincial Court Commissions to reduce the salary difference, we submit that no disparity is justified on the basis of qualifications or workload of our judges nor the importance/value of the work done by the Provincial Court. We submit that maintaining or increasing the current level of salary difference ($24,425) would not be in the interests of justice in Saskatchewan. We urge the present Commission to establish a salary schedule for the next three years that will continue the reduce or eliminate this disparity. 2. Qualifications and Workloads do not justify different treatment Provincial Court is the Court of first instance for all people charged with a criminal offence. Most of these criminal cases stay within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court. Some will require an election that they be tried in Provincial Court or that they be tried in the Court of Queen s Bench. This latter election will normally result in a preliminary inquiry at Provincial Court to determine if there is sufficient evidence to send the matter on to trial.

7 Page 6 Amendments to the Criminal Code over the last several years have resulted in fewer offences within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Queen s Bench and more offences within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court. Not only has the number of cases increased for the Provincial Court but the type of work demanded of the Provincial Court is much more complex than it once was. The Provincial Court judges have introduced practice directives to assist counsel and clarify the processes in specific matters such as new rules for admitting evidence in preliminary inquiries, applications concerning the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, counsel and witnesses appearing by electronic means, court appointed counsel applications, and procedures for withdrawal of counsel. The Court has been dealing with new sentencing alternatives, special considerations in sentencing of indigenous accused persons and young offenders, court appointed counsel applications, and issues relating to the balancing a victim s privacy interests with that of an accused s right to a fair trial. A variety of Criminal Code amendments have resulted in criminal cases becoming lengthier and more complicated. Our members report that there has been a significant increase in the number of dangerous offender applications being brought in the Provincial Court over the past 10 years. These are very time- and resource-consuming proceedings. The expansion of custodial minimum sentences appears to have resulted in fewer guilty pleas at an early stage of proceedings, thus providing more work for the Provincial Court. In recent years, the Provincial Court has been proactive in addressing the community s demand to improve access to justice, to determine the causes of offending behaviour and to come up with sentencing alternatives to effectively punish and deter the offender and protect society

8 Page 7 but also to address the root causes of this behaviour. In that regard, the Provincial Court has implemented such initiatives as Cree Courts (throughout the north), Domestic Violence Courts (Saskatoon and Regina), Drug Courts (Regina and Moose Jaw) and the Mental Health Courts (Saskatoon and Regina). In addition to its responsibilities in criminal law matters and drug prosecutions, the Provincial Court also deals with offences pursuant to provincial legislation, small claims civil litigation, family law (in rural centres), tax prosecutions, traffic court prosecutions, Occupational Health and Safety cases and many other quasi-criminal matters. Forty-eight Saskatchewan Provincial Court judges preside at 13 judicial centres and a further 67 Provincial Court circuit points through the province. They bring the court to the people. The Court of Queen s Bench, on the other hand, has 13 judicial districts and rarely ventures away from its judicial centres. For many, especially in the northern part of the province, travel to the nearest Queen s Bench judicial center can be difficult or prohibitive. The public is generally more familiar with Provincial Court and their Provincial Court judges. The proper and effective functioning of our justice system depends heavily upon legal counsel, both defence and prosecution, to determine how and where criminal matters are resolved. The wealth of experience and knowledge of Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judges in all aspects of sentencing is widely appreciated by members of both the defence bar and the prosecution bar. The fact that the workload of the Provincial Court in criminal matters greatly exceeds that of the Court of Queen s Bench is a good indication of the high regard that members of the defence and prosecution bars hold for the Judges of the Provincial Court.

9 Page 8 3. Two-tier support for Saskatchewan s trial courts is not in the Public Interest. The Court of Queen s Bench may be a court of superior jurisdiction but this does not, in any way, mean that the importance and value of the work done by the Provincial Court is somehow inferior to that of the Queen s Bench. As a matter of principle, we submit that there is no reason that judges of the Provincial Court should receive less remuneration than Queen s Bench judges. Simply put, perpetuation of significantly different salaries and different levels of support for judges of the two courts is ultimately harmful to the interests of justice and is not in the public interest. In 1974, at the request of the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, the Honourable Emmett Hall (as a then recently retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada) reviewed the Court system in this province. At page 21 of his 1974 report 2 Justice Hall commented on the importance of the Provincial Court and the need to treat its judges no differently than federally appointed judges of the superior courts: The status of the Provincial Court has to be raised in the public estimation. Its true worth must, of course, come from the quality of its work; from a Bench staffed with competent, knowledgeable judges of high personal integrity, with Court experience and a knowledge of the law and the ability to apply it fairly and humanely. The judge must have an adequate salary and security of tenure in other words, judicial independence to the same degree as federally appointed judges of the District Court. I can see no reason why they should be treated differently. They are judges doing judicial work of equal importance to the public and in many areas having concurrent jurisdiction, particularly in criminal law, with the judges of the District Court and Queen s Bench Courts. 2 Hall, Hon. Emmett, C.C, Q.C, Report of the Survey of the Court Structure in Saskatchewan (Queen s Printer, 1974), p. 21.

10 Page 9 It is fundamental to the rule of law that all persons are equal before the law. Conversely, the law must be, and be seen to be, dispensed in an equal manner. This should mean that all litigants have the right to have their cases heard by judges possessed with the same general level of skills, legal knowledge and expertise, whether the judge is with the Provincial Court or the Court of Queen s Bench. If it is made to appear to members of the public that we have a twotiered level of justice because there is a two-tier pay scale between federally and provincially appointed judges, there is a serious risk of creating a perception that the quality of justice is of a lower standard in Provincial Court. For all the above reasons, we submit that perpetuation of a two-tier system for remuneration and institutional support for Saskatchewan s two trial courts is not in the interests of justice and, therefore, not in the public interest. 4. Attracting qualified members of the bar to the Provincial Court Bench It is in the interests of justice that we attract the ablest members of the private and public bar of the province to become judges. The Ontario Commission Report of 1999 recognized, What is absolutely essential is that the level of remuneration (including pension ), be set at such a level that it will be attractive, or at least not a disincentive, to the ablest men and women at the bar. Provincial Court judges must be assured a salary level sufficient to attract highly qualified members of the bar. This includes candidates from both the private and public bars. Courts of first instance produce important decisions that guide and shape our communities. Saskatchewan society is more complex and multi-cultural than it was a generation ago. Governments and laws are more complex. We require qualified, respected, respectful, and dedicated judges who are able to draw on knowledge of the law, broad life experience and a

11 Page 10 depth of understanding of human behavior to make sound, timely, and well-reasoned decisions. The Provincial Court must be able to attract such persons to the bench. There are sacrifices that lawyers must make in moving from private practice to the Bench. A lawyer must sever ties with his or her clients, withdraw from political life, and exercise care and discretion in community and personal affairs. Accepting a judicial appointment may entail financial sacrifices as well. Judges must dissolve any business and financial connections they had before their appointment and cannot make any new ones or follow many business opportunities while on the Bench. Accordingly, judges do not have the same flexibility of investment and the same ability to seek financial opportunities as lawyers in practice. The compensation and benefits accorded a Provincial Court judge should recognize this reality. 5. Tying judicial compensation to the province s fiscal state A discussion of wage and benefit parity between federally appointed and paid judges and those appointed and paid by the province requires some comment on the argument that the economic capacity of Saskatchewan relative to Canada should be a factor in determining compensation for Saskatchewan Provincial Court judges. A distinction must be made between a province s fiscal capacity as measured by the province s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and the provincial government s fiscal state. A government s fiscal state follows from the decisions which the government makes. Those choices may be limited by the province s fiscal capacity but they may also be the result of deliberate policies of governments.

12 Page 11 We submit that the fundamental importance of maintaining judicial independence necessarily means that judicial compensation should not be tied to the freely made policy choices that a government may make. For this reason, a government s fiscal state, should not be a factor in assessing judicial compensation. Rather it is the province s overall fiscal capacity that should be considered. The argument may have been made in the past that a Provincial Court judge in Saskatoon should not be paid as much as, for example, a Provincial Court judge in British Columbia or Ontario because Saskatchewan has less fiscal capacity than B.C. or Ontario and less than the average fiscal capacity of Canada as a whole. In light of the economic conditions in Saskatchewan compared to other provinces in Canada, that argument can no longer be made. According to the latest figures (for 2016) as set out in Appendix 1, the nominal GDP per capita of Saskatchewan (2016) is $51,201 per year whereas for B.C. it is $45,979 and for Ontario it is $45, In 2016, the average GDP per capita for Canada as a whole was $45,979. In fact, among all the provinces, Saskatchewan s fiscal capacity is second only to that of Alberta (with a GDP/capita of $68,009). We submit that while provincial fiscal capacity is a factor that may be considered, for the reasons given above in parts 1-4 of this submission, the goal should be to seek judicial compensation that minimizes disparities among trial judges in all provinces at all levels of the trial court system. 3 See table compiled from Statistics Canada data published in CANSIM tables and , Appendix 1 to this submission).

13 Page 12 CONCLUSION - Judicial Salaries The SCDLA submits that there is no reason based on judicial qualifications or workload that can justify a significant disparity between levels of compensation and benefits for judges of the Court of Queen s Bench and the Provincial Court. Provincial Court judges and judges of the Court of Queen s Bench have an equally important a role in the administration of justice in this province. Perpetuation of a two-tier system for remuneration and institutional support for judges of the Provincial Court carries the danger of creating a perception of a two-tier system of justice in Saskatchewan. The Provincial Court must attract the most qualified members of the bar to become judges. A lower level of compensation for Provincial Court judges works against this goal. The fiscal capacity of Saskatchewan, but not the fiscal state of the government of the day, may be a factor to consider in setting compensation for Provincial Court judges. However, this does not support lower compensation levels for Provincial Court judges than for federal judges. For all these reasons, we submit that it is not in the interests of justice, and therefore not in the public interest, to perpetuate a material disparity between Provincial Court judges salaries and benefits and those of the Court of Queen s Bench. The goal should be to move toward parity. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of October, 2017 by and on behalf of the Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association. Andrew Mason, President SCDLA

14 Canada and the Provinces: GDP, Population and GDP/capita Newfoundland and Labrador 50, , , , Prince Edward Island 31, , , , Nova Scotia 33, , , , New Brunswick 34, , , , Quebec 37, , , , Ontario 43, , , , Manitoba 41, , , , Saskatchewan 53, , , , Alberta 74, , , , British Columbia 43, , , , Yukon 64, , , , Northwest Territories 79, , , , Nunavut 55, , , , Canada 45, , , ,128.47

15 Canada and the Provinces Populations (from CANSIM ) persons (thousands) Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec 8, , , , Ontario 13, , , , Manitoba 1, , , , Saskatchewan 1, , , , Alberta 3, , , , British Columbia 4, , , , Yukon Northwest Territories Nunavut Canada 35, , , , Canada and the Provinces GDP (Chained 2007 dollars) from CANSIM ) Newfoundland and Labrador 26, , , , Prince Edward Island 4, , , , Nova Scotia 32, , , , New Brunswick 25, , , , Quebec 306, , , , Ontario 586, , , , Manitoba 52, , , , Saskatchewan 58, , , , Alberta 296, , , , British Columbia 198, , , , Yukon 2, , , , Northwest Territories 3, , , , Nunavut 1, , , , Canada 1,596, ,637, ,652, ,672,835.00

16 Statistics Canada Home > CANSIM 1, 2, 3, 6 Table Estimates of population, Canada, provinces and territories quarterly (persons) Data table Add/Remove data Manipulate Download Related information Help The data below is a part of CANSIM table Use the Add/Remove data tab to customize your table. Selected items [Add/Remove data] Geography Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Canada 36,264,604 36,415,721 36,474,968 36,560,776 36,708,083 Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island 530, , , , , , , , , ,021 Nova Scotia 948, , , , ,869 New Brunswick 757, , , , ,655 Quebec 8,321,888 8,344,608 8,351,714 8,366,022 8,394,034 Ontario 13,976,320 14,053,658 14,084,797 14,124,305 14,193,384 Manitoba 1,318,115 1,323,550 1,327,883 1,331,960 1,338,109 Saskatchewan 1,148,588 1,153,590 1,156,342 1,159,549 1,163,925 Alberta 4,236,376 4,250,816 4,261,116 4,272,398 4,286,134 British Columbia 4,757,658 4,778,963 4,783,461 4,795,891 4,817,160 Yukon 38,086 38,170 38,209 38,273 38,459 Northwest Territories 5 44,617 44,406 44,452 44,584 44,520 5 Nunavut 37,177 37,292 37,438 37,657 37,996

17 Geography Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Footnotes: 1. Postcensal estimates are based on the 2011 Census counts adjusted for census net undercoverage (CNU) (including adjustment for incompletely enumerated Indian reserves (IEIR)) and the components of demographic growth that occurred since that census. Intercensal estimates are produced using counts from two consecutive censuses adjusted for CNU (including (IEIR) and postcensal estimates. 2. Quarterly population estimates: Quarter I = January 1; Quarter II = April 1; Quarter III = July 1; Quarter IV = October Estimates are final intercensal and unadjusted for census net undercoverage prior to July 1, Estimates are final intercensal from July 1, 1971 to April 1, 2011, final postcensal from July 1, 2011 to July 1, 2013, updated postcensal from October 1, 2013 to April 1, 2017 and preliminary postcensal from July 1, Population estimates for Northwest Territories and Nunavut are presented separately from July 1, Prior to July 1, 1991, only population estimates for Northwest Territories and Nunavut combined are available. 6. The population growth, which is used to calculate population estimates, is comprised of the natural growth (CANSIM ), international migration (CANSIM ) and interprovincial migration (CANSIM and ). Source: Statistics Canada. Table Estimates of population, Canada, provinces and territories, quarterly (persons), CANSIM (database). (accessed: ) Back to search Date modified:

18 Statistics Canada Home > CANSIM 1, 2, 60, 63, 64 Table Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), provinces and territories annual (dollars x 1,000,000) Data table Add/Remove data Manipulate Download Related information Help The data below is a part of CANSIM table Use the Add/Remove data tab to customize your table. Selected items [Add/Remove data] Value = Chained (2007) dollars North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) = All industries [T001] Geography Newfoundland and Labrador 25, , , , ,183.9 Prince Edward Island 4, , , , ,785.9 Nova Scotia 32, , , , ,845.3 New Brunswick 26, , , , ,776.1 Quebec 302, , , , ,012.0 Ontario 578, , , , ,508.5 Manitoba 51, , , , ,912.2 Saskatchewan 55, , , , ,809.9 Alberta 280, , , , ,113.1 British Columbia 193, , , , ,755.1 Yukon 2, , , , ,373.7 Northwest Territories 3, , , , ,719.7 Nunavut 1, , , , ,039.6

19 Footnotes: 1. For the gross domestic product (GDP) by industry refer to CANSIM table for Canada in chained dollars, table for Canada in current dollars, table for provinces and territories in percentage share. 2. For the chained dollars, the aggregates are not equal to the sum of their components. 3. Aggregate T001 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes Aggregate T002 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes Aggregate T003 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes Aggregate T010 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 21, 22, 31-33, Aggregate T011 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes , Aggregate T012 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 321, Aggregate T013 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334, excluding 3345, 4173, 5112, 517, 518, 5415, Aggregate T014 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334, excluding Aggregate T015 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 4173, 5112, 517, 518, 5415, Aggregate T016 combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 211, 2121, 21229, , , 2211, 2212, 32411, Aggregate 11A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 111, Industry 111A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111, excluding Industry 115A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 1151, Industry 21239A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes , , , , Industry 21311A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes , Industry 21311B combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes , Aggregate 221A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 2212, Industries in sector 23 are special hybrids that correspond to sections of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code Aggregate 311A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 3112, 3118, Industry 3121A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 31213, Industry 31A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 313, Industry 31B combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 315, Industry 3241A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 324, excluding Aggregate 325A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 3255, 3256, Industry 327A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 327, excluding Industry 332A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 3322,

20 Aggregate 333A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 3332, Industry 334A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 3343, 3345, Aggregate 48Z combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 485, Industry 48A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 4852, 4854, 4855, 4859, Industry 486A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 4861, Aggregate 49A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 491, Industry 5111A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 51112, 51113, 51114, Industry 5121A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 51211, 51212, Aggregate 52B combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 521, Industry 5221A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 52211, Industry 52A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 523, Industry 5311 is a special hybrid that corresponds to sections of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 5311 and to Input-Output code BS Industry 5311A is a special hybrid that corresponds to sections of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 5311 and to Input-Output code BS5311A Industry 531A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 5312, Industry 532A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 532, excluding Aggregate 541A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 5411, Aggregate 541B combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 5414, 5416, 5417, Industry 561A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 5612, Aggregate 611B combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 61, excluding Industry 611A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes Aggregate 62X combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 62, excluding Industry 621A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 6213, 6214, 6215, 6216, Industry 71A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 711, Industry 713A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 7131, Industry 721A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 7212, Industry 811A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 8112, 8113, Aggregate 81A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 812, Industry 812A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 8121, Industry 813A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 813, excluding

21 Industry 911A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 911, excluding Aggregate 91A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 913, On June 22, 2015, provincial and territorial values for special aggregates (tabulations T002 through T016) were corrected for 2014 and subsequently revised in November, 2015 as part of the annual revision. 61. Industry 112A combines the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 112, excluding With the November 10, 2015 release, the industry structure shows the Aquaculture industry (NAICS 1125) and Animal production (excluding aquaculture) (Industry 112A) separately, which were previously combined under the Animal production industry (NAICS 112). 63. The November 10, 2015 release incorporates comprehensive revisions to the provincial-territoria estimates of gross domestic product by industry for reference years 2007 to For more information on the source of these changes, consult the information found at Latest Developments in the Canadian Economic Accounts in the system of macroeconomic accounts module at As part of the 2015 comprehensive revision of the Canadian System of Macroeconomic Accounts (CSMA), the provincial-territorial Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by industry data in chained (2007) dollars for the period 1997 to 2006 have been released on December 15, The data for the period 1997 to 2006 have been aligned with those published on November 10, 2015 for the period 2007 to In addition, the chained (2007) dollars for the provincial and territorial GDP for the following three aggregates were revised for the period vis-à-vis those released on November 10, 2015: information and communication technology-total, information and communication technology-manufacturing, and information and communication technologyservices. The growth rates for these three series for the period were unaffected. 65. Contributions to percentage change (CPC) in real gross domestic product (GDP) show how much each industry contributed to the total percent increase or decrease in GDP of a province or territory's economy. These should not be interpreted as proportions of GDP. They are presented directly as a contribution in percentage points of the underlying components to the total economy. For additional information please consult : Source: Statistics Canada. Table Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), provinces and territories, annual (dollars), CANSIM (database). (accessed: ) Back to search Date modified: