New Supreme Court of Canada justices

[Aerich]

This is interesting on so many levels. Issues of gender balance, regional balance, supposed political appointments, and much much more.

I will mention in passing that, "political" appointments or not, the credentials and competency of the judges are not in question.

Source

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

By KIM LUNMAN AND BRIAN LAGHI
With a report from Dawn Walton in Calgary
Thursday, August 26, 2004

OTTAWA -- An unprecedented parliamentary committee will reluctantly endorse the appointment of two Supreme Court of Canada nominees amid criticisms that the first-ever hearing into selections of the country's top jurists is a sham.

The committee's report -- to be released tomorrow -- is expected to back the nominations of Madam Justice Louise Charron and Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, both of the Ontario Court of Appeal, sources say.

The report -- to be delivered to Prime Minister Paul Martin -- will also recommend changes to the new parliamentary process for vetting Supreme Court judges.

In testimony to the nine-member ad hoc committee yesterday, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler presented two binders full of the nominees' decisions and extolled their qualifications. If accepted, Judge Abella and Judge Charron would bring the number of women on the court to an all-time high of four.

The televised hearing to scrutinize the selection of Supreme Court nominees was the first of its kind in Canada.

But it offered little of the confrontational atmosphere of congressional hearings that accompany U.S. judicial nominations, most notably the sexual-harassment allegations against Judge Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill.

The panel met for an hour yesterday after the hearing and decided not to oppose the nominations, sources say.

None of the panel members -- three Liberal MPs, two Conservative MPs, one Bloc Québécois MP, one NDP MP and two representatives from the Canadian Judicial Council and the Law Society of Upper Canada -- even questioned the qualifications of the nominees. Many said they didn't have enough information to ask adequate questions and want the process changed so they can quiz the nominees.

"The prevailing winds reflect caution," committee chairman Derek Lee, a Liberal MP, said after the hearing. "I also endorse and support the view we must not let the process devolve into a circus or a drama."

Tory MP Vic Toews told the hearing his party wants to hear from the nominees in person so they could answer "the fundamental question: 'Why do you believe you are qualified for the job?' This promise of transparency appears to have been abandoned for what in fact is a rubber-stamp process."

Mr. Cotler defended the process, saying that to appear before public hearings would compromise the nominees' judicial independence.

"You referred to this yesterday as a kind of public relations exercise," he admonished the Tory MPs on the panel. "You talked about this thing being rushed, haphazard and the like. You said why should the nominees not come before this committee so we can put to them the question, 'Why do you believe you are qualified for the Supreme Court of Canada?' As if a prospective nominee could answer a question such as 'When did you stop beating your wife?' "

Retorted Tory MP Peter MacKay: "I suggest to you that it is patronizing for you to say we would turn this into a three-ring circus. I would suggest this is a done deal. . . . This is now window dressing, lip service."

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein also criticized the new process, saying in Calgary that Prime Minister Paul Martin used the nominations to promote the federal Liberals' left-leaning social policies.

"I have to be of the mind that the appointments are political," Mr. Klein said, but added that he expects the federal Conservatives would have done the same if they were in office.

The Alberta government wants more provincial input in the appointment of Supreme Court judges and of senators.

Mr. Martin has been facing pressure to fill the two unanticipated vacancies on the Supreme Court. Louise Arbour and Frank Iacobucci left in June.

The court has a full fall agenda and the Liberal government has asked it to rule on the constitutionality of its proposed same-sex legislation. In previous decisions, both nominees have ruled in favour of same-sex rights.

At yesterday's hearing, New Democrat MP Joe Comartin was also critical of the new process, saying it is impossible to turn around a thorough report in less than two days.

"We needed more preparation. It was not much of a process," Mr. Comartin said.

Panel members are divided on whether nominees should appear before future hearings. Some suggest that a shortlist of nominees appear before a parliamentary committee. Others disagree on whether the proceedings should be held behind closed doors.

Mr. Cotler acknowledged that the process could be improved. "Is this process imperfect? Yes. Can it be improved? Yes."

He also shed some light on how the federal government selects Supreme Court nominees. He said he consulted widely within the legal community, meeting with the Supreme Court's Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin, Ontario Attorney-General Michael Bryant, Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, as well as the president of the Canadian Bar Association.