|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
POSSIBLE RESTRICTIONS ON PRIME MINISTER'S
POWER TO APPOINT JUDGES
By C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
REAL Women of Canada
It seems that the time for the secretive selection
process to appoint Canadian judges is finally coming to an
end. Changes are now possible because of the pressure that
has been building over the past two decades about this serious
matter. Any changes, however, are not a moment too soon, judging
from the damage already foisted on the public by the arrogance
of some of our current judges.
A poll conducted between July 22 and July
24, 2003 by Ipsos-Reid is most revealing about what Canadians
think about judges making legislative decisions:
- 71% agree that "it should be up to
Parliament and provincial legislatures, not the courts,
to make laws in Canada."
- 54% agreed that "judges in Canada
have too much power."
John Wright, Ipsos-Reid's senior vice president,
stated in an interview about the poll (Globe and Mail, August
11, 2003):
The poll's results highlight a much broader
public issue about the proper role of elected representatives
and unelected judges …
… With 22 years of interpreting
the Charter behind them, judges are getting "into some
pretty deep waters" on public-policy issues.
We are getting to a stage with some of
these issues that there is going to be higher profile of
questioning of who these judges are, the process they have
in terms of their appointments and the role that the courts
play in our society.
The situation has become so serious in Canada
that even some of the judges themselves have been calling
for changes in the appointment system. For example, the Chief
Justice of Quebec, Michel Robert, who, by the way, before
his appointment to the bench was president of the Liberal
Party of Canada from 1986 to 1990, and was also the federal
Liberal government's negotiator with the Mohawks after the
1990 Oka crisis, stated in the Ottawa Citizen (August 30,
2003):
I think we need a more transparent and
a more credible system of appointments [of judges].
He went on to say that candidates should be
vetted by:
… a "more transparent,"
broad-based, non-partisan council composed of judges, lawyers,
government representatives and others.
He further stated:
… I think people in general will
require a more credible system because now people realize
that judges are really the third branch of government and
they do make decisions that affect day-to-day life in many
controversial questions.
Consequently, the House of Commons Justice Committee has now
begun to review the process by which the Prime Minister alone
has the power to appoint Supreme Court and provincial appeal
court judges. The House of Commons decided to examine this
issue because of a motion brought by the Bloc Quebecois in
October, which was unanimously passed in the House of Commons.
This motion requested the Justice Committee investigate and
recommend a better system for the appointment of judges.
Prime Minister-in-Waiting, Paul Martin, supports
changes in the system of appointing judges, and has suggested
that nominees should be vetted by a committee of MPs. Because
of his expressed views on the issue, it is believed that the
House of Commons' Justice Committee's review of the judicial
appointment system will be revived by Mr. Martin once Parliament
sits again in February.
This prospect of change is yet another sign
that the Chrétien era is over. Prime Minister Chrétien
has been a major supporter of the current system, in which,
for the past 128 years, the Prime Minister alone has exercised
the right to appoint judges. Times have changed, and so should
our antiquated system of judicial appointments.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
