PM Appointing SCOC Justices -- Appearance of Lack of Impartiality
Quotes to note: italicization is mine
*** Prime Minister Paul Martin has already promised that MPs will have a role in vetting future Supreme Court candidates
[. . . . ] The prime minister now names Supreme Court judges after he and his justice minister consult privately with unspecified members of the legal and political communities. ***
There is speculation about how the new judges to replace justices Frank Iacobucci and Louise Arbour for the SCOC will be appointed -- and several people and governments wish to make input on this.
OTTAWA — The prime minister is in a conflict of interest by having the sole power to name Supreme Court judges, says one of Canada’s leading legal experts.
“This is because the federal government is the most frequent litigator before the court and the prime minister is the most senior member of the federal government involved in the litigation,” Jacob Ziegel, a University of Toronto professor, told the Commons justice committee Tuesday.
There is, therefore, “an appearance of lack of impartiality” built into the system, said Ziegel, condemning it as “fatally flawed.”
On the first day of public hearings on possible reforms to the secretive process of naming Supreme Court judges, several well-known legal analysts said Canada needs a system that is more transparent and involves the public, given the importance of the positions in shaping the country’s legal landscape.
[. . . . ] Prime Minister Paul Martin has already promised that MPs will have a role in vetting future Supreme Court candidates, putting his government under intense pressure to come up with a new system in a short time.
Alberta and Quebec issued a joint news release on Tuesday saying that both Supreme Court and Senate nominees should be selected from a short-list drafted by the provinces.
The prime minister now names Supreme Court judges after he and his justice minister consult privately with unspecified members of the legal and political communities.
[. . . . There was] general agreement. . . . The provinces, members of the legal community, and the general public, should also be involved, possibly as members of a committee similar to ones that exist in each province to vet judges.
[. . . . ] Chris Manfredi, a McGill University professor, was dismissive of concerns that adopting an American-type process would lead to candidates being put through the political wringer — something he said rarely happens in the U.S.
Manfredi added that Canada’s current process is already political and made worse by the public being kept in the dark.
“A prime minister appoints people whose views are as close to theirs as they can predict,” Manfredi said.
