Undermining the division of powers

[Figleaf]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

[Wilber]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

Why, he is just doing what all PMs have done, he is just honest enought to admit it.

[Figleaf]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

Why, he is just doing what all PMs have done, he is just honest enought to admit it.

Actually, he is undoing the recent innovation of autonomous advisory committees.

And he is certainly not 'admitting' it, and thus is not being honest on this point.

The insertion of police officials into the selection of judges, and the removal of the voice of sitting judges in the selection process is clearly an ideology-driven gerrymandering of our legal system.

[August1991]

Is this the latest Liberal talking point? If so, it's going over like a lead balloon. Did you see this latest exchange during Question Period?

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is allowing an increasing number of judges' positions to remain empty. Worse yet, while the Conservatives are going over their list of defeated candidates with a fine toothed comb, they are turning their noses up at qualified candidates. Apparently, it will be a Conservative or no one.

Will the minister put an end to favouritism and appoint qualified, independent members, who are respected by the Canadian legal community?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we have pointed out repeatedly, we are appointing the most qualified judges.

It is interesting that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine would speak about the quality of the appointments being made by our government when her government, in which she was a minister, appointed somebody named Luciano Del Negro to the Immigration and Refugee Board. I believe he is the husband of the member of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Hansard

The dial has been turned Left-Liberal for too long (quite apart from the patronage). It is time we turn it to the centre. That's not being partisan or what you call a "shocking disgrace". It's being in the centre or being balanced.

I would love to see the CBC do the same. Figleaf, many, many Canadians do not see themselves in our federal institutions.

If Harper were to be partisan in the same way that the Liberals were, you would see nominations far more radical. I think that Harper is being too reasonable.

[Figleaf]

Is this the latest Liberal talking point?

I have no idea. I read about it in the Glob and Maul.

If so, it's going over like a lead balloon. Did you see this latest exchange during Question Period?

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is allowing an increasing number of judges' positions to remain empty. Worse yet, while the Conservatives are going over their list of defeated candidates with a fine toothed comb, they are turning their noses up at qualified candidates. Apparently, it will be a Conservative or no one.

Will the minister put an end to favouritism and appoint qualified, independent members, who are respected by the Canadian legal community?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we have pointed out repeatedly, we are appointing the most qualified judges.

It is interesting that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine would speak about the quality of the appointments being made by our government when her government, in which she was a minister, appointed somebody named Luciano Del Negro to the Immigration and Refugee Board. I believe he is the husband of the member of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

You think that's a good example of tory cleverness? First, it's a lie that they are appointing the 'best qualified'-- they changed the rules to prevent the committees from identifying candidates by their relative level of qualifications. Second, he goes off topic with the pointless reference to the Immigration Board. Third, what the previous government did is not the issue here. Frankly, I'm surprised you'd regard that response as anywhere close to useful or appropriate.

The dial has been turned Left-Liberal for too long (quite apart from the patronage). It is time we turn it to the centre.

Even if we accepted your premise, the tory measures are in no way a turn to the 'centre'. It's a turn to rightist ideology and a creeping police-state.

[Wilber]

It will be interesting to se how this plays out. Early response on talk radio around hear is running around 90% approval. Wonder if it means much.

[Figleaf]

It will be interesting to se how this plays out. Early response on talk radio around hear is running around 90% approval. Wonder if it means much.

Approval?! Who in their right minds would approve of stacking the courts with tory (or any party's) hacks?

If the voters of this country really approve of that, they deserve the social disaster it portends. (Don't we have enough wrongful convictions on the books already?)

And even assuming police input is useful for criminal judges, what the hell do police representatives have to contribute to the selection of commercial, family, and administrative law judges?

The utter stupidity of this tory attack on the justice system is an affront to any thinking person.

[Wilber]

Most of the people who were calling in. Time will tell if they are typical.

[Wilber]

It's the kind of thing that happens when people believe the pendulum has swung too far in one direction.

[Riverwind]

Approval?! Who in their right minds would approve of stacking the courts with tory (or any party's) hacks?

Anyone who recognizes that the system was already stacked with liberal hacks.

If the voters of this country really approve of that, they deserve the social disaster it portends.

Why would that be worse than the status quo where people with multiple prior convictions are sentenced to house arrest?

And even assuming police input is useful for criminal judges, what the hell do police representatives have to contribute to the selection of commercial, family, and administrative law judges?

What do any of the current board members have to contribute to the selection of judges outside their immediate expertise?

The utter stupidity of this tory attack on the justice system is an affront to any thinking person.

The only utter stupidity I see is coming from people defending the system under the liberals and trying to claim that it was any different.

[August1991]

I have posted this before in another thread on this topic.

I took the list of judicial appointments made by the federal government since 1995 and combined it with the brilliant Unofficial Canadian Political Contributions Search Tool, and some interesting numbers popped out:

• there are 99 unique names on the list of judicial appointments
  
• of those names, 59, or 60%, appear on the Liberal Party donation rolls since 1993 (I eliminated one name that I could not resolve uniquely)
  
• those names are responsible for a total of $109,700.32 in donations, or an average of $1,859.33 each
  
• checking the date of the donation against the date of the corresponding judicial appointment, the total amount of donations subsequent to the judicial appointment totaled $613.09
  

In other words, fully 99.4% of the donations being made by these people whose names correspond to judicial appointments were made prior to the appointments.

Take for example, Claudette Tessier-Couture. She donated $136.74 in 2000, $1,150.00 in 2001, $1,000.00 in 2002, and $1,000.00 in 2003. She was appointed to the bench by Justice Minister Martin Cauchon in July of 2003. Going forward from 2003, not a dime.

...

What about the other parties?

Bloc Quebecois: $6,103.34

Progressive Conservatives: $2493.40

NDP: $120.00

...

Total amount of donations to parties not Liberal: $8716.74, or just under 8% of the total donated to the Liberal Party in the same time period.

Link

Where was the Globe & Mail when all these partisan judicial appointments were being made? Why is the G & M suddenly making an issue of "partisanship"?

[jdobbin]

Why, he is just doing what all PMs have done, he is just honest enought to admit it.

Previous prime ministers have stacked the panel that decides judges 4 to 3?

[jdobbin]

I would love to see the CBC do the same. Figleaf, many, many Canadians do not see themselves in our federal institutions.

If Harper were to be partisan in the same way that the Liberals were, you would see nominations far more radical. I think that Harper is being too reasonable.

Harper is partisan and in a huge way when it comes to the court. I expect we'll see some incredibly conservative judges appointed. It is just a question of whether they will be activist conservative.

[Catchme]

Judges should not follow a politcal line, after law school and years of experience in the law, they are way more qualified than politicans are regarding law and law implimentation.

Have police sit on a committee to select Judges is completely wrong, it is judges who judge whether the police acrtually have done a proper investigation. May I remind people of Guy Moran, Stephen Truscott, Dudley George, and many many others? Imagine if police were choosing judges???!!

I cannot believe a party with NO mandate is trying to destroy our judcial system and everything else as well.

[geoffrey]

Judges should not follow a politcal line...

August just proved with some certainty that nearly 60% of recently nominated judges donated large sums of money to the Liberal Party up until their nomination then stop donating after.

It's time we balance things out, no? Or are Liberal Party Judges non-political? Or is that the only politik that is permissable by our Justices?

By the way, if your saying that you need 50% to have a mandate, Mulroney is the only one who's policies should count for the last 40 years in Canada. Get over yourself. In fact, Chretien's '97 election barely had him over where the Tories were in popular support in 2006. So the Liberals never had a mandate for Kyoto, good day ma'am.

[jdobbin]

August just proved with some certainty that nearly 60% of recently nominated judges donated large sums of money to the Liberal Party up until their nomination then stop donating after.

It's time we balance things out, no? Or are Liberal Party Judges non-political? Or is that the only politik that is permissable by our Justices?

I think once the government starts to think that the court is the enemy of Canada and looks to undermine it, it leads to trouble.

We've seen provinces where every time a new government is elected, there are many civil servants fired so that the new government can reward their own party faithful. It is disruptive and defeats the professionalism that should be sought where seeking to fill positions.

I have no doubt that many Liberal lawyers have been promoted to the courts. What I haven't see is a clear aim by past Liberal governments to try and make the court rubber stamp of Liberal policies. The Feds have had 3 seats on the selection committee. I don't see why they need a fourth. I think the Conservative appointees can make it through the process without stacking things politically.

[geoffrey]

I have no doubt that many Liberal lawyers have been promoted to the courts. What I haven't see is a clear aim by past Liberal governments to try and make the court rubber stamp of Liberal policies. The Feds have had 3 seats on the selection committee. I don't see why they need a fourth. I think the Conservative appointees can make it through the process without stacking things politically.

That sounds reasonable to me.

[scribblet]

How ironic, are we supposed to believe that judicial appts. by the Liberals were beyond the realm of partisan politics before the CPC took over.

The process has always been partisan, and in fact the previous Liberal gov't gave most positions on the fed courts to Liberal lawyers. But gee, the opposition and its media lapdogs would have us believe that this is only a CPC initiative. Too bad the Liberals weren't as concerned about judicial independence when they were the government.

Mind you, the 16 out of 33 federal appointments are not going to be Fed Judges, but somehow this translates into "tampering" with the judicial system.

from the NP

"Yet consider the Liberals' record. As Allison Hanes reports in today's Post, the Liberals themselves put plenty of partisans on the committees that vet bench appointments. Moreover, Benoit Corbeil, former executive director of the Liberals' Quebec wing, testified before the Gomery inquiry two years ago that it was well known in that province's legal circles that the fast way to the bench was to campaign on behalf of the Liberal party. Nearly half of the 20 lawyers who volunteered for the 2000 election became judges in the three years that followed."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...8f4c2c633f2&p=2

Montreal's The Gazette to examine all of the federal judges appointed in Quebec between 2000 and 2005. What the paper found was that 60% of judicial appointees had campaigned for, donated to or run on behalf of the Liberals in the five years before their appointments to their $220,000- a-year jobs, which are secure until age 75. If lawyers appointed from the universities and the civil service were excluded, fully three-quarters of all Quebec judges had been Liberals before being elevated to the bench.

he Ottawa Citizen found a similar pattern in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan -- the three provinces it examined in its own investigative report. Nearly two-thirds of lawyers there had recent ties to the Liberals before being made federal judges. Few had any ties whatsoever to other parties. In Alberta -- hardly a Liberal hotbed -- Liberal lawyers were four times as likely to be appointed than were Conservatives.

And it is not just judicial appointments that have been dominated by the Liberals and their supporters. The highly biased Court Challenges Program, the law reform commissions, legal journals, law schools, federal and provincial bar associations are all influential players on the Canadian legal landscape. And all swing far more to the left than the right. To the extent Conservative committee appointments do have any substantive impact on jurisprudence, it would merely constitute a badly needed corrective....... hmmmmm

[Figleaf]

Approval?! Who in their right minds would approve of stacking the courts with tory (or any party's) hacks?

Anyone who recognizes that the system was already stacked with liberal hacks.

You mean 'Liberal', right? The appointment advisory committees were emplaced to change that, and the tory plan essential unravels that progress.

If the voters of this country really approve of that, they deserve the social disaster it portends.

Why would that be worse than the status quo where people with multiple prior convictions are sentenced to house arrest?

A wrongful conviction of an innocent person is much worse that a light sentence for a guilty person. If the tories feel sentences are not harsh enough, as the government they have a legitimate and appropriate correction available to them through changing the criminal code. Tinkering with the impartiality of the bench is an irrresponsible and dishonest approach.

And even assuming police input is useful for criminal judges, what the hell do police representatives have to contribute to the selection of commercial, family, and administrative law judges?

What do any of the current board members have to contribute to the selection of judges outside their immediate expertise?

The ostensible reason for adding a dedicated police member is to bring in that expertise. The government could simply have made a practice of appointing police-types into the existing federal slots, but chose instead to add an additional member. So, examining this new policy involves examining the role of the new members, not the existing members. The fact is police members have no useful expertise to bring to the selection of non-criminal judges and this reveals the faulty justification in adding a new spot specifically for them.

The utter stupidity of this tory attack on the justice system is an affront to any thinking person.

The only utter stupidity I see is coming from people defending the system under the liberals and trying to claim that it was any different.

How about the stupidity of persistently confusing liberals with Liberals?

[Figleaf]

How ironic, are we supposed to believe that judicial appts. by the Liberals were beyond the realm of partisan politics before the CPC took over.

I am certainly no saying that, nor endorsing Liberal patronage over Tory patronage. But the bad old days of patronage appointments was supposed to be remedied by the relatively recent (Martin government?) implementation of the selection committees. The Harper policy is a step backward from that brief sign of hope.

[Keepitsimple]

An article follows my musings:

In general, Conservatives are simply trying to reverse a wave of Liberal/liberal influence in the Judiciary. Some (but not all) liberal judges are prone to judicial activism. Again, in general, Conservatives want judges who interpret the laws as written. Laws are passed and modified by Parliament. It is the job of judges to enforce those laws as they were written and not "read into" them elements that were not in the spirit of what was intended. If there is a contentious area, it can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court but even there, it should be interpreted according to the intentions of Parliament and our Constitution - by the letter of the law. If it can't be, then it should be thrown back to Parliament....because laws are developed by the elected representatives of the people - not by unelected judges. Judges can still grant leniency in sentencing based on circumstances but they must apply the law and provide sentences according to guidelines established by Parliament - and that includes minimum sentencing.

As for the "committees" that will now include a member of the Police Force - these committees to not actually "choose" judges - they simply provide a list of qualified candidates and some supporting advice. All this said, it's clear cut to me: Parliament makes the laws. Judges apply them. I think the Liberals and their activism have strayed a bit from that concept and it's time to get back to basics. Ironically, that's the only way to maintain separation of Politics from the Judiciary. We're on the right track.

Here's an article that should add to the discussion:

Judging Liberal bias

Political appointments to the bench an honoured Grit tradition

By LICIA CORBELLA

It started on Monday. The Globe and Mail's front-page headline screamed: "Partisans filling judge nomination committees."

That, of course, got Canada's opposition parties in a tizzy, charging that by appointing people with some ties to the Conservative party to committees that select judges, an "ideologically driven" judiciary will be created, which is "shameful."

Well, if an ideologically driven judiciary is so shameful, why have these people remained silent for so long?

Apparently people with ties to the Conservative party appointed only to lowly nomination committees are "partisans" but dozens, if not hundreds, of judges with ties to the Liberal party are independent, non-partisans and to say otherwise is irresponsible as it throws our entire judiciary into disrepute.

Let's look at some real facts about judicial partisanship.

During the Gomery commission into the Liberal sponsorship scandal, it was revealed under oath that judicial appointments might as well have been put up for sale by the Liberal government. Remember that? Benoit Corbeil, a former executive-director of the Liberals in Quebec, testified about eight lawyers who campaigned for the Liberal Party in Quebec during the 2000 federal election were awarded judicial appointments. It was also revealed that 13 Quebec judges appointed after the 2000 general election donated money to only one political party -- the Liberals -- in the years prior to their appointments.

You could argue that in Quebec it would be hard to find lawyers who were not Liberal party supporters.

PARTY LOYALTY

But what about Alberta, where Liberals are on the endangered species list? Well, if you're ever in desperate need of a Liberal in Alberta, fear not -- head straight to your nearest court and look for someone wearing a black robe. Chances are, not only do many of the judges you run into support the Liberals financially, they've run for public office for the party, too!

When Anne McLellan was justice minister she did her best to stack Alberta's judiciary with loyal Liberals.

McLellan appointed Marsha Colleen Erb, a Liberal fundraiser to Alberta's court of Queen's Bench in 2001. In 2000, when McLellan donated just $599.83 to her party, Erb donated $1,058.92.

At the same time, McLellan also appointed Bryan E. Mahoney to the same court. Mahoney ran in two federal elections as a Liberal candidate, losing by landslides to Conservative MP Myron Thompson.

In 2002, Liberal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon found yet another one of those rare Alberta Liberals to appoint to the Court of QB, Vital O. Ouellette, who ran for the Alberta Liberals in two provincial elections in 1997 and 2001.

More recently, Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler appointed John J. Gill as a supernumerary judge in 2005. Gill co-chaired a federal Liberal election campaign in Alberta.

One year earlier, Cotler appointed his former executive assistant and senior policy adviser, Michael Brown, to Ontario's Superior Court. Another Cotler staffer, his chief of staff Yves de Montigny, was appointed to the federal court in 2004.

This list could go on and on and includes appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada that appear ideological and partisan in a big-L Liberal kind of way.

A 2004 Ottawa Citizen report found more than 60% of the 93 lawyers who got federal judicial appointments in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan since 2000 donated exclusively to the Liberal party in the three to five years prior to receiving their prestigious posts.

Another point of interest: According to an electronic search, it appears that during the 12-year Liberal reign, the Globe ran exactly...wait for it... zero front page editorials masquerading as news stories declaring Liberal partisans were filling our courts. Now that's ideologically driven partisanship.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2007/02/14/pf-3616464.html

[Figleaf]

An article follows my musings:

In general, Conservatives are simply trying to reverse a wave of Liberal/liberal influence in the Judiciary.

The Conservative view that there has been a 'wave' of 'liberal' (whatever that is) influence in the judiciary is itself suspect. It sounds like nothing more that sour grapes about progress in directions they don't like.

Some (but not all) liberal judges are prone to judicial activism. Again, in general, Conservatives want judges who interpret the laws as written.

There we go again... prefab talking points in place of meaning. The conservative contention that judges have gone off on their own and made stuff up is without foundation. It betrays either a misunderstanding of how the justice system works, or a deliberate willingness to poison the well.

Interpreting the laws as written is what judges have been doing all along. Interpretation is both unavoidable, and necessarily involves a type of creativity because it is impossible to write legislation that meets every possible eventuality. The fact that right wingers haven't liked those interpretations doesn't reflect on the job the judges are doing. They don't generally have any scope to do differently, and if the legislatures don't like the interprations, they have every ability to recraft the legislation to clarify their intentions.

Laws are passed and modified by Parliament. It is the job of judges to enforce those laws as they were written and not "read into" them elements that were not in the spirit of what was intended.

Here is a perfect example of ignorance at work. Rightwingers are all up in arms over the notion of 'reading in'. But they don't understand that 'reading in' is a measure the judges devised in order to AVOID the 'activism' of striking down legislation. When legislation could be seen to be unconstitutional, in appropriate cases the judges will 'read in' the necessary correctives rather than simply toss out the statute. 'Reading in' is essentially a conservatory measure, not an activist one. AND if the legislature feels the judges have read in something wrong, again, it's fully within the power of the legislature to enact differently.

If there is a contentious area, it can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court but even there, it should be interpreted according to the intentions of Parliament and our Constitution - by the letter of the law.

If the case could be determined by the letter of the law, there would be no need for interpretation of any kind. But the law itself presumes an element of interpretation and always will regardless which ideology informs the lawmakers.

As for the "committees" that will now include a member of the Police Force - these committees to not actually "choose" judges - they simply provide a list of qualified candidates and some supporting advice.

All the less reason for the tories to skew their structure then.

[Catchme]

More on Harper's stacking the judiciary with theo/neo-con judges.

A minority government behaving like a majority is creating an alternate universe where weak is strong and the will of Parliament is merely a suggestion.

What's more worrying than the government's environmental sincerity is its default character. It's so cock-sure, so blinded-by the beauty of its convictions, that it bowls over anything in its way.

Woven through its declared willingness to ride-roughshod over Parliament is the same single-minded determination that's driving its attempts to add partisanship and ideology to the appointment of judges. Both are risky steps in the wrong direction.

Administrations don't necessarily abide by the spirit let alone the letter of every bit of legislation, particularly when not considered as a test of confidence in the government. But diminishing elected MPs to advisers only slows overdue democratic reform even as it accelerates the already high-speed concentration of power at the political centre.

Reversing the trend away from a politicized appointment process by loading the screening committee is as damaging as what it's doing to Parliament. Along with raising the U.S. spectre of mixing personal beliefs with legal competence, it erodes public confidence in an independent judiciary.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/181890

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....wtopic=8086&hl=

[Topaz]

The more I watch Harper and see what he tries to do with the government and HIS way of doing it, the more I wonder if he is a willing part on this North American Pact. One large nation of Canada, US and Mexico and guess qho will call the shots???? I'm ready for an election and toss this guy out. The more he talks the more the other 3 opposition parties are going to be on his side for anything!! Lets bring down the government and put Harpo out of misery!!

[southerncomfort]

Now let me see here, the Liberals did far better any other party at stacking the deck and they are sqawking, hah, talk about hypocrosy

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...70-3b996a9ec17b

In 2005, an Ottawa Citizen investigation revealed that more than 60% of 93 lawyers who received federal judicial appointments in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan since 2000 donated exclusively to the Liberal party in the three to five years before securing their posts.

LIBERAL APPOINTMENTS:

2005 judicial advisory committee members with ties to the Liberals:

BRITISH COLUMBIA

James Hatton prominent Vancouver lawyer; has also sat on the National Research Council of Canada; ran unsuccessfully for the federal Liberals in 1988 and was recently president of the federal Liberal party's B.C. wing.

SASKATCHEWAN

Anil Pandila prominent lawyer in Prince Albert; chair of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal; sold tickets for a $100-a-plate fundraiser for Paul Martin in 1999.

MANITOBA

Sharon Appleyard president of the Manitoba wing of the federal Liberal party.

QUEBEC

Michel Boulianne prominent Quebec City lawyer; president of the Quebec Liberal Party's legal committee in the mid- 1990s; was himself considered as a candidate for the bench by the Quebec government.

Simon Potter eminent Montreal attorney; former president of the Canadian Bar Association; former Liberal riding executive in Westmount-Ville Marie.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Karolyn Godfrey campaign co-chair for P.E.I. Liberal leaders Shawn Murphy and Wayne Carew.

NOVA SCOTIA

A. Robert Sampson well known lawyer in Sydney; onetime executive member of the Law Foundation of Nova Scotia; has sat on numerous boards; ran for the presidency of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia; he and his firm have made donations to both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Daurene Lewis principal of the Halifax campuses of the Nova Scotia Community College; first black female mayor in North America; has worked at Mount Saint Vincent University and in the provincial government; inducted into the Order of Canada; ran unsuccessfully for the provincial Liberals in 1988.

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR

Rex Gibbons geologist by training; member of several boards or directors; former provincial Liberal Cabinet minister for mines and energy.

- - -

2005 judicial advisory committee members who donated to the Liberal Party:

Kathy Grieve $1,000 around 2004 election.

Anil Pandila $500 around 2004 election; a total of $1,250 to different candidates around the 2006 election.

Michel Boulianne $400 around 2004 election.

Fernand Deveau personally donated $452.14 around 2004 election; firm donated $1,000 around 2004 election.

Simon Potter donated $500 around 2004 election.

Alain Laurencelle $500 around the 2004 election; $400 around the 2006 election.

Karolyn Godfrey $500 around the 2004 election.

Roger Yachetti $500 around the 2004 election; $393.76 around the 2006 election.

A. Robert Sampson firm donated a total of $1,200 to different candidates in 2004; personally donated $500 around the time of the 2006 election; firm donated $1,200 to different candidates in 2004.

James Hatton $471 around the 2004 election.

Kathy Le Grow $500 around the 2004 election.