Harper Ran On A Law & Order Ticket

If the left has a problem with that and wants to maintain "the independence of the Judiciary" they might want to look at revamping the criminal code and bring in mandatory sentencing, restrict the use of concurrent sentencing, etc. leaving the judiciary to concentrate on guilt or innocence.

Undermining judiciary
February 15, 2007

Opposition MPs are accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of trying to tilt Canadian courts to the right by stacking the committees that screen potential judges with Conservative party supporters and people with socially conservative views.

The allegations are troubling because the committees, which vet applicants for judgeships on federally appointed courts, were created specifically to keep partisan politics out of appointments to the bench.

True, committee spots filled by Ottawa have always been potentially vulnerable to political meddling, no matter which party is in power.

But combined with a recent move by the Harper government that gives Ottawa more clout on these judicial screening committees, such moves heighten fears that Harper has set out to remake the bench by appointing judges based less on qualifications and more on political leanings.

Such actions would undermine the principle of judicial independence for which the Canadian legal system is rightly praised around the world.

Until recently, the judicial advisory committees consisted of seven members: a judge, two members of the legal profession, a provincial member and three federal "appointments at large." There is at least one such committee in each province.

But without consulting Parliament or the legal community, the Conservatives decided last fall to name a fourth federal appointee, this one from the police. Ottawa also decreed the judge, who acts as the committee's chair, must abstain when the now eight-member panel votes.

That extra member effectively puts the balance of power in the hands of the four federal appointees, who can now tip the committee toward the government's preferences.

Such a scenario becomes more likely if they have been hand-picked by Ottawa for their political views.

For its part, the government says it made the changes to give the police a voice in picking judges and to reflect a broader range of perspectives.

This argument does not stand up though. Under the old system, Ottawa could have used one of its three appointments for that purpose. Creating an extra spot was unnecessary, except to stack the deck in the government's favour.

The changes to the committees have provoked alarm in legal circles and have even drawn a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

And rightly so. Canada's judiciary has a well-deserved reputation for independence.

Harper, who campaigned against partisanship in government appointments, should reverse course on this blatant attempt to politicize our courts.