Yes.
Evidence of meeting #61 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was judge.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #61 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was judge.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Okay. The fact that we added an extra membership, so that the minister now gets to appoint a majority of the people on the committee, was a bad change. Is that right?
5:20 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes. If you want my subjective argument, I again emphasize that it's not my overriding concern.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I agree with your points, but it's just on this simple point. We took away the category of highly recommended, and it's either “yes” or “recommended”. It was also not an improvement.
5:25 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Agreed.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
We spend all this money in the justice system to improve it. We should have an institute for improving it. Could the Law Reform Commission of Canada perform that function?
5:25 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, I think they need a separate institute. It should be an ongoing study because of the importance of judges in the administration of justice in our total system of government.
As you know, the Law Reform Commission has been abolished, which is a theoretical issue. Even if it hadn't been abolished, it had such a broad agenda that it couldn't begin to do justice to the importance of studying the judicial system in depth.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Okay. Thank you.
It wasn't actually abolished. They just took all the money away.
Mr. Lamer, if we could get a yes or no answer, without the rational, do you agree that those changes were not improvements? Would it have been better if they had not been made, if that was the only choice we had?
5:25 p.m.
former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Canada, As an Individual
I don't get excited about the “highly approved”, “not highly approved”, or “recommended”. I don't get excited about that one. I don't get excited either—although I wonder why, but maybe it's because I don't know why—about the change wherein the minister suddenly gets a majority. We elected the government to govern, so I don't know why, but I can't say why not.
But as to taking it away from the judge, I have always expressed my views on that. In regard to the policemen, I think I've expressed my views ad nauseam on that.
Does that answer your question?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Yes.
Do you think those changes reduce the perception of the public of the independence of the judiciary, those changes that you've both said are not improvements?
Mr. Ziegel.
5:25 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, but I made it clear, I think, that it would impair. In my view, the public is very skeptical, and this can only increase their perception of a lack of impartiality and the politicization of the judicial appointment process.
5:25 p.m.
former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Canada, As an Individual
Given the fact that I don't think it's going to succeed in having any effect, I think the avowed purpose is going to diminish the repute of the judiciary.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ziegel, I have a question about your chart. It's not so much a question around the statistics, the plus or minus percentages, but I wondered about the purpose of having the chart in there and showing the probable donors to the appointing party. From your perspective, should it exclude anyone who's made a donation to a party from being an applicant or being a selected individual?
I'm trying to get a clear understanding of the purpose of having this chart in your recommendations. As you go through it, it seems to be the one area that stands out for me that isn't consistent with the rest of your document.
5:25 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, they shouldn't be disqualified, but neither should they be preferred.
We come back to this question. One of your colleagues asked me earlier whether I am opposed to politicians being appointed judges. The answer is absolutely not. What I am opposed to is giving preferred treatment to a candidate on the grounds that he's a politician, perhaps a retired politician or former cabinet minister, because his cabinet colleagues feel that he deserves some kind of recognition for his years of service to the party or the government.
I'm sure you appreciate that the reason I inserted the table—remember, it's only a table drawn from someone else's paper—is to indicate the correlation between political contribution to the party and the party that made the appointments.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
So to extrapolate that a bit more, you wouldn't necessarily, then, disagree that a police officer sitting on an appointments committee would be a bad individual to make recommendations, to participate and make clear recommendations.
5:30 p.m.
Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, there's no reason at all. I thought the debate was over the particular choice of a person by reason of his background rather than the experience or his personal qualifications for participating in the evaluation process.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Lamer, I just wanted to clarify this. I believe you said that 95% of cases that are heard by judges are not necessarily criminal. You did say that 95% of all cases were—
5:30 p.m.
former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Canada, As an Individual
I didn't say that. Mr. Ménard said that.
But I agree with Mr. Ménard that there's a very small proportion of cases being heard by superior court judges. I hasten to add that we must not overlook then, Mr. Ménard, the fact that judges do sit in appeal of summary convictions.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
The reason I wanted to get that clear, that you do agree with that, is that you also mentioned that a police officer sitting on the committee may have a particular bias, based on a judge he may not like, or a person he worked with before, and therefore may not want to recommend that individual.
5:30 p.m.
former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Canada, As an Individual
It could happen, but I don't think it's.... Look, I'm more concerned about the perception than the actual result of having the police officer there. It's the perception. It can happen that you have a police officer who will vote against a given lawyer because that lawyer took him to task, maybe unfairly.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
The only reason I bring the point up is that in all likelihood, there's a very small percentage and chance of that happening. There's only a 5% chance that would actually exist, because 95% of the decisions that are made are not related to police officers.
5:30 p.m.
former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Canada, As an Individual
Right. I'd say more than 95%, but I can' be sure about that.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
