Madam Speaker, I too want to rise in support of the motion by the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. The motion to look at how we appoint judges to the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada should be accepted by the House.
The process today in general is non-political. It is a process that has given us pretty good courts and judges. However I find it wanting in making it more accountable and more openly democratic in the process.
Some members of the House might not be aware but I spent a lot of years as a member of Parliament on the various constitution committees. I was here for the patriation of the Constitution back in 1981. I did the Dobbie-Beaudoin and the Dobbie, Beaudoin-Edwards round with the Constitution, the prelude to Meech Lake and after Meech Lake. I was also very much of a partisan supporter of the Meech Lake accord. One part of that accord dealt with the selection of supreme court justices and it tried to make them better reflect our federation.
This is one problem we have today. The Supreme Court judges are appointed by the Prime Minister and the federal government. When it comes to adjudicating a dispute between a province and the federal government, there is a feeling in many provinces that this may not be a fair way of doing it in terms of the referee, because they are adjudicating between a federal and provincial dispute.
Under Meech Lake there was a mechanism where, if I recall correctly, the provinces would select a number of people to recommend to the minister of justice. The minister of justice would choose judges from the group selected by the provinces. In the province of Quebec, for example, the Government of Quebec would suggest a short list of names and the federal government would choose someone from that short list.
In the rest of the country under the common law, because Quebec judges are under civil law, we had the same thing happen for the Ontario, western and Atlantic judges. The provinces would suggest a list to the federal government and it would select from that list. I supported that at the time along with a lot of other people in the House from all political parties.
That is one way of doing it and I would certainly be open to looking at it. However the motion does not talk about a specific way of selecting our judges. It just says that we would have a process where the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would study the process by which judges were appointed. That is a very commendable thing to do.
I would be opposed to the election of judges, as is the case in some jurisdictions like the United States. I would not want to see the politicization of the process where judges run for office. I certainly would not be very supportive of that.
Another way of doing it is to have the federal government choose from a short list that it is provided by a non-partisan body, which we have in some courts today. Instead of making the appointment, the federal government would make the nomination. That nomination would then go to the justice committee for ratification or rejection. That might be something we should look at very seriously as well. It would force the federal government to be more careful about who it would nominate because the nominee would have to go through a ratification process at the justice committee. That is one way of perhaps democratizing the process. The other way is what we did in Meech Lake and we could look at that as well. Another way is by having advisory committees which now basically select judges for some of the lower courts. We could apply that to the Supreme Court as well. That is also another way of doing it.
The main thing here is that it is important that we have a judiciary system in Canada that is divorced from politics, that is fair, that is just and where we get the best possible judges in this country. When we select judges, we have to ensure that we respect the privacy of the candidates, that we maintain the separation of politics from the judiciary and that we take the selection process from behind closed doors into a more open system of clear standards and boundaries, thus maintaining the integrity of the judicial system at the very highest levels. These are some of the things we could consider. The main thing is to get this before a committee.
As a matter of fact, I think one of the roles of Parliament is not being fulfilled as well as it should be. Committees are not being used to the fullest in terms of doing independent studies, making recommendations on how the government of the country should work, making recommendations on how certain people should be appointed.
I have believed for a long time that we need a greater democratization of our country's political system. There is probably no parliamentary system in the world where the prime minister's office or indeed a premier's office, and this is not being partisan as our party has two premiers, have so much power in their own hands to make appointments to important boards and commissions.
In the federal government for example, the prime minister appoints all the senators, Supreme Court justices, the head of the military, the head of the RCMP, the head of the CBC, the head of every important agency and board of the Government of Canada. He appoints all the cabinet ministers and appoints all the parliamentary secretaries. In the case of the government from time to time it even appoints candidates over the heads of local riding associations.
We have gotten away from a more democratic system. We should look at the democratic deficit in Canada. Part of that is how we appoint justices to our courts. Part of it is how we organize this place and make this place more relevant and meaningful.
I have found after my many years in Parliament that the most frustrated parliamentarians are government backbenchers. They are very frustrated with the process. At least in the opposition we can get up very freely and liberally and express our point of view, ask questions in the House, make statements that are critical of the government if we feel it is going the wrong way. However a government backbencher becomes in effect a political eunuch in terms of being silenced by our system.
I have seen this in Saskatchewan with the backbench NDP MLAs where our party has been in government for most of the time since 1944. It does not matter what the party is, we have a political system that I believe is not as democratic as it should be.
Why for example, should we not have a system where committees could set their own timetables? Why should we not have a system where committees could introduce legislation? Why do we have to have so many confidence votes? Almost everything that we vote on is a confidence vote. We should have very few confidence votes except for the basic budgetary program and plan of the Government of Canada.
I remember very well when Margaret Thatcher was at the height of her popularity in Britain. There were many times when Margaret Thatcher had a bill defeated in the House of Commons because the backbenchers in her own party would be in opposition to the government bill.
I remember Tony Blair in the last Parliament when he was extremely popular before his massive re-election lost many votes in the British House of Commons. That did not bring down the government. It provided a healthier debate for the British people.
Why could we not do that in this country? There is case after case after case where government members of Parliament, be they Liberal or Conservative, over the years were in opposition to a certain piece of legislation that the government brought in. However they were not going to bring down the government over a certain piece of legislation and cause an election. It is the system we have.
I have seen it in all parties, at all levels, in every provincial government over the years. It really shortchanges what the Canadian people deserve, which is a free flowing and uninhibited debate of ideas, a clash of ideas, representing one's own constituents and representing them well.
I want to make one reference back to the Trudeau government. I do not want to mention the name because he was a very well liked former minister in the House. He got a patronage appointment to head a crown corporation back in the 1970s. I did not meet a single Liberal MP who agreed that that particular gentleman should head that particular crown corporation, but there was nothing they could do about it because the government made the appointment.
I just do not think it is right in a fair and democratic society that the government should have the power to make nominations. We should refer a lot of them to the relevant committees of the House of Commons.
The Supreme Court is a little different. The Supreme Court, as I said before, adjudicates federal-provincial disputes. It interprets legislation not only at the federal level but at the provincial level. Somewhere in the process there should be input for the provinces.
It is not just in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec is different, unique, a province that is not in the least like the others, in part because of its civil law, among other things. The other provinces, however, must also be involved in selecting judges, and this is very important.
Over the past 20 years, there have been several disputes between the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal government. In my opinion, that is a reason to have provincial input into the selection of judges.
With that, I hope the House will support the motion and the justice committee can do a study as to how we can improve the selection of judges in our country.