moved:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study the process by which judges are appointed to Courts of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to begin debate on Motion No. 288 which I have the honour to sponsor and which I had the honour of introducing in the House.
I would be remiss if I did not express my happiness with the recent changes in our rules of procedure that will allow this motion to be voted on at the end of the debate.
In fact, it was regrettable that a number of important issues, some as important as and some even more important than government motions presented to this House, were not subject to debate and especially to a vote in this House.
In our system of government, I believe it is equally important for members of all parties, including the opposition, to cause the other hon. members to state their opinions on issues of concern to them. Therefore, I want to stress the importance of this new way of proceeding in the House, which cannot help but better reflect the institution's democratic nature.
For the benefit of my hon. colleagues and the audience in the public galleries and at home, I would like to repeat the actual words of my motion, which is quite simple. It reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study the process by which judges are appointed to Courts of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is not complicated; it is simple and direct. There is no partisan intent in it. That is why I ask my hon. colleagues to listen carefully to the reasons behind this motion.
As the hon. members know, there is an old principle in English law, in the common law, that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The purpose of this principle, the very foundation of our justice system, is to maintain the highest possible level of public confidence in the judiciary. The current process of appointing judges, however, is in direct conflict with this principle, and clouds the image of justice.
There are many examples to support this statement. Two relatively recent cases are of particular interest and I would like to share them with the House.
Last summer, the Prime Minister appointed Justice Michel Robert, who had served on the Quebec Court of Appeal since 1995, to the position of chief justice for Quebec. This is a very important position, if ever there was one, in Quebec's judicial system.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada announced, on August 8, the appointment of the Honourable Marie Deschamps, a judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court of Canada.
These two individuals are, no doubt, preceded by an enviable legal reputation, which therefore surely justifies their appointment to such important positions. However—since justice must be seen to be done —it is reasonable to wonder, as members—and the general public will not hesitate to make its views known—whether their appointment has anything to do with their commitment to the Liberal Party of Canada or their connections to the latter.
Members are no doubt aware that Justice Robert presided over the Liberal Party of Canada from 1986 to 1990 under John Turner and contributed, apparently, to his fall. The Prime Minister would therefore have good reason to reward him. Bear this in mind.
Justice Marie Deschamps is the spouse of Paul Gobeil, former minister under Robert Bourassa's Liberal government in Quebec from 1985 to 1989, who still has ties to the Quebec Liberal Party.
These two examples seem to show or at least clearly suggest politicization of the courts. In today's society, this politicization or this appearance of politicization, even a hint of it, can seriously jeopardize the public's respect for the courts and the judiciary.
If we consider the important role of the courts today, particularly given their greater duties, if only due to appeals related to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or their involvement in the evolution of various social debates such as same-sex marriage, aboriginal claims and the decriminalization of marijuana, we must avoid at all costs any association between the judiciary and the political arm.
All the more so because these judges, who are not elected as we know, make decisions which have an increasing impact on the creation of public policy in Canada and sometimes go beyond what Parliament might have wished.
This is an argument of some weight in favour of a review and democratization of the process of appointing judges, which unfortunately some will surely criticize. But we must resist and we must hold this debate. It is very likely that the public will back us up on this, on our position that the entire matter needs to be looked into, and I trust that my colleagues in the Liberal Party over there, particularly those backing the member for LaSalle—Émard in the race to succeed the Prime Minister, will do likewise.
I am making a solemn appeal to my colleagues across the way. Let them keep their eyes and ears open and especially let them not jump to a conclusion too hastily. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice whom I see here, and with whom I had the opportunity to work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, will not take a dogmatic stand and will instead agree to a serious study, as we had moreover in connection with same-sex partners, an issue of equal importance for Canada.
I would like to remind him, and all members of the Liberal Party that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard said the following in his speech to the students of the University of Toronto's prestigious Osgoode Hall:
—we should reform the process surrounding government appointments.The unfettered powers of appointment enjoyed by a prime minister are too great... Such authority must be checked by reasonable scrutinyconducted by Parliament in a transparent fashion...To avoid paralysis, the ultimate decision over appointments should remain with thegovernment. But a healthy opportunity should be afforded for the qualificationsof candidates to be reviewed, by the appropriate standing committee, before finalconfirmation.
The member for LaSalle—Émard could not be any clearer about the importance he assigned—and I trust still does, but we shall see whether he sticks to his opinion when it comes to the vote—to having a more democratic and more transparent process.
At the time he was referring to senior public servants, to ambassadors.
None of these senior positions that he would like to subject to parliamentary review, none of these ambassadors or senior officials, will have as much impact on public policy as appeal court judges or judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
We could go on at great length about the current appointment processes for provincial and territorial superior court judges, for Federal Court judges, or for judges at the Tax Court of Canada, because there are specific criteria that must be filled for these appointments.
However, as members know, when it comes to appointments to appeal courts and to the Supreme Court, subjectivity reigns. In fact, there is no clear and precise process in place for the appointment of these judges.
The entire process is left to the discretion of the Prime Minister, with input from the Minister of Justice. It is strange that appointments to lower judicial appointments are more structured than appointments to these higher courts, such as the appeal courts and the Supreme Court.
The purpose of the motion I have moved is to refer to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the mandate of studying the issue and reporting the findings of our consultations and deliberations to the House. I am not asking anyone to take a stand or to take any position at this point. I am simply asking members to keep an open mind and to allow the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to look into the details of this issue.
It is possible that once we have looked into this matter, we may find that it is preferable to leave the situation as is, or that a reform of judicial appointments to the highest Canadian courts is advisable. We must not shy away from this debate. We must put it all out on the table. Let us look at it and study the situation without any predetermined ideas.
This is a substantive issue that is critical for the old common law principle that I mentioned in my introduction, regarding justice and the appearance of justice. It is up to us as parliamentarians to promote public confidence in our institutions and this mission must include our legal system.
We could just quote a number of articles published in newspapers, which clearly show what the public thinks of the current process. In La Presse of June 28, 2002, Yves Boisvert commented on the appointment of Michel Robert in an article entitled “Patronage Appointment”.
On June 29, 2002, The Gazette published an editorial under the headline “Who's to Judge”. I encourage my hon. colleagues to read these articles. There is also an article published in the National Post on July 2, 2002, admonishing, “Don't politicize courts”. Then there was the London Free Press , asking parliamentarians to “Review the Appointments”.
We can see from these various editorial policies that the public is worried, that it would like a process that is more transparent, which would assure the people of Quebec and Canada that the nominees to positions as appeal or supreme court judges are not appointed because of their connections to the ruling political party.
In closing, I urge all the members of this House, and those from the government party in particular, to allow parliamentarians to examine this question, and not take a position right away. Let us examine the question. Give us parliamentarians this opportunity to review the process to ensure that judges are not treated as politicians and that there is an opportunity to consider the appointments.