Last week Canadian Justice Minister Vic Toews announced plans to add police representation to committees that vet candidates for judicial appointments.  Judges didn’t like that one bit.  Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin promptly issued a politically astute press release accusing the minister of politicising judicial appointments and endangering the be-all and end-all of Canada’s justice system: “judicial independence”.

Now the lawyers are weighing in with their howls of execration considered opinion.

The Federation of Law Societies of Canada, a group representing the core of the country's legal establishment, has expressed astonishment at the way in which Justice Minister Vic Toews is moving to change the way judges are appointed.

In a letter sent to Mr. Toews on Monday, William Goodridge, the president of the federation, warned that changes the Justice Minister is pushing through could backfire and persuade the public that his government has "politicized" the judicial appointment process.

"In our view, the envious reputation which Canada enjoys around the world with regard to its excellent and independent judiciary is potentially at stake with the changes you have announced," Mr. Goodridge said in his letter.

Hmmm.  Foreigners may think Canada's judicial crew “excellent”, but lately its reputation at home is taking a beating.

Sex-crime sentence sparks anger, silence
While the public reacts with fury, federal and provincial politicians keep mum

Lynnette Traverse lured adolescent girls to her Winnipeg home to be raped both brutally and repeatedly by her common-law husband. She held the shoulders of one of the helpless young victims as the child was being sexually violated.

Yet today, after spending just two years in pretrial custody, 25-year-old Ms. Traverse is a free woman waiting for Terry Ladouceur, the man who was the acknowledged instigator of the crimes, to finish his 10-year sentence.

But that’s OK: Our judges are impartial and independent and foreigners think they’re excellent.  For some reason, though, I don’t think the families of those girls find that very comforting.

Now back to the grumbling lawyers from La-La Land.

Detractors claim that by giving the federal appointees a majority on the reconfigured committees, Mr. Toews's plan could allow the government to block any judicial candidate it does not favour, a dramatic change to the legal landscape that opens the door to the government packing courts with political cronies or candidates who share its ideology.

Horrors!  We cannot have the people’s elected representatives making the final determination as to who will be appointed to the bench.  Why . . . that would be  . . . democratic!

And, of course, the lawyers serve up the same tired boilerplate as the judges did last week.

"If the objective of reform is to remove the impression that the process is politicized, then this proposal could have the opposite effect and could undermine the public's confidence in the judiciary, a state of affairs which is squarely contrary to the public interest as we see it," Mr. Goodridge said.

Reality check, Mr Goodridge: The public’s confidence in our judiciary has already been well and truly undermined—by the judiciary.  One hopes that, if police are added to judicial appointment committees, Canada might get some judges who want to ensure that dangerous felons are kept off the streets and justly punished for their offences.

Previous related posts: