Judges are human. They may lack judgment in certain situations.
With all due respect, I believe this is the case with the appointment of judges.
three names
This came to the fore again when Attorney General Simon Jolin-Barrette proposed changes to the rules governing these appointments on June 3.
The most important change? That it will be obligatory for the selection committee to propose three names to the minister in the future. So far, three has been the maximum.
The appointment process was tightened in 2012 after the Bastarache Commission (set up by the Charest government in response to claims by Marc Bellemare about the improper influence of liberal fundraising on judge appointments).
Since then, to avoid any partisan and even political pressure, the minister has had almost no discretion. It remains only to choose one of the three names. Let us quote the Bastarache report: that the appointment to the government is not “illegitimate” but actually allows “a certain democratic accountability to be breathed into the judiciary”.
Rich
Beginning in 2012, the chief justice of the Québec Court of Justice was able to appoint key individuals to the selection committees. And take care of the training of others (representatives of the legal profession, the public, etc.).
As a result, the appointment process would gradually become the “Empire of Chief Justices” (formula of a retired judge).
A habit is spreading: selection committees tend to propose fewer than three names to the minister.
In a report by the Secretariat for the selection of candidates for the post of judge, we can read that between April 2021 and March 2022, in 11 selection procedures, the majority of the commissions proposed “fewer than three candidates”.
The phenomenon had started among the Liberals: Minister Stéphanie Vallée had canceled at least one competition because she was only given a name.
We agree that not allowing a Minister’s discretionary powers on a single name is not exactly a sign of respect for the principle of ‘democratic accountability’. In these cases, the judges ultimately appoint the judges; it is a cooptation.
But for the Judicial Council (CdlM), the new regulations are absolute heresy. In particular, the commitment of the three names. In his dissertation on the subject, he writes that “inadequate” judges could be appointed and that “there is a risk of creating a chaotic situation”!
It’s honestly overkill. In the dispute between Chief Justice Rondeau and Minister Jolin-Barrette, the latter is often held to be solely responsible.
In this case, however, even sources at the Bar Association (a professional court that also opposes the new rule) find the word “chaotic” used by the CdlM for strong coffee.
We understand why: the judges of the higher, appellate and supreme courts are appointed by the federal government, leaving a “pre-Bastarachian” process (and worse), open to all influence, partisan discretion (controls by the “libertarians of the state” ) PLC for example).
We would like to hear Ms Rondeau say that the judges of these courts are “inadequate”. Or how “chaotic” the situation of these superior courts is…
