Judicial appointments process should be reviewed — but won’t be

On June 3, there was a motion put forward in the House of Commons by Mr. Richard Marceau, Bloc MP for Haute-Saint-Charles:

That the House denounce the recent remarks made by Mr. Justice Michel Robert stating that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of political opinion when appointing candidates to the federal judiciary and that it call on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to create a special subcommittee with the mandate to examine the process for appointments to the federal judiciary and make recommendations for reform, with the primary goal of eliminating political partisanship from the process, by October 31, 2005.

Mr. Marceau went on to quote the data printed in the Montreal Gazette (and first revealed in this blog over a week earlier) that 60% of Quebec judicial appointments went to key Liberal supporters.
He suggests reducing the number of members of the selection committee appointed by the minister of justice be reduced from three out of the seven members, and that the ability of the minister to select an appointee who is not on the “highly recommended” list be constrained. But that’s just his recommendation — the motion calls for a subcommittee to study the problem.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler then delivered a speech defending the current process, and I urge you to go and read it. It’s a good speech, but I think there is a blind spot here, in which the government refuses to acknowledge that the process has resulted in politicized appointments, something that Justice Michel Robert thinks is just fine. Mr. Cotler will not be voting in support of the motion:

Accordingly, because of this I will be voting against this motion, which I regard, taken as a whole, as being inappropriate, uninformed, unconstitutional and prejudicial to the independence of the judiciary and the responsibility of Parliament. Indeed, I am very concerned about the trafficking in innuendo in relation to the judiciary over the past few months.

The vote happened yesterday, and true to form, the Liberals voted against it, and the Bloc, the NDP, and the Conservatives vote for it, for a final vote of 157 to 124 in favour of the motion.
Of course, the motion is not binding, but as the fellow who first discovered the disturbing trend in judicial appointments, it’s nice to know that I’ve made some sort of impact. Now if we could actually make the government responsive to the wishes of the elected representatives, then the impact would actually matter.
[Cross posted to Angry in the Great White North]