Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin responds to PMO allegations
[ http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/chief-jus ... llegations ]
by rabble staff | May 2, 2014
Faced with insinuations of improper conduct from the Prime Minister's Office and reported widely in the press, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court sets the record straight in the press release below:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In response to recent media reports, the office of the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C. is releasing the following statement.
At no time was there any communication between Chief Justice McLachlin and the government regarding any case before the courts. The facts are as follows:
On April 22, 2013, as a courtesy, the Chief Justice met with the Prime Minister to give him Justice Fish's retirement letter. As is customary, they briefly discussed the needs of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On July 29, 2013, as part of the usual process the Chief Justice met with the Parliamentary committee regarding the appointment of Justice Fish's successor. She provided the committee with her views on the needs of the Supreme Court.
On July 31, 2013, the Chief Justice’s office called the Minister of Justice's office and the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Mr. Novak, to flag a potential issue regarding the eligibility of a judge of the federal courts to fill a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court. Later that day, the Chief Justice spoke with the Minister of Justice, Mr. MacKay, to flag the potential issue. The Chief Justice's office also made preliminary inquiries to set up a call or meeting with the Prime Minister, but ultimately the Chief Justice decided not to pursue a call or meeting.
The Chief Justice had no other contact with the government on this issue.
The Chief Justice provided the following statement: "Given the potential impact on the Court, I wished to ensure that the government was aware of the eligibility issue. At no time did I express any opinion as to the merits of the eligibility issue. It is customary for Chief Justices to be consulted during the appointment process and there is nothing inappropriate in raising a potential issue affecting a future appointment."
Harper Owes Chief Justice McLachlin BIG Apology!
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Harper Owes Chief Justice McLachlin BIG Apology!
by Oscar » Sat May 03, 2014 8:12 am
Last edited by Oscar on Tue May 06, 2014 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
HARRIS: L'etat, c'est Steve
by Oscar » Mon May 05, 2014 5:53 pm
HARRIS: L'etat, c'est Steve
[ http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/05/04/letat-cest-steve/ ]
By Michael Harris | May 4, 2014
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper attacks the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in broad daylight, there is a question Canadians need to answer fairly soon.
What's it going to be: a modern democracy or a Steve's banana republic of the north?
Steve likes people docile. He appears to have tamed a lot of the realm. He kicks, the subjects cringe. He kicks some more, they slip into the woods of indifference. They are so disconnected that they no longer hear the screams of the other kickees: Linda Keen, Bill Casey, Kevin Page, Marc Mayrand, even Sheila Fraser - and now, and now, Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The train wreck of the Harper government continues to roll down the mountainside, crushing body after body, yet no one utters the right word. Allow me. Canada is a dictatorship in the making.
Did you ever know a person who just kept taking more and more from a relationship until you had to draw a line? A person for whom there are no rules, just a bottomless appetite to have it all their own way?
If so, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I give you our prime minister - a man who needs to be stopped before he starts appearing on the money. Either that, or we all better practise the curtsey.
Look at all the portfolios and offices now held by Steve.
* The proclamation for the upcoming National Day of Honour, commemorating the end of a war in Afghanistan that should never have begun, was announced by Governor-General Harper. Governor-General Harper will also receive the last military flag from Kandahar, while David Johnson watches.
* Commander-in-Chief Harper will have the spotlight at the National Day of Honour ceremonies; the real generals who commanded troops in Afghanistan were not invited because they do not like blue Kool-Aid.
* Speaker of the House of Commons Harper ruled that it was perfectly okay to keep information from the opposition because they were not real MPs anyway.
* Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Harper has declared that the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court was completely in order - despite his 6-1 rejection by that other interventionist-court.
* Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Harper declared that Quebec was a "nation", though the matter was never discussed in cabinet, nor for that matter, passed on to the pretend intergovernmental affairs minister back then, Michael Chong . . . . and on and on.
I have never been one to buy the "Steve is a genius" thesis. It is put about by people who really just like being on the winning side. I think you will find those same people will invest our next prime minister with genius - whoever he or she may be.
Nor do I buy the notion that if you raise your voice against Steve, it's because you hate him, are in the pay of a foreign government, are a conspiracy theorist, or have recently been seen in public with David Suzuki.
Those are not arguments, but truncheons for making sure none can be made. They are not part of a dialogue, but dialogue's graveyard. They are Steve's native tongue, newspeak. You know, "We're right about the elections legislation because everyone else says we're wrong." That stuff.
Based on his actions, the PM is a misanthropic power-monger who misread 1984; the hero was Winston Smith, Steve, not Big Brother. This PM has so many fundamentally warped ideas about Canada that it won't be long before he appears in public in a uniform.
Sorry . . . he already has, though it violated military protocol. How could I forget Steve in that flight jacket with real pilot wings on it, flying over the flooding in Alberta? I suppose he forgot that if there's one thing real servicemen hate, it's a civilian wearing as a prop a uniform which he is not entitled to wear.
Steve has never shown much insight into Canada, though he was cunning enough in the beginning to know that the country was asleep at the switch. He thinks that, under our system, Canadians elect governments - when they actually elect parliaments. Under Steve's view, if you are not a Conservative MP, you are nothing at all. Which is why he wouldn't share public information with the opposition, a misinterpretation of the rules that earned him a contempt of Parliament ruling.
He had so much contempt for the Senate, a place he once described as pasture-land for the PM's buddies, that his own office tried to undermine that separate parliamentary institution in an operation so shady it brought down a criminal investigation by the RCMP.
This week, Steve's calm Kabuki mask slipped off. Underneath, for all to see, was what former mentor Tom Flanagan has been talking about on his latest book tour - the suspicious, vindictive, secretive man who routinely plays politics right up to, and occasionally over, the edge of the rules.
I cite those words carefully. In one of the scuzzier low blows in politics I've seen in a long time, Steve unleashed his goons on McLachlin, someone he knows has very little ability to defend herself publicly.
Harper's poisonous toads began whispering in the corridors of the Commons that McLachlin had crossed a line. In doing their master's bidding, they implied that the Chief Justice had somehow been against the Nadon appointment and had moiled against it; that her attempt to communicate some constitutional reality to Harper before he made an ass of himself with his SC choice was in some way "political." It was actually normal, not to mention merciful. Steve needs help. Given his batting average in the Supreme Court, he needs a lot of help.
Instead, Steve didn't merely fail to put a stop to the drive-by smear of the chief justice, he lathered on a few greasy streaks of his own. He said he did nothing wrong in the unconstitutional appointment of Marc Nadon. And you know what that means. It means that the chief justice was wrong. You know the fundraising letters have already gone out to the Conservative base: the Harper government's plans were stymied by an interventionist judge.
I wonder if that also means Steve doesn't feel bound by the ruling. I suppose we'll know if Marc Nadon becomes the next Chief Justice. That's payback, Steve-style.
So what is the demonization of McLachlin all about? It's about five glaring, embarrassing, damaging, unnecessary, and perfectly justified defeats in the highest court in the land. Harper is not a lawyer and really had no idea what he was talking about on Senate reform, on judicial discretion in sentencing, on prostitution laws, on safe injection sites, or Marc Nadon's appointment.
So now Steve has shown contempt for the House of Commons, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Interesting, that. In the world of Stephen Harper, you are overstepping your authority when you catch him in a lie, faulty reasoning, or dealing from the bottom of the deck in elections.
Canada's motto used to be 'Peace, Order and Good Government.' 'Outta My Way' is hardly an improvement.
- - - - -
Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his “unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us.” His eight books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare ambition, Lament for an Ocean, and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. He is currently working on a book about the Harper majority government to be published in the autumn of 2014 by Penguin Canada.
Readers can reach the author at michaelharris@ipolitics.ca . Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.
[ http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/05/04/letat-cest-steve/ ]
By Michael Harris | May 4, 2014
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper attacks the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in broad daylight, there is a question Canadians need to answer fairly soon.
What's it going to be: a modern democracy or a Steve's banana republic of the north?
Steve likes people docile. He appears to have tamed a lot of the realm. He kicks, the subjects cringe. He kicks some more, they slip into the woods of indifference. They are so disconnected that they no longer hear the screams of the other kickees: Linda Keen, Bill Casey, Kevin Page, Marc Mayrand, even Sheila Fraser - and now, and now, Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The train wreck of the Harper government continues to roll down the mountainside, crushing body after body, yet no one utters the right word. Allow me. Canada is a dictatorship in the making.
Did you ever know a person who just kept taking more and more from a relationship until you had to draw a line? A person for whom there are no rules, just a bottomless appetite to have it all their own way?
If so, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I give you our prime minister - a man who needs to be stopped before he starts appearing on the money. Either that, or we all better practise the curtsey.
Look at all the portfolios and offices now held by Steve.
* The proclamation for the upcoming National Day of Honour, commemorating the end of a war in Afghanistan that should never have begun, was announced by Governor-General Harper. Governor-General Harper will also receive the last military flag from Kandahar, while David Johnson watches.
* Commander-in-Chief Harper will have the spotlight at the National Day of Honour ceremonies; the real generals who commanded troops in Afghanistan were not invited because they do not like blue Kool-Aid.
* Speaker of the House of Commons Harper ruled that it was perfectly okay to keep information from the opposition because they were not real MPs anyway.
* Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Harper has declared that the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court was completely in order - despite his 6-1 rejection by that other interventionist-court.
* Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Harper declared that Quebec was a "nation", though the matter was never discussed in cabinet, nor for that matter, passed on to the pretend intergovernmental affairs minister back then, Michael Chong . . . . and on and on.
I have never been one to buy the "Steve is a genius" thesis. It is put about by people who really just like being on the winning side. I think you will find those same people will invest our next prime minister with genius - whoever he or she may be.
Nor do I buy the notion that if you raise your voice against Steve, it's because you hate him, are in the pay of a foreign government, are a conspiracy theorist, or have recently been seen in public with David Suzuki.
Those are not arguments, but truncheons for making sure none can be made. They are not part of a dialogue, but dialogue's graveyard. They are Steve's native tongue, newspeak. You know, "We're right about the elections legislation because everyone else says we're wrong." That stuff.
Based on his actions, the PM is a misanthropic power-monger who misread 1984; the hero was Winston Smith, Steve, not Big Brother. This PM has so many fundamentally warped ideas about Canada that it won't be long before he appears in public in a uniform.
Sorry . . . he already has, though it violated military protocol. How could I forget Steve in that flight jacket with real pilot wings on it, flying over the flooding in Alberta? I suppose he forgot that if there's one thing real servicemen hate, it's a civilian wearing as a prop a uniform which he is not entitled to wear.
Steve has never shown much insight into Canada, though he was cunning enough in the beginning to know that the country was asleep at the switch. He thinks that, under our system, Canadians elect governments - when they actually elect parliaments. Under Steve's view, if you are not a Conservative MP, you are nothing at all. Which is why he wouldn't share public information with the opposition, a misinterpretation of the rules that earned him a contempt of Parliament ruling.
He had so much contempt for the Senate, a place he once described as pasture-land for the PM's buddies, that his own office tried to undermine that separate parliamentary institution in an operation so shady it brought down a criminal investigation by the RCMP.
This week, Steve's calm Kabuki mask slipped off. Underneath, for all to see, was what former mentor Tom Flanagan has been talking about on his latest book tour - the suspicious, vindictive, secretive man who routinely plays politics right up to, and occasionally over, the edge of the rules.
I cite those words carefully. In one of the scuzzier low blows in politics I've seen in a long time, Steve unleashed his goons on McLachlin, someone he knows has very little ability to defend herself publicly.
Harper's poisonous toads began whispering in the corridors of the Commons that McLachlin had crossed a line. In doing their master's bidding, they implied that the Chief Justice had somehow been against the Nadon appointment and had moiled against it; that her attempt to communicate some constitutional reality to Harper before he made an ass of himself with his SC choice was in some way "political." It was actually normal, not to mention merciful. Steve needs help. Given his batting average in the Supreme Court, he needs a lot of help.
Instead, Steve didn't merely fail to put a stop to the drive-by smear of the chief justice, he lathered on a few greasy streaks of his own. He said he did nothing wrong in the unconstitutional appointment of Marc Nadon. And you know what that means. It means that the chief justice was wrong. You know the fundraising letters have already gone out to the Conservative base: the Harper government's plans were stymied by an interventionist judge.
I wonder if that also means Steve doesn't feel bound by the ruling. I suppose we'll know if Marc Nadon becomes the next Chief Justice. That's payback, Steve-style.
So what is the demonization of McLachlin all about? It's about five glaring, embarrassing, damaging, unnecessary, and perfectly justified defeats in the highest court in the land. Harper is not a lawyer and really had no idea what he was talking about on Senate reform, on judicial discretion in sentencing, on prostitution laws, on safe injection sites, or Marc Nadon's appointment.
So now Steve has shown contempt for the House of Commons, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Interesting, that. In the world of Stephen Harper, you are overstepping your authority when you catch him in a lie, faulty reasoning, or dealing from the bottom of the deck in elections.
Canada's motto used to be 'Peace, Order and Good Government.' 'Outta My Way' is hardly an improvement.
- - - - -
Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his “unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us.” His eight books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare ambition, Lament for an Ocean, and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. He is currently working on a book about the Harper majority government to be published in the autumn of 2014 by Penguin Canada.
Readers can reach the author at michaelharris@ipolitics.ca . Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
MENDES: Attempt to smear Chief Justice an affront to our co
by Oscar » Mon May 05, 2014 5:55 pm
MENDES: Attempt to smear Chief Justice an affront to our constitutional system
[ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e18394828/ ]
by Errol Mendes, The Globe and Mail, Friday, May. 02 2014,
A fundamental principle of democracy is that elected governments understand and appreciate the workings of checks and balances against their range of powers. In the Canadian constitutional system, even if a government has a majority in the House of Commons, a prime minister will understand that his political goals will sometimes be challenged by a range of actors in society from citizens to the courts.
Unfortunately, since the Conservative Party under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper was elected - first to the position of a minority government in 2006 and presently as a majority government - those that have offered reasonable and legitimate advice and challenges to the political and legal goals of the Harper government have faced unprecedented smears from the highest ranks of the party and the government.
The growing range of individuals that have had to endure such smears have included: academics (myself included); environmental groups labelled as extremists and radicals funded by foreign entities; public servants just doing their job, such as Linda Keen, the former head of the nuclear safety watchdog, Peter Tinsley, the head of the Military Police Complaints Commission and Richard Colvin, the foreign service officer who testified on the treatment of Afghan detainees; Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand for alleged bias; and, astonishingly, former auditor general Sheila Fraser, who has faced innuendos of conflicts of interest.
However, even this level of extreme anti-democratic behaviour has been surpassed with the current attempted smear against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverly McLachlin. The Prime Minister's Office has suggested that Ms. McLachlin inappropriately tried to call Mr. Harper's office about the appropriateness of selecting Marc Nadon for the Quebec vacancy on the Court. PMO spokesman Jason MacDonald asserted that the Prime Minister rebuffed the call of the Chief Justice on the advice of his justice minister. The spokesman asserted that the Chief Justice initiated the call first to the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, and that he advised Mr. Harper not to take her call - which he concurred with. The implication of these statements is that the Chief Justice acted inappropriately, as according to the statement of Mr. MacDonald: "Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice would ever call a sitting judge on a matter that is or may be before their court."
In contrast to this attempt to impugn the integrity of one of the most distinguished jurists in Canadian history with a global reputation for effectively presiding over some of the most challenging legal and constitutional issues facing the country, the actions of the Chief Justice could actually have been in the best interests of the country and the Court.
It was perfectly legitimate for the Chief Justice to advise Mr. MacKay on the consequences of appointing a judge from the Federal Court for a Quebec seat. Indeed, what the attempted smear does not reveal is that the Chief Justice was consulted by the parliamentary committee screening the short list of candidates and she provided her views on the needs of the Court. Given her position, it would be totally appropriate to go further and speak directly to the Minister of Justice. Given the institutional impact on the Court, it would be negligent for the Chief Justice not to do so. According to the executive legal officer of the Court, Owen Rees, at no time did the Chief Justice express any views on the merits of the appointment of Mr. Nadon.
MORE:
[ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e18394828/ ]
[ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e18394828/ ]
by Errol Mendes, The Globe and Mail, Friday, May. 02 2014,
A fundamental principle of democracy is that elected governments understand and appreciate the workings of checks and balances against their range of powers. In the Canadian constitutional system, even if a government has a majority in the House of Commons, a prime minister will understand that his political goals will sometimes be challenged by a range of actors in society from citizens to the courts.
Unfortunately, since the Conservative Party under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper was elected - first to the position of a minority government in 2006 and presently as a majority government - those that have offered reasonable and legitimate advice and challenges to the political and legal goals of the Harper government have faced unprecedented smears from the highest ranks of the party and the government.
The growing range of individuals that have had to endure such smears have included: academics (myself included); environmental groups labelled as extremists and radicals funded by foreign entities; public servants just doing their job, such as Linda Keen, the former head of the nuclear safety watchdog, Peter Tinsley, the head of the Military Police Complaints Commission and Richard Colvin, the foreign service officer who testified on the treatment of Afghan detainees; Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand for alleged bias; and, astonishingly, former auditor general Sheila Fraser, who has faced innuendos of conflicts of interest.
However, even this level of extreme anti-democratic behaviour has been surpassed with the current attempted smear against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverly McLachlin. The Prime Minister's Office has suggested that Ms. McLachlin inappropriately tried to call Mr. Harper's office about the appropriateness of selecting Marc Nadon for the Quebec vacancy on the Court. PMO spokesman Jason MacDonald asserted that the Prime Minister rebuffed the call of the Chief Justice on the advice of his justice minister. The spokesman asserted that the Chief Justice initiated the call first to the Minister of Justice, Peter MacKay, and that he advised Mr. Harper not to take her call - which he concurred with. The implication of these statements is that the Chief Justice acted inappropriately, as according to the statement of Mr. MacDonald: "Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice would ever call a sitting judge on a matter that is or may be before their court."
In contrast to this attempt to impugn the integrity of one of the most distinguished jurists in Canadian history with a global reputation for effectively presiding over some of the most challenging legal and constitutional issues facing the country, the actions of the Chief Justice could actually have been in the best interests of the country and the Court.
It was perfectly legitimate for the Chief Justice to advise Mr. MacKay on the consequences of appointing a judge from the Federal Court for a Quebec seat. Indeed, what the attempted smear does not reveal is that the Chief Justice was consulted by the parliamentary committee screening the short list of candidates and she provided her views on the needs of the Court. Given her position, it would be totally appropriate to go further and speak directly to the Minister of Justice. Given the institutional impact on the Court, it would be negligent for the Chief Justice not to do so. According to the executive legal officer of the Court, Owen Rees, at no time did the Chief Justice express any views on the merits of the appointment of Mr. Nadon.
MORE:
[ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e18394828/ ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin more than just a 'sitting j
by Oscar » Tue May 06, 2014 9:00 am
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin more than just a 'sitting judge'
[ http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/chief-jus ... ng-judge-1 ]
Updated: Tue, 06 May 2014 05:00:00 GMT | By CBC News, cbc.ca
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, whom Prime Minister Stephen Harper referred to indirectly as a "sitting judge," is in fact a head of a branch of government.
She heads the judicial branch and is the chief justice of Canada, not just of the Supreme Court, and is a member of the Privy Council.
But McLachlin is also the deputy governor general, and if the Governor General were to become incapacitated, she would take his place.
- - - SNIP - - - -
Yet when McLachlin advised Justice Minister Peter MacKay about a potential constitutional issue over the appointment of a Federal Court judge to represent Quebec, the government reacted as if she were an ordinary judge who had behaved inappropriately.
Quebec, because it has a unique civil law code, can only be represented on the Supreme Court by a Quebec lawyer of 10 years' experience or a Quebec provincial judge.
MacKay told the House of Commons on Monday, "neither the prime minister nor I would ever consider calling a judge before a matter that is or could be before the courts."
Adam Dodek, who teaches law at the University of Ottawa and who has written two books about the Supreme Court, said in an interview, "It is completely normal for the executive who is appointing judges to consult with the chief justice of the court."
- - - SNIP - - -
McLachlin is a unique head of the top court, the first woman appointed to the post and the longest sitting in history.
25 years on the Supreme Court
The accusation that she inappropriately tried to talk to Harper occurred just a month after her 25th anniversary as a Supreme Court judge. On March 30, 1989, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed McLachlin, an Albertan, to sit on the top court bench.
In 2000, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made her chief justice. Her retirement date is five years away.
In the past 14 years, McLachlin has changed the court. According to Dodek, she has shortened the court's once notoriously long decision-making times.
"Under Chief Justice [Antonio] Lamer and his predecessors it was not uncommon for judgments to take over a year," he said. Under McLachlin, the time frame is more likely to be six months.
A consensus-building court
McLachlin also brought about a consensus-building court that often delivers unanimous decisions. In a televised interview with host Peter Mansbrige for the CBC's One on One, she spoke of free-for-all debates by all the judges about the cases before them.
They "hash it out," and she always speaks last. "My vote is worth no more than anyone else's."
She said the approach allows her to pick up bits and pieces on different issues. "I can listen to what everyone has to say and sometimes you can pick up different threads, and some of the things
dividing people are very small."
Dodek said her court is seen is seen as "a very collegial court," with "an open and co-operative working environment."
He said 4-5 split decisions have been rare in McLachlin's court. "In the U.S they are the rule," he said.
McLachlin, who told Mansbridge it was her goal to make the court more transparent, also brought television cameras into the Supreme Court chamber.
[ http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/chief-jus ... ng-judge-1 ]
Updated: Tue, 06 May 2014 05:00:00 GMT | By CBC News, cbc.ca
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, whom Prime Minister Stephen Harper referred to indirectly as a "sitting judge," is in fact a head of a branch of government.
She heads the judicial branch and is the chief justice of Canada, not just of the Supreme Court, and is a member of the Privy Council.
But McLachlin is also the deputy governor general, and if the Governor General were to become incapacitated, she would take his place.
- - - SNIP - - - -
Yet when McLachlin advised Justice Minister Peter MacKay about a potential constitutional issue over the appointment of a Federal Court judge to represent Quebec, the government reacted as if she were an ordinary judge who had behaved inappropriately.
Quebec, because it has a unique civil law code, can only be represented on the Supreme Court by a Quebec lawyer of 10 years' experience or a Quebec provincial judge.
MacKay told the House of Commons on Monday, "neither the prime minister nor I would ever consider calling a judge before a matter that is or could be before the courts."
Adam Dodek, who teaches law at the University of Ottawa and who has written two books about the Supreme Court, said in an interview, "It is completely normal for the executive who is appointing judges to consult with the chief justice of the court."
- - - SNIP - - -
McLachlin is a unique head of the top court, the first woman appointed to the post and the longest sitting in history.
25 years on the Supreme Court
The accusation that she inappropriately tried to talk to Harper occurred just a month after her 25th anniversary as a Supreme Court judge. On March 30, 1989, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed McLachlin, an Albertan, to sit on the top court bench.
In 2000, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made her chief justice. Her retirement date is five years away.
In the past 14 years, McLachlin has changed the court. According to Dodek, she has shortened the court's once notoriously long decision-making times.
"Under Chief Justice [Antonio] Lamer and his predecessors it was not uncommon for judgments to take over a year," he said. Under McLachlin, the time frame is more likely to be six months.
A consensus-building court
McLachlin also brought about a consensus-building court that often delivers unanimous decisions. In a televised interview with host Peter Mansbrige for the CBC's One on One, she spoke of free-for-all debates by all the judges about the cases before them.
They "hash it out," and she always speaks last. "My vote is worth no more than anyone else's."
She said the approach allows her to pick up bits and pieces on different issues. "I can listen to what everyone has to say and sometimes you can pick up different threads, and some of the things
dividing people are very small."
Dodek said her court is seen is seen as "a very collegial court," with "an open and co-operative working environment."
He said 4-5 split decisions have been rare in McLachlin's court. "In the U.S they are the rule," he said.
McLachlin, who told Mansbridge it was her goal to make the court more transparent, also brought television cameras into the Supreme Court chamber.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Harper owes the chief justice a profuse apology
by Oscar » Tue May 06, 2014 9:01 am
Harper owes the chief justice a profuse apology
[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/geoff-s ... se-apology ]
By Geoffrey Stevens | May 5, 2014
You might think that anyone who has spent many years observing politicians would not be surprised by anything they do or say. But you would be wrong.
Never -- not since my first days in the Parliamentary Press Gallery back in 1965 -- have I encountered anything quite so appalling as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attack on Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Everyone knows that this prime minister plays by his own hardball rules. He insists on winning. He has a mean streak, a vindictive side, when he does not get his own way.
- - - - SNIP - - -
Chief Justice McLachlin stands accused, spuriously, by the prime minister of attempting to interfere in a case before the court. The issue was the nomination of Federal Court Justice Marc Nadon to fill a Quebec vacancy on the Supreme Court. In the normal course, a parliamentary committee that was screening a short list of candidates asked McLachlin about the needs of her court.
There are special constitutional rules for the selection of judges from Quebec, and McLachlin knew that judges of the Federal Court did not come within the rules. She felt compelled to alert her political "boss," Justice Minister Peter MacKay. MacKay, who may or may not have understood her alert, told her to call the prime minister, which she decided not to do.
Yet Harper accuses her of trying to influence him in a case that was before the court. If the allegation were true, she might have to resign as chief justice. But it's not true. This all transpired months before Harper selected Nadon and even longer before there was any challenge to his appointment. Eventually, a challenge did make it way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-1 that Nadon was ineligible.
The prime minister owes the chief justice a profuse apology for impugning her integrity. But she should not hold her breath waiting for it.
Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens, an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail, teaches political science at Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Guelph. His column appears weekly in Waterloo Region Record and Guelph Mercury. He welcomes comments at geoffstevens@sympatico.ca
[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/geoff-s ... se-apology ]
By Geoffrey Stevens | May 5, 2014
You might think that anyone who has spent many years observing politicians would not be surprised by anything they do or say. But you would be wrong.
Never -- not since my first days in the Parliamentary Press Gallery back in 1965 -- have I encountered anything quite so appalling as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attack on Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Everyone knows that this prime minister plays by his own hardball rules. He insists on winning. He has a mean streak, a vindictive side, when he does not get his own way.
- - - - SNIP - - -
Chief Justice McLachlin stands accused, spuriously, by the prime minister of attempting to interfere in a case before the court. The issue was the nomination of Federal Court Justice Marc Nadon to fill a Quebec vacancy on the Supreme Court. In the normal course, a parliamentary committee that was screening a short list of candidates asked McLachlin about the needs of her court.
There are special constitutional rules for the selection of judges from Quebec, and McLachlin knew that judges of the Federal Court did not come within the rules. She felt compelled to alert her political "boss," Justice Minister Peter MacKay. MacKay, who may or may not have understood her alert, told her to call the prime minister, which she decided not to do.
Yet Harper accuses her of trying to influence him in a case that was before the court. If the allegation were true, she might have to resign as chief justice. But it's not true. This all transpired months before Harper selected Nadon and even longer before there was any challenge to his appointment. Eventually, a challenge did make it way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-1 that Nadon was ineligible.
The prime minister owes the chief justice a profuse apology for impugning her integrity. But she should not hold her breath waiting for it.
Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens, an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail, teaches political science at Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Guelph. His column appears weekly in Waterloo Region Record and Guelph Mercury. He welcomes comments at geoffstevens@sympatico.ca
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Supreme Court-Marc Nadon spat shows PM's problem with Quebec
by Oscar » Tue May 13, 2014 11:18 am
Supreme Court-Marc Nadon spat shows PM's problem with Quebec's liberal judges
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme ... -1.2638056 ]
PM 'uneasy about Quebec judges' because of province's liberalism: former judge John Gomery
By Chris Hall, CBC News Posted: May 10, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 10, 2014 5:00 AM ET
When the federal government tapped Federal Court Judge Marc Nadon to fill a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court, the argument was that he was a more traditional jurist, one whose judgments reflected greater deference to Parliament.
But there's another way to look at it, based on a view shared by Stephen Harper and others in his inner circle, that judges on Quebec's senior courts are too liberal and far too activist in applying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a check on the power of elected officials.
"I think he regards it as a little bit of an adversarial bench,'' says retired Quebec Superior Court judge John Gomery, who chaired the inquiry into the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
In an interview with CBC Radio's The House, Gomery says the Harper government perceives Quebec as more to the left of centre than any other province.
"And that, I think, makes Mr. Harper uneasy about Quebec judges because they come from that culture and that milieu, and are representative of that opinion.''
That view is not universal in the government's ranks, of course, but some senior Conservatives sources have privately expressed a similar opinion.
That, at least, helps explain why the Harper government went to such lengths to push Nadon as the first Federal Court judge to represent Quebec on the country's highest court.
Retired justice John Gomery told CBC on the weekend that the PM may see Quebec's judges as too liberal, reflecting the society they come from. (Canadian Press)
Remember, those efforts began with obtaining independent legal advice from not one but two retired Supreme Court justices, risking a legal challenge and then, when that challenge came, rewriting the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as part of a budget bill, to try to allow it.
"We followed a process that could only be described as the most conclusive ever undertaken by a government with respect to a Supreme Court appointment," Justice Minister Peter MacKay said this week.
"But we took an unprecedented step of going further and getting outside advice, which conformed to the decision we had taken with respect to that appointment.''
MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme ... -1.2638056 ]
RELATED:
Listen to CBC Radio's The House
[ http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/2014/05/10/j ... wildering/ ]
John Gomery says Harper's comments on chief justice 'distasteful'
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/john-go ... -1.2638204 ]
Harper's dust-up with the chief justice - pique or strategy?
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.2635374 ]
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme ... -1.2638056 ]
PM 'uneasy about Quebec judges' because of province's liberalism: former judge John Gomery
By Chris Hall, CBC News Posted: May 10, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: May 10, 2014 5:00 AM ET
When the federal government tapped Federal Court Judge Marc Nadon to fill a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court, the argument was that he was a more traditional jurist, one whose judgments reflected greater deference to Parliament.
But there's another way to look at it, based on a view shared by Stephen Harper and others in his inner circle, that judges on Quebec's senior courts are too liberal and far too activist in applying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a check on the power of elected officials.
"I think he regards it as a little bit of an adversarial bench,'' says retired Quebec Superior Court judge John Gomery, who chaired the inquiry into the Liberal sponsorship scandal.
In an interview with CBC Radio's The House, Gomery says the Harper government perceives Quebec as more to the left of centre than any other province.
"And that, I think, makes Mr. Harper uneasy about Quebec judges because they come from that culture and that milieu, and are representative of that opinion.''
That view is not universal in the government's ranks, of course, but some senior Conservatives sources have privately expressed a similar opinion.
That, at least, helps explain why the Harper government went to such lengths to push Nadon as the first Federal Court judge to represent Quebec on the country's highest court.
Retired justice John Gomery told CBC on the weekend that the PM may see Quebec's judges as too liberal, reflecting the society they come from. (Canadian Press)
Remember, those efforts began with obtaining independent legal advice from not one but two retired Supreme Court justices, risking a legal challenge and then, when that challenge came, rewriting the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as part of a budget bill, to try to allow it.
"We followed a process that could only be described as the most conclusive ever undertaken by a government with respect to a Supreme Court appointment," Justice Minister Peter MacKay said this week.
"But we took an unprecedented step of going further and getting outside advice, which conformed to the decision we had taken with respect to that appointment.''
MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme ... -1.2638056 ]
RELATED:
Listen to CBC Radio's The House
[ http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/2014/05/10/j ... wildering/ ]
John Gomery says Harper's comments on chief justice 'distasteful'
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/john-go ... -1.2638204 ]
Harper's dust-up with the chief justice - pique or strategy?
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.2635374 ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
International panel slams Stephen Harper for treatment of Su
by Oscar » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:32 pm
International panel slams Stephen Harper for treatment of Supreme Court justice
[ http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... rt-justice ]
Mark Kennedy More from Mark Kennedy
Published on: July 25, 2014 | Last Updated: July 25, 2014 5:12 PM EDT
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is giving no indication he’ll apologize for his treatment of Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin even though an international panel of jurists said he needed to do just that for intruding on the “independence” and “integrity” of Canada’s judiciary.
The critique of Harper, and of Justice Minister Peter MacKay, came in a blunt letter from the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, after Harper suggested earlier this year that Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin had acted inappropriately.
The review by the ICJ had been requested by Canadian lawyers and academics after an apparent disagreement between Harper and McLachlin turned into a political storm in May.
The investigation by the ICJ, a group of international lawyers, judges and academics, cleared McLachlin of any inappropriate behaviour but came down hard on Harper and MacKay for impugning the reputation of the chief justice.
“The ICJ remains of the view that the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice could best remedy their encroachment upon the independence and integrity of the judiciary by publicly withdrawing or apologizing for their public criticism of the Chief Justice,” says the letter, written by ICJ secretary general Wilder Tayler.
A copy of the six-page letter was delivered by the commission to the PMO, which had not responded to requests in late May from the ICJ to participate in the review.
On Friday, Jason MacDonald, Harper’s director of communications, issued a short email statement saying, “We have seen the letter. We have noted it. There is nothing further to add to your story.”
McLachlin also declined comment.
MORE:
[ http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... rt-justice ]
[ http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... rt-justice ]
Mark Kennedy More from Mark Kennedy
Published on: July 25, 2014 | Last Updated: July 25, 2014 5:12 PM EDT
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is giving no indication he’ll apologize for his treatment of Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin even though an international panel of jurists said he needed to do just that for intruding on the “independence” and “integrity” of Canada’s judiciary.
The critique of Harper, and of Justice Minister Peter MacKay, came in a blunt letter from the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, after Harper suggested earlier this year that Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin had acted inappropriately.
The review by the ICJ had been requested by Canadian lawyers and academics after an apparent disagreement between Harper and McLachlin turned into a political storm in May.
The investigation by the ICJ, a group of international lawyers, judges and academics, cleared McLachlin of any inappropriate behaviour but came down hard on Harper and MacKay for impugning the reputation of the chief justice.
“The ICJ remains of the view that the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice could best remedy their encroachment upon the independence and integrity of the judiciary by publicly withdrawing or apologizing for their public criticism of the Chief Justice,” says the letter, written by ICJ secretary general Wilder Tayler.
A copy of the six-page letter was delivered by the commission to the PMO, which had not responded to requests in late May from the ICJ to participate in the review.
On Friday, Jason MacDonald, Harper’s director of communications, issued a short email statement saying, “We have seen the letter. We have noted it. There is nothing further to add to your story.”
McLachlin also declined comment.
MORE:
[ http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ ... rt-justice ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests