My point is that legal appointments in Canada are inherently political. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that in a province of 761,000 people, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has a personal connection to almost every legal appointment made during his time in government.
By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 8, 2019.
OTTAWA—Canada’s long-serving former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, almost didn’t get that job. The first woman in Canadian history to hold the position faced some pretty stiff competition.
The Canadian Italian Advocates Organization (CIAO for short) was founded back in 1984 to unite men and women who share a common profession and a common heritage.
Their candidate of choice was Frank Iacobucci, a respected Canadian jurist of Italian heritage who had previously served as dean of the law faculty at the University of Toronto, provost and deputy minister of justice.
Both had stellar credentials and would have been unassailable as nominees. But the best lawyers’ lobby group was the one supporting Iacobucci.
I remember getting a call from a life bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, promoting the merits of Iacobucci, including the positive reaction of Italians in my Hamilton riding.
The Liberals had a women’s caucus, and a loosely knit Italian-Canadian caucus. A vocal woman of Italian origin was promoting Iacobucci, along with numerous male colleagues, while the majority of women were hoping for a historic gender-based appointment.
In the end, it was then-prime minister Jean Chrétien who made the call, and lived with the consequences, which turned out to be pretty good.
McLachlin was a star on the bench for 17 years. Upon her retirement in Canada, she has been enlisted to serve as a non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.
My point is that legal appointments in Canada are inherently political. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that in a province of 761,000 people, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc has a personal connection to almost every legal appointment made during his time in government.
LeBlanc is a lawyer; his wife has been a judge for more than a decade. His link to judicial appointments last week made national headlines when it was revealed that four of six appointees had donated to his leadership campaign when he ran against Justin Trudeau for the top job.
Each of them gave LeBlanc $400 to pay down leadership debts almost a decade ago. According to The Globe, that appears partisan enough to deem them ineligible for appointment.
Buried in the fine print was an acknowledgement that one of judges was actually appointed by Stephen Harper and donated to the Conservatives. The same admission included a quote from deputy Conservative leader Lisa Raitt, who said the nominations smacked of old-school patronage.
Raitt, who is also a lawyer, knows that no candidate in Canada can actually be considered for a judicial appointment unless they have passed a rigorous, non-partisan screening process set up by a panel of legal peers.
So the mortal sin committed by LeBlanc is not that he has promoted the appointment of incompetent people but rather that he has appointed people he knows. In a small province, local leaders usually support a local candidate for a party leadership, sometimes when it isn’t even their party.
I participated in a fundraiser to pay Ontario New Democratic leader Andrea Horwath’s leadership debt. Horwath was a high-profile leader from my hometown, and I was happy to help in a roast to raise leadership money.
That’s what people in communities do. The Globe’s suggested solution is to eliminate all political input into judicial appointments. It would turn everything over to the legal system; so lawyers with zero political experience would make the final decisions.
Lawyers lobby for candidates of choice, and they do not hesitate to have their input when the time for nominations arises.
One only has to Google national legal organizations in Canada, and dozens of organized groups emerge, each with their own perspective and favourite causes.
Once a lawyer’s competence for the job has been established, the decision is political.
I recommended several judges during my time in politics and they are all still competently serving on the bench. I never nominated someone that I did not know. They were not all Liberals.
As regional minister responsible for all Hamilton area appointments, it was my job to ensure candidates were not just competent. They had to be exceptional. Before I recommended a nomination, I wanted to make sure that I knew everything possible about any candidate.
The Globe has criticized the government for consulting the party donor Liberalist in their pre-screening. On the contrary, the list helps them understand what controversies might accompany any appointment.
The bottom line is that a judicial appointment is a political decision. And it should be.
Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.
