Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Support quality journalism
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
The Globe and Mail
Support quality journalism
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Globe and Mail website displayed on various devices
Just$1.99
per week
for the first 24 weeks

var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){console.log("scroll");var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1);

Supreme Court of Canada nominee Justice Marc Nadon waits to testify before an all-party committee to review his nomination on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in this October 2, 2013 file photo. The Supreme Court will rule March 21, 2014 on whether Nadon, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's latest appointee to that court, has the legal qualifications for the job.

CHRIS WATTIE/REUTERS

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has damaged one of the long-standing causes of Canadian conservatism: reducing the prime minister's royal power over appointments to the Supreme Court.

By rigging the multi-party process for the abortive appointment of Marc Nadon, Mr. Harper has jeopardized parliamentary vetting for the high court.

The Globe and Mail's Sean Fine has provided a behind-the-scenes look at the most remarkable appointment in Canadian history. It renders laughable Mr. Harper's suggestion that Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin tried to place an inappropriate call to him about a matter related to the appointment that was before the courts.

Story continues below advertisement

But above all, it exposes the process as a sham. Now the two opposition parties, the NDP and the Liberals, say they might not take part the next time.

"Do I want to waste my time?" asked Francoise Boivin, the New Democrat MP who sat on the closed-door committee that selected the shortlist last time.

Mr. Harper will soon have to appoint two Supreme Court justices – one for the still vacant spot Mr. Nadon was supposed to take, and a second to replace Justice Louis LeBel, who retires in November.

Liberal MP Sean Casey, the party's justice critic, expressed doubt about his party being involved in a similar process: "Our political party would look long and hard before committing to a process that has gone so terribly wrong."

It hurts a cause embraced by the Reformers who came to Ottawa in the 1990s, pledging to put some of the Prime Minister's kingly powers to democratic scrutiny.

The system in place now, where MPs of all parties review candidates for a shortlist but the PM appoints the judge, is not all they hoped for, but it evolved over the past decade to provide some balance to the prime minister's power. Or so we thought.

Instead, Mr. Harper's government engaged in a little sleight of hand. There's a trick that card sharks and magicians call "forcing a card," where they make their mark feel like they're picking a card, when in fact it was forced upon them. That's what the Conservatives did with this appointment.

Story continues below advertisement

In the end, Mr. Nadon was ruled ineligible because has was a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court Act says that the three justices who sit on the top court as Quebec representatives must come from the ranks of the province's active lawyers, or from the Quebec Superior Court or Quebec Court of Appeal. There had long been a fussy legal question about whether Federal Court judges could be eligible, too.

Before that, there was a selection process that was supposed to be relatively simple. The federal justice minister is supposed to consult with the Quebec legal community, and come up with a long list. Then a multi-party committee of five MPs would whittle it down to a shortlist of three behind closed doors. The PM would choose from that list.

But the government beat their own system by ignoring the people they consulted and packing the long list. Four of the six names were from the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal, and so of doubtful eligibility, but at least one of them had to make it to the shortlist of three. The long list included some less than renowned judges.

When the committee of five MPs – three conservatives and two opposition MPs – voted, Mr. Harper was guaranteed to get some more conservative alternatives to the heavyweight contenders, Quebec Court of Appeal justices Marie-France Bich and Pierre Dalphond. He did. He was able to choose Mr. Nadon.

Now, if Mr. Harper wanted a conservative judge, he had every legal right to appoint one. Prime Ministers have unilateral, kingly power to appoint Supreme Court justices. But he pretended the choice was vetted through a non-partisan process.

The process itself had worked before. But this time the government used its control of the long list, and the shortlist, to manipulate the outcome. The opposition parties have no interest in getting burned again.

Story continues below advertisement

"If you have a process that's fixed, why do you need a process?" Mr. Casey asked.

Ms. Boivin said the system won't work if the government just ignores the people it consults as it drafts their initial long list of candidates.

And then there's the shot Mr. Harper took at the Chief Justice, suggesting she inappropriately tried to contact him about legal issues around Mr. Nadon's appointment that could come before the court. In fact, she called Justice Minister Peter MacKay, and took steps to contact Mr. Harper, to flag the eligibility issue after MPs on the committee consulted her – and before they had made their shortlist.

It could all mark the end of the experiment in having MPs from all parties vet the candidates for the top court. It's a system that offered some check on the prime minister's power.

That's what Reformers wanted when Mr. Harper first came to Ottawa. As prime minister, however, Mr. Harper has damaged the idea.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies