Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Year in and year out, Stephen Harper's government has cranked out changes to the Criminal Code to create new offences, increase sentences and promote a tough-on-crime philosophy that puts victims' rights at the heart of Canada's justice system.

But Canada's Conservative Prime Minister has known from the start that in order to achieve all of his goals, he also had to oversee changes on judicial benches across the country.

"He once asked me, 'If I become Prime Minister, what's the most important thing to do?'" Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Mr. Harper, said in an interview. "I said that he had to do something about the courts in this country. I think any Conservative prime minister would feel an obligation to rebalance the judiciary, because after so many years of Liberal prime ministers, it had tilted left."

Story continues below advertisement

On Friday, Mr. Harper's plans suffered a major blow when the Supreme Court blocked the appointment to its bench of Justice Marc Nadon, who was known to share some of the Prime Minister's legal viewpoints. The 6-1 decision, which created an immediate vacancy among the three seats allocated to Quebec on the Supreme Court, highlighted the increasingly tense relationship between the government and the judiciary.

Conservative insiders lamented the fact that lower-court judges across the country have been failing to implement their crime agenda, and that some of their legislative changes have been struck down.

Senior Conservatives said privately they were surprised and disappointed by the court's decision in the Nadon case. One official said the government considered the decision to be "bizarre" and said the Conservatives had felt they had sufficient legal opinion on their side.

"Two former Supreme Court judges and the country's leading constitutional expert all said there is no obstacle," a source said.

The next step in the process has yet to be determined as the government reviews its options, including trying another way to appoint Mr. Nadon or finding a new candidate. Still, there is a sense in Ottawa that overseeing a philosophical change in the judiciary is a long-term process, starting in lower courts before the judges with a small-c conservative bent move up the ranks.

The government now has a series of judicial appointments to make in lower courts in Quebec, to fill vacancies from which future Supreme Court judges will be picked. The hope, one Conservative official said, was to have a greater pool of judges who are in line with "ongoing reforms" to the justice system.

Mr. Harper's initial appointments to the Supreme Court were non-controversial, but Mr. Flanagan said that they were "quietly tilting to the right" in recent years.

Story continues below advertisement

The fact that the government felt the need to obtain legal advice on Mr. Nadon's appointment in the first place is evidence of just how controversial the decision was, NDP justice critic Françoise Boivin said.

"It showed from the start how wrong it was and that it was bound to create problems," she said. "Again, this government … they love to hit the wall."

Ms. Boivin, who was a member of the selection panel given the task of narrowing down a government list of Supreme Court candidates, said there are significant concerns about whether new legislation is being properly vetted to ensure it does not violate the Constitution. She added that she hopes recent Supreme Court decisions, including a ruling on Thursday that struck down a portion of the Abolition of Early Parole Act, will lead the government to reconsider its approach to constitutional matters.

"We have the right to be really wondering who is minding the constitutional house," Ms. Boivin said. "Is that job being done?"

In Quebec, where Mr. Harper's choice of Mr. Nadon was roundly dismissed with a unanimous vote by the Quebec National Assembly, the Supreme Court's ruling was embraced by all major party leaders on the campaign trail.

"It proves exactly that what we defended was right and demonstrates that when Quebec stands up for itself it can succeed," Parti Québécois Leader Pauline Marois said. "In this case, there could have been no other decision. Mr. Harper erred when he appointed Justice Nadon."

Story continues below advertisement

Liberal Leader Philippe Couillard said the ruling was proof that the federal system works for Quebec and the provinces, and demonstrated that the federal government cannot unilaterally impede Quebec's legal tradition and its civil law.

"It shows that there are institutions in the country that ensure that a balance is respected and recognizes the rights of provinces," Mr. Couillard said.

But Coalition Avenir Québec Leader François Legault said the decision in no way proves that Canadian federalism automatically protects Quebec's interests. The Supreme Court decision, he said, only requires that the province's three judges on the bench must come from Quebec.

"This has nothing to do with the way federalism works for Quebec," Mr. Legault said.

With a report from Rhéal Séguin

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the authors of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
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

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: 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