THE JUDGES WERE RIGHT TO SLAM TOEWS'S PLAN

Justice Minister Vic Toews deserves the wrath of the country's senior
judges. If the judges are interfering in a political matter -- and
they are -- it is because Mr. Toews has become the proverbial bull in
a china shop. That china shop is the country's justice system, and
the judges have a right and a duty to defend its integrity.

Mr. Toews is proposing to give police a say in the selection of
judges to the federally appointed courts. From what is known of this
proposal -- made public in an interview last week with the Winnipeg
Free Press, and explained briefly on the Justice Department website
on Friday -- the selection committees that choose the judges will
each be given a police representative. "The voices of police are
critical in our legal system, but they have never been represented in
this process," Mr. Toews says on the website.

This seems a misguided populism that harks back to the Reform Party
roots of the governing Conservatives. It is exactly what Canadians
outside the core Conservative constituency feared from the Stephen
Harper government: an attempt to change the justice system's colours
by challenging the supposed hold of the bleeding-heart,
soft-on-crime, gay-rights-supporting, Charter-of-Rights-respecting
(and probably cafe-latte-sipping) judges.

The selection of judges is a policy choice that in normal
circumstances belongs solely to government. It is rare that a judge
should (or would) comment on a political decision of a sitting
government. It is almost unheard-of for an entire body of judges, in
this case the Canadian Judicial Council, led by Chief Justice
Beverley McLachlin, to issue a news release chastising a government.
The council did not do so lightly. It is clear the Chief Justice and
her colleagues (the other chief justices and associate chief justices
of the country's superior courts) felt that judicial independence was
endangered. The justice system's integrity rests on the judges' independence.

Did the judges overreact by rebuking Mr. Toews? Hardly. Asking the
police to screen judges as a matter of course may give the appearance
of a judiciary pre-approved by the enforcement arm of the justice
system. There is no evidence Mr. Toews has thought about that. No
public discussion occurred. (A House of Commons subcommittee had
discussed making more room for non-lawyers on the appointment
committees, but not holding a space for police.) No consultations
took place with the legal community.

That's not out of character for Mr. Toews. He mused at a bar
associationconference in the summer about allowing criminal
prosecutions of 10-year-olds.He has since withdrawn the idea. Mr.
Toews is not a figure who inspires confidence.

The Justice Minister seems intent on taking a flawed system and
making it worse. The real problem is the ample room given to the
Justice Minister to make political patronage appointments. The
problem is not the committees, which are heavy with lawyers trying to
create a professional, high-calibre judiciary. Mr. Toews has never
explained why the police are needed as a counterweight to the
lawyers. Good for the judges for standing up to him.