The chair of the women’s forum at the Canadian Bar Association calls Peter MacKay out for the real consequences for women in the profession as they are being overlooked for judicial appointments, and that there is a need for more data on appointments, while Thomas Muclair thinks that this is more proof to demand MacKay’s resignation. Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler, however, does the due diligence and systematically dismantles MacKay’s assertions, from his statements that law schools aren’t playing their role, to the claim that women aren’t applying, and most especially the notion that there apparently aren’t enough women who can be appointed on the basis of merit. Cotler takes MacKay to school over the issue, and it’s great to see a fact-based takedown and not more of this open letter nonsense and weird blaming that has thus far taken place.
Tag Archives: Appointments
Roundup: Different lessons before the by-election
Not that Parliament has risen for the summer, the leaders can begin their summer tours in earnest, without having to take those inconvenient breaks to show up for the odd Question Period or a vote here or there. Because you know, they’re meeting with “real Canadians” as opposed to doing their actual jobs. And with by-elections happening a week away, both Trudeau and Mulcair are in Toronto today to campaign there, both of them drawing different lessons from the Ontario election, while the people who study these sorts of things aren’t necessarily sure that voters are committed to the same parties provincially and federally, and that they may be making a different calculation electorally.
Roundup: Peter MacKay’s “special bonds”
Peter MacKay ignited yet another firestorm by making comments to the Ontario Bar Association that there isn’t enough diversity in federal and federally-appointed courts because not enough women are applying since they have a special bond with children. No, seriously. And when called out on it, MacKay insisted that his comments were “misconstrued,” and then went on say law schools need to do better – never mind that female enrolment is already outpacing males. And no, there was nothing in his explanation about visible minorities, just women. Naturally, this turned into a parade of accusations about the regressive social attitudes during Question Period, laced with all of aggravating qualifications from all sides, MacKay included, about being parents. MacKay also gave a litany of appointment figures, all of them out of context, like how there was only one woman out of the thirteen appointments made last week. There was some great fact-checking over Twitter which pointed out just how ridiculous or outright wrong MacKay’s justifications are.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/479732973470638080
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/479739582615785472
Stats on women applicants to Ontario Court of Justice available since 1989. There is no shortage of women applicants. pic.twitter.com/yvI26uUzwX
— Erin Crandall (@ErinLCrandall) June 19, 2014
How many women appointed to section 96 courts? Fluctuates by year. Numbers not rising with Harper government. pic.twitter.com/dxNZJhwRQM
— Erin Crandall (@ErinLCrandall) June 19, 2014
QP: Bluster versus script cards
Possibly the last QP of the year — one can hope — and tempers continued to fray throughout the Precinct. None of the main leaders were present, which wasn’t going to improve the mood either. Peter Julian led things off, where he blustered about Northern Gateway decision, and Kelly Block was the sacrificial lamb sent up to read her talking points about how projects only move forward if they are proven to be safe after a rigorous, scientific review process, and that the proponent has more work to do. When Julian noted that consulting with First Nations was the government’s job, Block read that the government was working with First Nations. Nathan Cullen followed on to carry on the sanctimonious bluster, and Block read yet more of the same talking points. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, denouncing the justice minister’s sexist comments about female judges, to which Peter MacKay accused her of mischaracterizing his comments and that they only made judicial appointments made on merit. Carolyn Bennett and Scott Brison followed along, Brison characterising it as the Conservatives’ war on modernity, and after MacKay gave another embarrassing qualification, Leitch answered Brison by claiming that the number of female Governor-in-Council appointments is on the rise.
Roundup: Quebec’s “death with dignity” complications
It’s not really a surprise that the federal government is saying that Quebec’s “death with dignity” law is a violation of the Criminal Code, and will likely be challenged in court. That was kind of the point of the way the Quebec law was structured, however – to fit under the rubric of the provincial responsibility of healthcare so as to not trigger the Criminal Code, but it will likely take the Supreme Court to determine if they can justifiably do so. The Supreme Court is already set to hear a case regarding overturning the ban on physician-assisted suicide, so by the time the Quebec law hits the courts, there may already be new jurisprudence that will help to change the calculus around it. And yes, all parties are divided on the issue. Predictably, opponents of the law insist that euthanasia cannot be medical care, and want more palliative care instead. Administrative law professor Paul Daly puts this new law in the context of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on a case involving judicial discretion, and how prosecutorial may wind up filling the gap between the Quebec law and any decision to charge anyone who makes use of it.
QP: Prosecutorial versus crowd-sourcing
Wednesday, caucus day, and MPs filled the benches on both sides. Thomas Mulcair started things off short and sharp once again, asking what clarification Mike Duffy sought after caucus back in February. Stephen Harper said that he simply stated that any improper expenses needed to be repaid. Mulcair asked if Nigel Wright was present for that meeting, but Harper’s answer didn’t change — even after Mulcair asked it again. Mulcair then tried to press about the amount of Nigel Wright’s severance package, but Harper refused, stating that he was only being paid the minimum amount required by law. He then asked if Harper authorised the statement on May 17th that said that Nigel Wright would be staying on. Harper spoke about how Wright made an error in judgement, and he accepted his resignation, before finally breaking out the “You sat on a bribery allegation for 17 years.” Justin Trudeau called into question the logic of Wright paying Duffy’s expenses to spare the taxpayers and asked for the real reason for Wright’s resignation. Harper gave the same talking points. Trudeau asked the same in French before pointing out that Nigel Wright was the director of the Conservative Fund for seven years, and asked one more time which Harper appointed Duffy. Harper didn’t really respond, and took a swipe a Trudeau instead.