Canada’s newest Supreme Court Justice was sworn in Monday January 5th. Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Justice Cromwell on December 22nd 2008, canceling the vetting process by parliamentary committee which he had championed and established in the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Marshall Rothstein.

Instead Prime Minister Harper consulted Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff, head of the Liberal Party. It must be presumed that Prime Minister Harper decided to skip the parliamentary interviews because of the upcoming judicial session. Without Justice Cromwell the SCC would have had only 8 seats filled resulting in the Supreme Court not being able to fulfill its constitutional mandate. The PMO released this statement regarding the decision, “The Supreme Court must have its full complement of nine judges in order to execute its vital constitutional mandate effectively,” this was clearly supported by Ignatieff in consultation.

Cromwell fills out the roster with judicial experience dating back to 1997 where he was first appointed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeals. He is well respected by his peers in the intellectual and judicial communities. He is bilingual which will be an asset as he takes the seat of Justice Bastarache who dealt heavily with minority language rights during his term. He has experience as the executive legal officer in the chambers of the Supreme Court Justice from 1992 to 1995. The fact that he hails from Nova Scotia is also an asset as he represents the Maritimes just as Justice Mastarache did before him. This keeps with the appointment convention of keeping regional representation.

The problem with Cromwell’s appointment is that it sets a poor precedent for future appointments. By canceling the vetting process Harper has essentially gone against something that he championed. Another issue is that by doing this Canada’s government loses even more face. Adding this to the proroguing of parliament and the appointment of 18 Senators and we get an ever piling list of acts which seem to work against democracy.

Although each of these choices has clearly been made between the lesser of two evils, we have to be wary of so many actions taken which contradict the rhetoric of the PM.

 Print This   Email This