NationStates

In Canada, it is an unspoken rule of judicial appointment that three of the nine Supreme Court Justice positions must go to Quebec.

I feel like this is a special privilege that should be abolished. To be truly fair, the appointment of the Justices should either be completely random within a pool of highly qualified individuals (but without paying attention to locale) or it should actually be consistent with some sort of demographic reality (and if it were consistent, then the ratio of Quebec's ~8 million and Ontario's ~12 million compared to Canada as a whole should be reflected; this wouldn't yield the incongruent result of giving both of these provinces 3 judges).

Less than 25% of the Canadian population is from Quebec; therefore its a special privilege to grant Quebec 1/3 representation on the Supreme Court. It is unfair that someone born in Quebec should automatically enjoy a higher probability of becoming a Supreme Justice than someone born in another part of Canada.

We must do away with this.

What do you think? Is it fair that 3 of the 9 Supreme Judges are always from Quebec? Or is it a special privilege?

Quebec has a very different culture from the rest of Canada, doesn't it? Even has a different language. So I can see the reason for why some judges should be from Quebec in every Supreme Court.

Jute wrote:Quebec has a very different culture from the rest of Canada, doesn't it? Even has a different language. So I can see the reason for why some judges should be from Quebec in every Supreme Court.

Some (at least one); but consistently three?

That's a 1/3 representation when the population ratio doesn't call for it.

quebec has a unique civil code which requires special interpretation, so three of the seats on the SCOC are allotted to quebec to guarantee that there's always sufficient expertise to handle cases where it's pertinent

Zavea wrote:quebec has a unique civil code which requires special interpretation, so three of the seats on the SCOC are allotted to quebec to guarantee that there's always sufficient expertise to handle cases where it's pertinent

I'm fairly certain all of the judges that have been appointed (all of them extremely qualified and most of them having extremely high academic credentials) have a working knowledge of the Civil side of Canadian law.

There's also no reason why they can't pay particular attention to a fewer number of judges from Quebec where the issue involves a technicality in Civil Law. The democratic process overall though in the Court (the majority/minority decisions), however, should be more consistent with the demographic reality.

Infected Mushroom wrote:In Canada, it is an unspoken rule of judicial appointment that three of the nine Supreme Court Justice positions must go to Quebec.

It's not an unspoken rule, it's a law. Part of the Supreme Court Act.

The Supreme Court Act limits eligibility for appointment to persons who have been judges of a superior court, or members of the bar for ten or more years. Members of the bar or superior judiciary of Quebec, by law, must hold three of the nine positions on the Supreme Court of Canada.[10] This is justified on the basis that Quebec uses civil law, rather than common law, as in the rest of the country. The 3 out of 9 proportion persists despite the fact that only 24 percent of Canada's population resides in Quebec. As explained in the Court's reasons in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, sitting judges of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal cannot be appointed to any of Quebec's three seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co ... f_Justices

30 seconds on Wikipedia and I know more about the Supreme Court of Canada that someone who is supposedly nearly finished law school in Canada.

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:In Canada, it is an unspoken rule of judicial appointment that three of the nine Supreme Court Justice positions must go to Quebec.

It's not an unspoken rule, it's a law. Part of the Supreme Court Act.

The Supreme Court Act limits eligibility for appointment to persons who have been judges of a superior court, or members of the bar for ten or more years. Members of the bar or superior judiciary of Quebec, by law, must hold three of the nine positions on the Supreme Court of Canada.[10] This is justified on the basis that Quebec uses civil law, rather than common law, as in the rest of the country. The 3 out of 9 proportion persists despite the fact that only 24 percent of Canada's population resides in Quebec. As explained in the Court's reasons in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, sitting judges of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal cannot be appointed to any of Quebec's three seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co ... f_Justices

30 seconds on Wikipedia and I know more about the Supreme Court of Canada that someone who is supposedly nearly finished law school in Canada.

then the problem is even more serious than I thought...

I've found the provision, here's the wording

Three judges from Quebec

6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.

It doesn't say, so long as the population of Quebec is X it shall have at least 3 judges or if the population is X compared to the whole of Canada's population, it shall be Y. It doesn't say that there's to be at least ONE judge, it says three.

This makes the act absurd and obsolete in a few decades given Quebec's demographic.

Quebec isn't expected to have as high a population growth as other provinces in the future. Yet it's ALWAYS guaranteed at least 3 judges no matter what? It's not cool.

the rule ensures that the SCOC is sufficiently competent to handle any case from any province/s, and quebec just so happens to be a province in canada... who woulda thought

whinging about demographics is more or less irrelevant when the alternative is to deny a quarter of the population sufficient legal representation on the highest court in the land. if someone angry about it they can write a petition to re-engineer quebec's legal system and culture

Quebec has 23% of Canada's population.

So yeah, Quebec's quota should be 2 justices. 22.2% is as close as you can get without changing the number of justices.

Jute wrote:Quebec has a very different culture from the rest of Canada, doesn't it? Even has a different language. So I can see the reason for why some judges should be from Quebec in every Supreme Court.

It really doesn't. Despite what many say, the cultural difference is negligible.

It used to be fairly different, but the cultural differences between Quebec and Canada have become less and less significant.

And they don't have a different language. French is the only official language in Quebec, but it's hardly unique in being a province where a lot of people speak French. We are, after all, a bilingual country (English and French).

The only reason Quebec has a three judges quota is because of the stupid idea that "quotas fix everything". Well they don't. They just enforce favoritism and make bad situations worse. The appointment of supreme court judges should by no means be based on quotas, demographics or special representation. It should be based on professionality, skills and merit, and that alone.

Did Quebec mandate ownership of dogs?

Zavea wrote:the rule ensures that the SCOC is sufficiently competent to handle any case from any province/s, and quebec just so happens to be a province in canada... who woulda thought

whinging about demographics is more or less irrelevant when the alternative is to deny a quarter of the population sufficient legal representation on the highest court in the land. if someone angry about it they can write a petition to re-engineer quebec's legal system and culture

22.2% is a lot closer to 23%, than 33.3% is. Now you may say that no province should be under-represented. But that is literally impossible.

If one province is over-represented, it follows that all other provinces are under-represented. The rest of Canada is due nearly 7 justices, but they only get 6. That's an under-represention of 14%.

By giving Quebec 3 justices you'd underrepresent 3.9 million people in the rest of Canada. To make up for the small disparity between 22.2% and 23.0% in Quebec ... which is 285 thousand people.

I must point out though, that disparities in Federal court representation are worse in the US: just over half the representation in the 10th circuit as in the 11th

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It's not an unspoken rule, it's a law. Part of the Supreme Court Act.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co ... f_Justices

30 seconds on Wikipedia and I know more about the Supreme Court of Canada that someone who is supposedly nearly finished law school in Canada.

then the problem is even more serious than I thought...

Indeed, you should probably have a conversation with your tutors about just how you managed to get to this point in your education without knowing about the composition of your Supreme Court.

I've found the provision, here's the wording

Three judges from Quebec

6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.

It doesn't say, so long as the population of Quebec is X it shall have at least 3 judges or if the population is X compared to the whole of Canada's population, it shall be Y. It doesn't say that there's to be at least ONE judge, it says three.

This makes the act absurd and obsolete in a few decades given Quebec's demographic.

Quebec isn't expected to have as high a population growth as other provinces in the future. Yet it's ALWAYS guaranteed at least 3 judges no matter what? It's not cool.

Are you suggesting that in a few decades there will not be any individuals in Quebec qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court?

---

The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:Quebec has 23% of Canada's population.

Why does this matter?

Ifreann wrote:

The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:Quebec has 23% of Canada's population.

Why does this matter?

Judiciary. Branch of government. Democracy.

The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Why does this matter?

Judiciary. Branch of government. Democracy.

Canada's judiciary is appointed, not elected, no doubt to Canada's lasting benefit.

Ifreann wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
then the problem is even more serious than I thought...

Indeed, you should probably have a conversation with your tutors about just how you managed to get to this point in your education without knowing about the composition of your Supreme Court.

I've found the provision, here's the wording



It doesn't say, so long as the population of Quebec is X it shall have at least 3 judges or if the population is X compared to the whole of Canada's population, it shall be Y. It doesn't say that there's to be at least ONE judge, it says three.

This makes the act absurd and obsolete in a few decades given Quebec's demographic.

Quebec isn't expected to have as high a population growth as other provinces in the future. Yet it's ALWAYS guaranteed at least 3 judges no matter what? It's not cool.

Are you suggesting that in a few decades there will not be any individuals in Quebec qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court?

---

The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:Quebec has 23% of Canada's population.

Why does this matter?

Are you suggesting that in a few decades there will not be any individuals in Quebec qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court?

No I'm saying right now Quebec is already over-represented (~20% of the population of Canada but getting 33% of the seats in the Supreme Court). In the future, when Quebec's population lags further behind the rest of Canada as a whole, it would make even less sense to still have that already nonsensical 1/3 guaranteed representation. It would be even more unfair to the other provinces.

Indeed, you should probably have a conversation with your tutors about just how you managed to get to this point in your education without knowing about the composition of your Supreme Court.

We jumped straight into the case law (provinces vs federal governments) without really getting quizzed on this.

There are no tutors unless you pay for them.

Ifreann wrote:

The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:
Judiciary. Branch of government. Democracy.

Canada's judiciary is appointed, not elected, no doubt to Canada's lasting benefit.

No exactly.

I mean, they're appointed by our governor-general, who's appointed by the queen of England.

As far as supreme court judges are concerned, the governor-general basically appoints whoever the prime minister tells him/her to appoint, since the entire governor-general position is at most, symbolic.

This has been the cause of problems in the past, since the prime minister can basically just choose who he likes more to be the next supreme court judge (the position's pretty much for life, so that's quite a deal of judicial influence). Parliament has little to no say whatsoever in terms of who the judge is going to be. Thankfully, few supreme court judges have died during Harper's reign (since most of us hate his guts), so he hasn't been able to appoint any judges to screw our country over.

So yeah, our judicial system is crap, thank you very much.

Ifreann wrote:

The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:
Judiciary. Branch of government. Democracy.

Canada's judiciary is appointed, not elected, no doubt to Canada's lasting benefit.

But as you yourself first pointed out, they can only be appointed within the rule that 3 of the 9 must be from the Quebec judiciary.

This is a legal requirement. As you pointed out.

The legal (but not constitutional) requirement is undemocratic. The judiciary is a branch of government, no more and no less for being appointed by some other branch of government.

Also, you have a very strange user name. What's it mean?

Considering that all 9 judges are Europeans with no native or 'minority' quotas to reflect the cultural diversity of Canada I'd say the Quebec quota is not only ridiculous, its also racist. Canada has been sensitive to getting women appointed but the whitewash remains

Cetacea wrote:Considering that all 9 judges are Europeans with no native or 'minority' quotas to reflect the cultural diversity of Canada I'd say the Quebec quota is not only ridiculous, its also racist. Canada has been sensitive to getting women appointed but the wjitewash remains

Quotas in general are stupid.

Positions should by no means be handed out based on one's cultural background, religion, race or ethnicity.

They should be based on one's actions and one's skills, not on things beyond one's control.

Sanctissima wrote:

Cetacea wrote:Considering that all 9 judges are Europeans with no native or 'minority' quotas to reflect the cultural diversity of Canada I'd say the Quebec quota is not only ridiculous, its also racist. Canada has been sensitive to getting women appointed but the wjitewash remains

Quotas in general are stupid.

Positions should by no means be handed out based on one's cultural background, religion, race or ethnicity.

They should be based on one's actions and one's skills, not on things beyond one's control.

I agree

Sanctissima wrote:

Cetacea wrote:Considering that all 9 judges are Europeans with no native or 'minority' quotas to reflect the cultural diversity of Canada I'd say the Quebec quota is not only ridiculous, its also racist. Canada has been sensitive to getting women appointed but the wjitewash remains

Quotas in general are stupid.

Positions should by no means be handed out based on one's cultural background, religion, race or ethnicity.

They should be based on one's actions and one's skills, not on things beyond one's control.

If there's a legal expert on Quebecois laws who isn't a native I'm sure they can be appointed too.

Gauthier wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Quotas in general are stupid.

Positions should by no means be handed out based on one's cultural background, religion, race or ethnicity.

They should be based on one's actions and one's skills, not on things beyond one's control.

If there's a legal expert on Quebecois laws who isn't a native I'm sure they can be appointed too.

Actually, they can't. They have to be Quebecois in order to be appointed as one of those 3/9 judges.

And even if they were an expert on Quebec Law, why should that matter aside from how knowledgeable they are in that field? Giving a subset of a legal system special recognition just helps to divide a nation, which is something Canada has already suffered enough from.

Sanctissima wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
If there's a legal expert on Quebecois laws who isn't a native I'm sure they can be appointed too.

Actually, they can't. They have to be Quebecois in order to be appointed as one of those 3/9 judges.

And even if they were an expert on Quebec Law, why should that matter aside from how knowledgeable they are in that field? Giving a subset of a legal system special recognition just helps to divide a nation, which is something Canada has already suffered enough from.

So you would rather Quebec do away with its legal system and adopt Canada's?

I suppose that's a way to keep a minority feeling as if their safe. As long as their not cannibals from Liberia, I see no trouble with it. But I'm not Canadian so whatever.