By Hilary White
OTTAWA, August 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Six weeks after the decision was announced on Canada Day (July 1st), Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has claimed that she had nothing to do with the selection of Henry Morgentaler, Canada’s “father of abortion.”
McLachlin told a press conference this weekend that she was “not the driving force” behind the decision. She said that it is her longstanding “personal policy decision” not to promote or vote for candidates to the Order and that she has only voted once, to break a tie.
“Some idea was put out by I don’t know who – a rumour or some source – that the chair leads the discussion. That is just not the case. My view is I’m there to ensure that the meeting runs well and fairly, and that the vote is taken fairly – not to weigh in favour or against a particular candidate.”
McLachlin’s complaint to reporters that she has been the victim of “misinformation” about the Morgentaler decision follows the filing of a formal letter of complaint over her conduct in the affair to the Canadian Judicial Council. Signed by representatives of 42 separate organizations, the letter said her conduct breached “the high standard of personal conduct required to be a member of the judiciary.” It requested an investigation of the affair and recommended to Parliament that “Ms. McLachlin be removed from office.”
McLachlin’s disavowal was dismissed by Charles McVety, president of the Canadian Family Action Coalition, the group that instigated the complaint, who said yesterday that her comments do nothing to absolve her of the charge of being politically partial and that McLachlin did not address the substance of the complaint.
“Our complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council was never based on how Beverley McLachlin voted; it was based on how she chaired a council that showed such a lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the integrity of the Supreme Court. And the misguided dismissal of the complaint by Justice Scott demonstrates a remarkably low level of respect and accountability to the one million people represented by the complaint.”
“Judge McLachlin is deflecting the issue,” McVety said. “This is exactly why we must have a full investigation of the McLachlin’s conduct and the deliberations of the Advisory Council. Canadians deserve honesty and openness.”
The letter, dated August 12, alleged that McLachlin, “throughout the process of awarding Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada demonstrates bias, political agenda and a wanton disregard for the Constitution of the Order of Canada and time honoured regulations.”
But Manitoba Chief Justice Richard Scott, chairman of the Canadian Judicial Council’s disciplinary committee, was quoted by the Globe and Mail saying that McLachlin’s disclaimer would bear upon the misconduct complaint.
“In light of the role that she has assigned to herself, I’d be surprised if many people would have a problem with the way that she carries out that particular role,” said Scott.
Protests have flooded in since the decision, and not only from pro-life organizations.
Shortly after the announcement of the award to Morgentaler, Ken Epp, Member of Parliament for Sherwood Park, Edmonton, questioned McLachlin’s conduct. “Is she now totally out of impartiality because of the fact she has weighed into this? I am concerned about all of those things,” Mr. Epp asked.
Conservative MP Jason Kenney also addressed the “undenied” reports that the Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the chair of the council which decides who receives the award, railroaded the award to Morgentaler, dispensing with the need for consensus on the committee and permitting a rare recorded vote.
“I am concerned by the undenied reports that the council departed from its usual consensus rule in this instance,” said Kenney. “If that’s true it’s very troublesome because it seems to me that the consensus rule exists precisely to avoid divisive and disruptive decisions. If anyone on this council made a power play to override the usual consensus rule that would be very regrettable indeed.”
However, on Saturday Justice McLachlin also denied that the Order of Canada Committee usually requires a unanimous consensus before awarding the distinction to a nominee. “There has been no practice of consensus,” she said.
To date at least 8 holders of the Order of Canada, the country’s highest civilian honour, have returned their awards, saying they do not want to be associated with Dr. Morgentaler.
Numerous MPs, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, indicated their concern that the awarding of Morgentaler was a move that would only divide Canadians. Harper said he would rather see the award “be something that really unifies” and “brings Canadians together.” Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Rona Ambrose joined with many, saying, “It is my opinion that in the eyes of most Canadians, the Order of Canada is usually bestowed on someone who has a story that unites us, not divides us.”
To express concerns to Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
by email: [email protected]
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Forty-two Organizations Appeal to Have Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Removed from Office over Morgentaler Affair
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081401.html
Order of Canada Members Return their Awards Over Morgentaler Decision
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070307.html
32 MPs and Counting Publicly Voice Disgust at Morgentaler’s Appointment to Order of Canada
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071119.html