By John Jalsevac
September 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) last week dismissed a complaint filed against Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for her role in nominating arch-abortionist Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada.
The complaint, filed by the Canadian Family Action Coalition (CFAC) on behalf of 42 groups, which CFAC claims have an estimated combined membership of over 1 million, alleged judicial misconduct on the part of McLachlin.
According to the Order of Canada Constitution, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the chair of the Order’s Advisory Committee, which makes the final decisions about whom the award should be given to.
“The conduct of Advisory Council Chair, chief justice McLachlin, through 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 honored regulations,” charged the CFAC complaint.
Soon after the July 1 announcement of the nomination of Morgentaler to the Order, rumors began to surface in the media that McLachlin had spearheaded the effort to grant the award to the abortionist. Some media reports suggested that the Chief justice had gone so far as to ignore normative procedures by forcing through Morgentaler’s nomination despite a lack of consensus on the Advisory Committee.
CFAC and the various organizations who signed the complaint said they were concerned that McLachlin’s alleged involvement in awarding Morgentaler the Order of Canada was an indication of a lack of impartiality on the part of a member of the judiciary, who could at some point be required to rule on an abortion-related case.
However, the CJC has now dismissed all seven accusations contained in the complaint. “On the face of your letter, there is no merit, nor any facts to support, your allegation,” says a CJC letter addressed to CFAC.
The CJC also charged, “The issues you raise do not relate to any conduct which is incompatible with the due execution of Chief Justice McLachlin’s office as a judge, but rather express your disagreement with the recommendations of the Advisory Council of the Order of Canada.”
Brian Rushfeldt, the Executive Director of CFAC, responded by criticizing the CJC’s letter, in particular for one statement which claimed that the Order of Canada Advisory Council does not make decisions in regards to nominations, but merely advises.
“The Advisory Council provides advice with respect to nominations for appointments to the Order of Canada, and makes no decision,” reads the CJC letter.
Rushfeldt quipped “If they didn’t make a decision, what was the vote about?”
“This is like saying that the Prime Minister and Parliament make no decisions, they simply advise the Governor General and she makes the decisions of what bills she signs into law.”
Rushfeldt also took issue with the CJC’s use of the defense that the Advisory Council’s deliberations are conducted in absolute secrecy. The CJC dismissed two of the points raised by CFAC, noting, “Deliberations of the Advisory Council are, and always have been, confidential.”
However, Rushfeldt complained that the invocation of secrecy makes it impossible to ascertain for certain whether McLachlin’s role in the Morgentaler decision was improper or not. “We have no way of knowing the truth about their dealings,” he said. “It is unfortunate that ‘secret’ proceedings over-ride the need for transparency and accountability to the Canadian people. We therefore are requesting a transcript of the proceedings.”
Shortly after CFAC filed its letter of complaint, Justice McLachlin publicly distanced herself from the Morgentaler decision, claiming that as chair of the advisory committee, her role was merely to guide the meetings.
“There has been a lot of misinformation on this issue,” Chief Justice McLachlin said.
“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, in favour or against a particular candidate.”
McLachlin claimed that she did not cast a vote in regards to Morgentaler – a claim that, under the rules of secrecy governing the deliberations of the Advisory Committee, cannot be verified.