Judges occupy a unique place in society. They must operate at a remove from ordinary life, and ordinary pressures. Any hint that their integrity has been compromised brings not only them but the entire system into grave disrepute.
For that reason, we can say with certainty that former justice minister Marc Bellemare has done either a great thing by revealing partisan abuse, or else a terrible thing by smearing the justice system without cause. So Quebecers need to see his proof that he made appointments to the bench on the urging of Liberal fundraisers.
Bellemare has yet to produce any proof, and refuses to do so unless he is given immunity. That should be out of the question. If Bellemare participated in such wrongdoing and then kept silent, why should he be immune?
The Liberal government has been scrambling to reassure Quebecers that judges have not be appointed via partisan manipulation. And until Bellemare offers something to substantiate his claims, we see no reason to believe that the system has been distorted.
Nominating judges is a straightforward process: When there's a vacancy the government advertises the position. Anyone can make a recommendation, although generally it is the legal community, including lawyers interested in becoming judges, who put names forward for consideration.
The justice minister then sets up a three-member selection committee to interview candidates who meet minimum requirements. The three include a judge, a lawyer recommended by the Quebec Bar, and a third person, neither a lawyer nor a judge, from the community, appointed by the justice minister.
This trio provides a list of qualified candidates, and it is the justice minister alone who has access to this final list. The minister then makes a choice and presents it to cabinet for final approval. At no point is there, to our knowledge, any opportunity for extraneous parties to weigh in.
This system has the merit of flexibility. A wide range of applicants can be considered in confidence, free from outside pressure. Its failing is its secrecy. A process that takes place behind closed doors is inevitably open to gossip.
There is a balance to maintain. The U.S. system, where some judges are elected and others are subjected to viciously partisan confirmation hearings, goes too far in the opposite direction.
There's good reason to believe our way works fine. We'll need to see some proof before we believe claims of partisan rot in the system.