Do as I say; not as I do

No, I'm not going to slag David Suzuki or Al Gore today. This one is for Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin who as the National Post editorial notes (Don't Speak), seems to have no problem speaking from a political stance but abhors any such influence in the Justice system.

Speaking Thursday to the Empire Club in Toronto, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin bemoaned what she said was the increasing inability of ordinary Canadians to seek justice in the courts, primarily because of the high cost and long waits.

Litigation is, of course, a costly and time-consuming burden. But we doubt that this unfortunate fact has changed much over the years. Taking a case to trial, then all the way through the various layers of appeal, has always been an expensive, drawn-out process -- which is why most litigation tends to end with a negotiated settlement. But even if we accept Judge McLachlin's contention that the situation has deteriorated of late, her remarks -- coming as they do on the heels of the Conservative government cutting two major sources of funding for litigious interest groups -- gives the appearance that the chief justice may be taking a political stance.

The Post is of course referring to Conservatives cuts to the Court Challenges Program and the Status of Women department, both of which serve a largely left-wing agenda. They obviously feel that judges should keep their political opinions to themselves. I agree.

Lawyer Karen Sellick had an interesting opinion piece in the Post on Tuesday (Judicious Compensation). Her contention appears to be that the system is flawed due to a fixed salary system, which removes the incentive to increase productivity .

She is concerned that the current system not only encourages slackers, but also something far worse:

But there's another risk, too. With financial motivation gone, it will be the ideologues among the judiciary who will tend to step forward and seed the law reports with their decisions. They have other motivations besides money -- the ambition to move up the judicial ladder into appellate courts, or the desire to influence the direction of the law in accordance with some ideological agenda.

So it's not just the selection process that tends to politicize the judiciary. The compensation system does it, too.

She goes on to offer a remedy:

There is a solution to this problem. It's to allow opposing litigants to jointly select their judge, with judges being paid according to time worked. Only unbiased judges would get many cases, and we wouldn't need political pre-screening of applicants because judges would be screened daily by those requiring their services.

So unless things change, we will continue to enable a powerful system of slackers who are only encouraged to become productive if they have a political agenda to enforce. This is their motivation; notwithstanding the odd one who may actually possess a modicum of integrity.

Not a pretty picture for the future of Canadian society.

* * * *

With that, I'll sign off for a few days. I have a pile of reading to catch up on.

* * * *

Update: Interesting Counterpoint by David Asper. Thoughts?