QUESTION PERIOD — Justice
Judicial Appointments
September 23, 2025
Leader, congratulations on your appointment. Those are big shoes to fill. Some of us have been in that position. It is an extremely important role.
Your lengthy legal career and your experience within the government that established an inquiry into judicial appointments should help you answer this question.
In January 2025, the former prime minister appointed lawyer Robert Leckey a judge on the Superior Court of Quebec. However, contrary to the usual rules, Justice Leckey had been a member of the Barreau du Québec for only seven years and not the ten years required by the Judges Act and the Constitution. Robert Leckey was a prolific donor to the Liberal Party of Canada, persistently criticized Bill 21 on laicity and Bill 96 on the French language, two Quebec bills.
How can your government justify this appointment, which bears the hallmarks of good old fashioned cronyism?
I think it’s important to remember that Senator Carignan’s question isn’t entirely innocuous. When I had the opportunity to deliver my first speech in this chamber, I reiterated the importance of the rule of law and judicial independence. I believe that comments made by politicians, whether in the other place or here in this chamber, must first and foremost seek to emphasize our support for judicial institutions. They must also respect the separation of powers between the legislative, judicial and executive branches. When the independence of the courts or the independence and impartiality of judges is called into question, it does not serve the cause of the rule of law in Canada.
You didn’t answer the question, Leader. You’re not off to a great start in your new job.
The question was about the fact that the government appointed a judge who was supposed to have been a member of the bar for ten years, but he had been for only seven, so he didn’t meet the basic criteria to be appointed to the bench. He continues to hear cases despite the fact that his appointment is being challenged in court. Don’t you think it’s embarrassing and problematic to allow a judge to hear cases and hand down rulings when —
Senator Carignan, as a lawyer yourself, you know that I can’t comment on cases that are currently before the courts. Furthermore, what you are doing indirectly, if not directly through your main and supplementary questions, is to undermine the credibility of Canada’s justice system in the eyes of the public. I don’t think this is the usual role of a politician, and certainly not the role of a senator.
