Take Tory MP off Supreme Court advisory panel: NDP

OTTAWA -  The Conservatives should withdraw Public Works Minister Christian Paradis from a panel of MPs advising the government on a Supreme Court of Canada appointment because his election expenses have been singled out in a high-profile court case, the NDP says.

Paradis' continued participation on the advisory panel taints the selection system for a new Supreme Court judge since it's likely the eventual decision in a lawsuit that the Tories launched against Elections Canada will be appealed to the high court, New Democrat MP Joe Comartin said Sunday.

Paradis and Secretary of State Diane Ablonczy are the government members on a panel of five MPs who will determine a short list of three finalists to recommend to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson for a nomination to replace retired Justice Michel Bastarache on the high court.

"It has such a clear appearance of a conflict that you just can't have it," said Comartin, a lawyer and the NDP member of the committee.

"We (the panel of MPs) have a significant impact on the last three names that get submitted.

"If we go ahead with him on it, it taints the process and I think it taints whoever ultimately is appointed."

Paradis is one of 67 Conservative candidates whose expense claims for a total of $1.3 million in advertising costs for the last election were rejected by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand on grounds they did not qualify as candidate expenses.

In a Federal Court case the Conservatives launched against Mayrand over the dispute, the lawyer for Elections Canada last month cross-examined one of the party's former financial officers over how the party re-allocated $10,000 worth of advertising expenses initially assigned to Paradis to another Quebec Conservative candidate.

Lawyer Barbara McIsaac suggested during the cross-examination that the expenditure was re-allocated because Paradis would have exceeded his own spending limit had it remained in his ledger, but former financial officer Ann O'Grady said she could not explain the transaction.

O'Grady could only confirm the party, not the firm that placed the advertising, issued a new invoice for $10,000 to the other candidate and that to the best of her knowledge the ad placement agency did not issue a credit of $10,000 to Paradis.

Paradis reported $72,735 worth of campaign expenses, $2,641 below his limit under a Canada Elections Act formula. McIsaac has declined to comment on the cross-examination, which took place last June 19.

All parties in the Commons had a deadline of June 30 to submit the names of MPs they were naming to the advisory panel for the Supreme Court nomination, Comartin said.

Their deliberations will be in secret, and the MPs are not allowed to disclose the names of the short list of three candidates they submit to Nicholson. The opposition MPs on the panel are all on the Commons justice committee, which will later have a full ad hoc session to screen Nicholson's final selection.

The new Supreme Court justice may have to recuse himself from the bench if the final decision in the Federal Court case reaches the Supreme Court, Comartin said.

"Having a Supreme Court justice recuse themselves from what is going to be a major case, it simply shouldn't happen," he said.

A senior government MP dismissed Comartin's concerns.

"It's ridiculous to suggest we would pick a Supreme Court justice on such a basis," said New Brunswick MP Rob Moore, Nicholson's parliamentary secretary.

Moore called Comartin's comments "political rhetoric."

"Any MP in the House could one day be involved in a court case that could go to the Supreme Court of Canada - should they all be disqualified?"

Comartin said he and NDP Leader Jack Layton were writing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Nicholson on Monday to demand they replace Paradis on the panel with another Conservative who is not connected to the advertising controversy.

Elections Canada has alleged in an affidavit used to obtain a warrant to search Conservative headquarters that the party shifted costs for radio and television advertising from its national campaign to the candidates to avoid exceeding its national election spending limit of $18.3 million.

The party transferred thousands of dollars to each of the candidates, whose campaign agents had to first send signed bank-transfer authorizations to headquarters in Ottawa to ensure the party could later withdraw the money from the candidates' bank accounts in payment for the advertising. The party invoiced each of the candidates for their share of the advertising.

The television and radio ads had been produced for the party's national campaign, but the Conservatives argue election law allowed the ads to be used for promotion of individual candidates.
\