Northern Light
Superstar
It is funny you bring up the concept of a non-partisan panel. I can say I actually agree somewhat with the American perspective on this. Everybody is biased from a certain angle. And things likes maps are at least partially subjective? Is it best to "keep neighborhoods together" or should they be split if it means a more fair result, either from a balance in population or because it would allow for another neighborhood to be kept together? Canada has some questionable riding boundaries (I believe Saskatoon under the previous riding map was divided into 4 allowing conservatives to win all areas). Arguably the Toronto council ward boundaries had serious fairness issues despite being recommended as well.
That is not to say I believe the American system is good. the obvious gerrymandering done in some states is ridiculous. At least the so called non-partisan panels have ti at least maintain the image of being fair, so I think they would at least be closer to fair, even if I don't believe anyone is 100% non-biased,
Personally I think we should move away from district type representation to pure proportional systems. I never understood why some people think it is fair that some people have no voice just because they live in certain areas, and that is fundamentally true whether this is due to partisan gerrymandering or just due to natural demographics of certain areas. If you are a conservative in downtown Toronto you might as well stay home. The same can be said for an NDP voter in Simcoe for example. And I really don't like the population discrepancy, which literally makes some people's votes worth more than others. And these population discrepancies were always recommended by supposedly non-partisan committees, despite being completely unfair.
I wouldn't commend our system as perfect. I agree, in general, with a move towards proportionality, though I tend to favour the MMP model.
But I would say I do believe, overall, that our riding review panels are non-partisan as is the bulk of our judiciary.
That is not to say without bias of some sort.
Rather its to suggest that panel appointees and those to the bench typically understand their mandate to be and to appear to be impartial and open to judging matters objectively.
The Judicial Council tends to take a very dim view of judges attracting controversy or having the appearance of bias.
Of course, it still happens.
Of course we can do better.
But in saying as much the American perspective is one that dismisses the possibility.
There is a preconceived notion that consensus is neither possible nor desirable.
That makes their situation so much more fraught than it need be.