Justice Minister Irwin Cotler on Tuesday named Ontario Court of Appeal justices Louise Charron and Rosalie Abella to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada.

The two replace justices Louise Arbour and Frank Iacobucci, who both retired in June.

Both Charron and Abella will go through a new parliamentary screening process beginning on Wednesday.

Madame Justice Louise Charron (File Photo)

Cotler said it was "a historic moment" to announce the new process and the two "exceptional" nominees.

"These two are outstanding jurists," he said, adding "[the government] did not enquire into histories of politics or gender."

The new review comes after Prime Minister Paul Martin's campaign pledge to make the Supreme Court nomination process more democratic.

Madame Justice Rosalie Abella (CP PHOTO - file)

A panel of three Liberal and four opposition members of Parliament – and two independent legal experts– will table a report after the screening hearings.

The Conservative Party had been pushing for parliamentary hearings similar to those in the United States that grill prospective judges. Under Canada's new system, the panel cannot question judge candidates in person.

Charron was named to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1995. She earned her law degree at the University of Ottawa in 1975 and practised civil litigation in Ottawa. She was also a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

Abella, a human rights expert, was appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992.

Arbour and Iacobucci both retired in June.

Arbour in February was appointed to the job of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

• FROM FEBRUARY 20, 2004: Arbour to take UN human rights post

Iacobucci, who joined the Supreme Court in 1991, in August was appointed interim president of the University of Toronto.

• FROM MARCH 22, 2004: Supreme Court Justice Iacobucci retiring

Asked whether he was "hiding" behind the Supreme Court on controversial issues such as same-sex marriage, Cotler declined to address the issue directly.

He said only that in selecting the two nominees, "the one criterion [the government] had in mind was merit, which extends far beyond the subject matter of one case."