Justice Committee on June 22nd, 2021

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

As I have said publicly on a number of different occasions, Mr. Cooper, once I have made my recommendation, we do a number of due diligence inquiries, if you will. One is looking at political donations. Another is looking at all the sorts of media that a person may have been involved with, just to get a sense of, really, managing information. However, I have said—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Minister, my time is short and I want to be respectful of you. I have a lot of respect for you, but I did ask a very simple question on the very simple—

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I want to be respectful and finish your answer, Mr. Cooper, which is that—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Minister, I'm asking you, are you denying, yes or no, that Liberalist has been used?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Cooper, please let me answer the question. I have told you that I do not use Liberalist in the evaluation—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

You have not—

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

—or identification of candidates.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

There is a point of order, Madam Chair.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, could the witness be allowed to answer the question? We're not here to badger the witnesses, let alone the Minister of Justice. Could the minister be allowed to answer the question put by Mr. Cooper?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Virani. I was just about to cut in myself.

Mr. Cooper, I've stopped your clock so that we're able to have this conversation. I think the way we've been able to function as a committee is that a member asks a question and a witness answers that question. Keep that respectful dialogue going, if that's okay.

Please, Minister Lametti, go ahead with your answer.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I have only one other thing to add, Madam Chair. Never has a candidate that I have submitted been refused in any way, shape or form. The process is an excellent process. It's based on quality. It's based on the recommendations of an independent judicial appointment committee in the various provinces across Canada. Some provinces have more than one. I look at the quality of the candidates. I look at the needs of the courts. I consult with chief justices on the needs of the court. We consult with various members of the legal profession, who are placed to give opinions.

I think we have put together an outstanding set of quality and diverse candidates—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Minister, with respect, I've given you some leeway to answer a very simple question: Has Liberalist been used, yes or no, in the vetting of judicial appointments, not necessarily just by you?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I can [Technical difficulty—Editor] my role in the process. My role in the process is, as I have pointed out, Mr. Cooper, the main role in the process. It is taking candidates that are recommended by the judicial appointment committee and deciding, from amongst those highly recommended and occasionally recommended candidates, which candidates will move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You have 10 seconds left on the clock, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Well, I guess my time has expired. Unfortunately, I didn't get an answer from the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Hopefully, the next round will go a little more smoothly.

Madame Brière, you have six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll share my time with my colleague Randeep Sarai.

Good morning to our witnesses.

As a francophone Quebecker and defender of the French language, I was delighted to see that the candidate chosen was bilingual.

Can you tell us more about the importance of the bilingualism criterion in the selection process?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you for your question.

From my experience as a Supreme Court law clerk, I can tell you that I have realized the importance of bilingualism in both the preparation of briefs and oral argument. Each word and sentence is weighed. Sometimes there are idiomatic phrases and concepts, which are very difficult to translate.

So it's very important that the judge be able to understand the language of argument and the language of the brief, especially when the length of arguments or the number of pages of briefs are limited. It's essential that the meaning of the arguments are conveyed. I think it's crucial.

Perhaps Ms. Campbell would like to add some comments.

[Kim Campbell]

I'll add a few words.

In discussions with the Chief Justice, he stressed the importance of bilingualism in the Supreme Court of Canada.

One of the things that's important also, and that maybe many Canadians do not realize, is that the workload of the Supreme Court of Canada is actually heavier than the workload of the Supreme Court of the United States, because many cases come to our court. Because of the fact that pleadings will come in both languages, and counsel will appear in both languages, the more the justices themselves are competent in the two languages, the more effective is their use of time. I think over the years, the court [Technical difficulty—Editor] of translation.

Even the judges.... For example, former chief justice Beverly McLachlin has said that she continued to work on her French all the time she was on the court. The more the court can function comfortably in both languages, I think the easier it is for them to manage the quite difficult workload that they have.

Quite aside from our constitutional representational concerns in both official languages, I think for the nature of our court, anything that makes it possible for the judges to communicate one with another, but also with the counsel and the participants who are pleading before them, comfortably, fully and clearly, is a very, very important value. With our committee, it was one of our terms of reference that was non-negotiable. I think we all quite understood the functional importance of it.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, both of you, for your time and your expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Sarai, please go ahead.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you for being with us today, Minister Lametti and the Right Honourable Kim Campbell. This is a historic nomination for the country. Ms. Campbell, having been the first female prime minister of this country, knows what history is like. This is a historic day that the first person of colour is being nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I understand that it's up to the candidate to self-identify as a minority, and that during the process that led to the appointment of our most recent Supreme Court justice, there were no self-identified minorities. Besides the nominee that we have here today, Mr. Justice Jamal, were there many other self-identified minorities amongst the candidates?

That's for the Right Honourable Kim Campbell.

[Kim Campbell]

In the group there were 18 candidates. Seven self-identified as visible minorities. Three identified as ethnic, cultural or other minorities. Five identified as indigenous. Zero identified as having disabilities. One identified as LGBTQ.

I should just say, on the importance of expanding the representation of the court, that as the first woman minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, in 1992 I appointed Rosalie Abella to the Court of Appeal of Ontario. I was very aware at that time of the importance of expanding the number of voices. We've continued on this committee to be very gratified at the diversity of candidates that we've been able to vet.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Campbell. Is there a criterion for adding different endeavours and perspectives to the Supreme Court, and how much is the background of the current judges taken into consideration when looking at nominee candidates?

[Kim Campbell]

Well, I would suggest that the final decision is the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister's terms of reference have been that he puts a very high premium on expanding the diversity of the lived experience and perspectives of the judges on the highest court of the land. As a committee we looked to try to make that possible for the Prime Minister.

There is no compromise made with respect to quality. The notion that if you go for diversity, you're not going to have quality is a load of rubbish. In today's legal community in Canada we have outstanding jurists and lawyers from all different backgrounds and characteristics. That is not an issue at all. Certainly we know that the Prime Minister will want to make choices, and we're very happy that we have been able to provide him with outstanding candidates who give him a choice and who, as we say, hopefully keep him up at night worrying about which excellent person to support.

The diversity of experience is part of the terms of reference of the whole process. When we are reaching out for candidates we emphasize that point as well, encouraging people who may not be part of a represented group currently on the court to see themselves as being a candidate of interest if they seek to be considered.