Justice Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning, everyone.

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 82 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee commences its study of the nomination of the Honourable Mary T. Moreau to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, but I'm looking at the screen and I don't believe we have anybody attending virtually. That's fabulous. We're all here in the room.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'm ready now to welcome our witnesses. We have with us today the Hon. Arif Virani, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Welcome, Minister.

We also have with us the Honourable H. Wade MacLauchlan, chairperson, Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments. Wade, welcome.

We welcome you both here.

As per the usual roles, Minister, I will cede the floor to you for your opening remarks and then, Mr. MacLauchlan, you'll do your opening remarks. Then I'll give it back to you, Minister, to conclude your opening remarks, and then we will start with our round of questions.

Thank you very much. We have until 12:30.

Go ahead, Minister.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Honourable colleagues, I wish to begin by extending my thanks to you.

Madam Chair, it's nice to see you.

I also acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

It is an honour for me to speak in support of the candidacy of Chief Justice Moreau for the Supreme Court of Canada. I have confidence in her ability to meet the highest standards in every aspect of this role. That includes a thoughtful contribution to the development of law, an ability to serve the Canadian public exceptionally well, a commitment to diligence and professionalism and her ethical excellence. I want to congratulate Chief Justice Moreau and I look forward to seeing her appear before parliamentarians today.

The appointment of Chief Justice Moreau will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Russell Brown. I am pleased to announce that in addition to this judicial appointment, I have had the honour of making 37 others since taking this role at the end of July of this year. The timely appointment of high-calibre candidates is essential. I always try to ensure that these two critical aspects come together.

I would now like to talk about the Supreme Court appointment process.

As some of you know, the Supreme Court appointment process is composed of two key elements that are interrelated: the selection process itself and the Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments. I will begin by giving an overview of the first before talking to you about the Advisory Board. We will then hear from the Honourable Wade MacLauchlan, Chairperson of the Advisory Board, who is here with me today and has agreed to share his perspective with us.

I wish to highlight the importance of the Supreme Court appointment process generally and of our unique role here today. We are engaged in nothing less than the critical work of upholding public confidence in the administration of justice. Trust in the judges who serve Canadians in this system is essential, as is belief in the integrity of the process by which they are selected.

This is now the sixth time this very process has been used by our government following its 2016 introduction by the Prime Minister. The current process was launched by the Prime Minister on June 20, 2023. Applications remained open until July 21. In accordance with the well-established custom of regional representation on the Supreme Court, this selection process was advertised as being open to all qualified applicants from western and northern Canada. Suitable individuals would be jurists of the highest calibre, functionally bilingual and representative of the country’s diversity.

A rigorous questionnaire that is made available to the public is an integral part of the appointment process and offers candidates a standardized platform to demonstrate how they will satisfy the criteria. It is a matter of excellence in legal and professional areas. The questionnaire is also a way to explore the candidate's personal experience. Assessment of these aspects by the Advisory Board is essential to the appreciation of the candidate's points of view on the law and Canadian society.

The IAB, as it is known by its acronym, forms the heart of the selection process. That's the independent advisory board. It is reflective itself of Canada's diversity. Its members are not solely government nominees but also include those put forward by an array of organizations committed to serving Canadians by upholding the rule of law. Those organizations are the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Indigenous Bar Association, the Canadian Judicial Council and the Council of Canadian Law Deans.

This marks the second occasion of the Indigenous Bar Association's involvement, following an expansion of the IAB's membership in 2022. I am very grateful to the Indigenous Bar Association for its continued support of this critical process for Canada.

I appreciate the efforts of the chairperson and of all the other members of the Advisory Board and I thank them very much. Their work is essential to maintaining a healthy and robust Canadian judiciary and democracy that we can all be proud of.

On that, I would like to acknowledge the board's chairperson, Mr. MacLauchlan, who is on his second term in the chair.

Mr. MacLauchlan, thank you for your dedication and for being here today.

As stipulated by its terms of reference and the confidentiality agreements entered into by each member, the IAB conducted its work in a confidential manner. Preserving such confidentiality, colleagues, throughout the process is critical. It's critical for the fair and dignified treatment of every one of the candidates.

The work of the IAB was supported by the Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs, an independent organization that supports me, as the minister, in the judicial appointments process. I offer my thanks to the commissioner and his office for all of their work.

The assessment done above all by the Advisory Board consists of reviewing candidacies using transparent, merit-based criteria. Mr. MacLauchlan will talk to you about this process during his speech. This assessment concluded with the submission of a limited list to the Prime Minister.

I assisted the Prime Minister by advising him in the capacity of the review I did of the limited list, by also taking care to consult chief justices, my cabinet colleagues, my provincial and territorial counterparts, opposition justice critics, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, as well as experienced members of the Bar. The Prime Minister then made his final choice.

I will now turn to Mr. MacLauchlan and invite him to speak to the IAB process. I very much look forward to his remarks. Those he offered during the nomination process of Justice O'Bonsawin in 2022 were insightful and informative, and they reminded us of the need to ensure that our judicial nomination processes, at whatever level, are focused on discovering, fostering and recognizing candidates who are exceptional and reflective of the diversity of Canadian society.

Mr. MacLauchlan, please go ahead.

[H. Wade MacLauchlan, Chairperson, Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments]

Thank you, Minister.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Minister, good morning.

It was a great honour for me to act for a second time as chairperson and member of the Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments. It is also an honour for me to testify before your committee this morning.

I'm here as chair of an impressive, hard-working and dedicated group of Canadians who served with me as members of the independent advisory board for nominations to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The other seven members of the advisory board are the following:

The Honourable Richard Chartier, former Chief Justice of Manitoba, who was designated by the Canadian Judicial Council; Bianca Kratt, from Calgary, who was designated by the Canadian Bar Association;

Erin Kleisinger of Regina, nominated by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada; Georgina Gina Nagano of Dawson City, nominated by the Minister of Justice; Carol Anne Lee of Vancouver, nominated by the Minister of Justice; Reem Bahdi, University of Windsor, nominated by the Council of Canadian Law Deans; and Jean Teillet of Vancouver, nominated by the Indigenous Bar Association.

The members of the independent advisory board all brought to our work a background of professional accomplishment and a vast array of experience, as well as regional and community and national perspectives. What's more, they brought a profound commitment to the rule of law, the institutional significance of the Supreme Court of Canada and the best interests of our country.

We worked diligently with considerable commitment of time and priority, and we enjoyed working together.

The Advisory Board's mandate is to find qualified candidates for an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. Candidates must be high-caliber jurists, functionally bilingual and must also represent Canada's diversity. For this appointment, the process was open to candidates from Western Canada and Northern Canada. The ultimate task of the Advisory Board was to present a report including a limited list of highly qualified people to the attention of the Prime Minister.

The advisory board benefited from very helpful insight and wisdom of the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada, who was host to our advisory board on a visit to the court early in our process.

As called for by paragraph 8(e) of the advisory board's terms of reference, Chief Justice Wagner spoke to us about the institutional needs of the court and the role and demands of a Supreme Court Justice. He also led us on a tour of the court's conference and hearing rooms.

Throughout our work, the advisory board was exceptionally well supported by the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs and his accomplished and dedicated staff.

When it comes to filling a position on the Supreme Court of Canada, the first task is to get the word out. Normally, there will be ample notice of a pending opening in situations where a member of the court is approaching the retirement age of 75, as has been the case for three of the four most recent Supreme Court appointments. The vacancy to be filled by this nomination was created by the resignation of former Justice Russell Brown on June 12, 2023.

The process to nominate a new Supreme Court justice was set in motion on June 20, 2023, with a call for candidates from western or northern Canada to submit a completed application no later than July 21.

The membership of the independent advisory board was announced on August 11. The advisory board had its first meetings in Ottawa on August 15 and 16, and we submitted our report to the Prime Minister on September 8.

This was an intensive process that called for much discernment and humanity in addition to dedicated preparation and time commitment. This is the case for the candidates, of course, as well as for members of the advisory board.

The application submission deadline was July 21. We were impressed that there were 13 applications. Bear in mind that this was in the fullness of summer. This compares with 12 applications leading to the most recent Supreme Court nomination in 2022 and 14 applications for the opening that led to the nomination of Justice Sheilah Martin in 2017.

The Advisory Board chose to invite four people to an extensive interview. The candidates could take up to an hour to answer questions about their experience, their points of view and their commitment to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. The Advisory Board was particularly interested in the candidate's approach to collegiality, workload at the court and matters of integrity, diversity and judgment.

Our list of assessment criteria included superior knowledge of the law, superior analytical skills, ability to resolve complex legal problems, ability to work under significant time pressures requiring diligent review of voluminous materials in any area of law, and commitment to public service.

The personal qualities assessed include irreproachable personal and professional integrity; respect and consideration for others; the ability to appreciate a diversity of views, perspectives and life experiences, including those of groups historically disadvantaged in Canadian society; moral courage; discretion; and open-mindedness.

All candidates interviewed were functionally bilingual. The interviews were conducted in both languages. Immediately following the interview, each candidate participated in an assessment conducted by the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs to ascertain their understanding of written and oral arguments, as well as to determine the candidate's ability to speak in both official languages.

A report including candidates' assessment scores was provided to the independent advisory board. The independent advisory board pursued up to seven references for each candidate interviewed. In addition to the names provided by the applicant, the IAB approached other highly qualified individuals. All interviews were on a strictly confidential basis. The interviews were conducted by advisory board members, who spoke directly to the referees and followed a consistent format. From the beginning of this process to the end, there has been total respect for the need for confidentiality.

The process entails considerable study, discernment and detailed consideration over the space of less than five weeks. Without the total dedication of IAB members, including flexibility in scheduling, and the expert support of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, this would be exceptionally challenging. Notwithstanding the compressed time frame, the advisory board carried out its mandate with the diligence, collaboration, and settled judgment that this important process requires.

In the end, following much deliberation and discernment, the settled and unanimous judgment of the Independent Advisory Board was that we should provide the Prime Minister with a short list of two candidates of exceptional qualifications and experience. I am pleased to confirm that Justice Mary Moreau has been selected from that short list.

I will conclude with two remarks.

First, this process has resulted in the nomination of Justice Mary Moreau, a highly qualified jurist who brings many gifts and talents and decades of experience to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our advisory board was told that it would be an advantage to have a justice with extensive trial court experience and expertise in criminal and constitutional law. I note that Justice Moreau brings both, with almost 30 years of judicial service, including as chief justice. Prior to her appointment to the bench, most of Justice Moreau's experience as a practising lawyer comprised criminal defence work, including legal aid, and constitutional and language rights litigation.

I also note that following the appointment of Justice Moreau, the Supreme Court of Canada will have a majority of female justices for the first time. That is a strong indication that we are making progress in creating an environment of encouragement and inclusion whose effects extend beyond the Supreme Court and even the country.

Among Justice Moreau's numerous contributions, note that she played a key role in international judicial education and strengthening institutions.

My final remark is to say that it has been a truly uplifting experience to serve as chair of the independent advisory board. It has been the opportunity of a lifetime to work with seven other members of the IAB and our supporting team. We would all say that we treasure the collaboration, the diligence and the humanity that we have shared. It has been uplifting to get to know all of the candidates who have come forward for this position.

We're extremely fortunate in this country to have a widely shared respect for the rule of law and for the Supreme Court of Canada as an institution. We are fortunate to have people of exceptional calibre who contribute in so many ways and in so many capacities to ensuring that this is the case and ultimately to serving Canadians. The opportunity to appear before this committee today reinforces those values.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

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

Mr. MacLauchlan, thank you for your thoughtful and honest comments.

I now have the immense honour of talking to you about Chief Justice Moreau and her candidacy for the Supreme Court of Canada, which I support. I feel sincerely privileged to appear before you to talk about her many achievements and the exceptional journey that has led to this moment today. This is just one part of her most brilliant moments to date, a foundation of excellence that Chief Justice Moreau will undoubtedly build on during her entire time at the Supreme Court.

Born in Edmonton, Alberta, Chief Justice Moreau's illustrious career was nurtured in that province. She studied at the Faculté Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta prior to completing her Bachelor of Laws in 1979 at the same university. Her legal studies included participation in the common law/civil law exchange program at the Université de Sherbrooke in 1977. More recently, in 2019, she was granted an honorary doctorate from the University of Alberta.

After being called to the Alberta Bar in 1980, Chief Justice Moreau acquired expertise in criminal law, as Mr. MacLauchlan mentioned, as well as in areas of constitutional law and civil litigation. Before her judicial appointment, she litigated numerous landmark cases involving minority language rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Chief Justice Moreau is an esteemed jurist by any analysis, having honed her skills for 29 years on the Court of King's Bench of Alberta and having been appointed as its chief justice in 2017. During her tenure on that bench, she was also appointed as a deputy judge of the Supreme Court of Yukon in 1996 and of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories in 2005, so as to extend her judicial horizons.

Reflecting on the long career of Chief Justice Moreau, who is recognized for her exceptional work ethic and her considerable humility, I am struck by her many accomplishments, but also by her strong commitment to her legal and judicial communities. Beyond the leadership she has shown as a Chief Justice, she has demonstrated a deep and sustained devotion to judicial education, administration and conduct.

She was, among other things, a co-founder of the Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Alberta, served as a member of the national advisory committee on judicial ethics from 2014 to 2017 and was president of the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association from 2011 to 2012.

Since her 2017 appointment as chief justice, she's been a member of the Canadian Judicial Council, joining its executive committee in 2021 and its judicial conduct committee in 2020, and chairing its technology subcommittee since 2022. She was also a member of the action committee on modernizing court operations and chair of the judicial advisory committee for military judge appointments.

Her accomplishments reveal a drive to impart knowledge and a commitment to giving back to other jurists so that the profession as a whole may flourish. She has been a regular lecturer at judicial education conferences and programs, having co-chaired the National Judicial Institute's annual spring national criminal law conference for six years.

In a reflection of the breadth of her interests, she also participated in international judicial education and support projects and chaired the Commission for Federal Judicial Affairs' judicial advisory committee on international engagement.

The fact that Chief Justice Moreau stood out so much among the other candidates speaks to her skills, integrity and exceptional dedication to the fair administration of justice for all Canadians. I am pleased that her appointment marks the first time that women will hold the majority at the highest court of the land, as Mr. MacLauchlan mentioned.

I'm going to conclude by just reiterating my thanks to Mr. MacLauchlan and all of his fellow IAB members, all the individuals consulted and every candidate who took the time to apply and participate in this very rigorous and thorough process.

I am honoured to have been able to support the appointment of Chief Justice Moreau, a truly exemplary person and jurist. There is no doubt that her exceptional services and professional excellence will benefit all Canadians, just like all her colleagues at the Supreme Court.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Minister and Hon. Wade MacLauchlan.

We have roughly an hour left this morning.

To begin I will give the floor to Mr. Moore for six minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing here today. I appreciate seeing Mr. MacLauchlan here again as well.

Minister, there's something that came up in last year's appointment. It was the first time, in 2006, with the appointment of Justice Rothstein, that a parliamentary committee—and all of us around this table are members of Parliament—was involved the process of the appointment. Under our Constitution, the parliamentary committee has no right to veto an appointment; that prerogative rests with the Prime Minister and with you.

Later this afternoon, we are going to have an ad hoc committee meeting, to which these members are invited. It's going to be in the parliamentary precinct in the West Block. It's going to be chaired by a professor and not by a duly elected member of Parliament.

Our committee role is really an interview with the nominee. We do not have a veto. This is the one instance of Parliament's involvement in the process, and I think it's a good involvement. Peter Hogg thinks it's a good process. Also, even though we're not in the same party, I have confidence in our chair's ability to chair that meeting.

I mentioned the process to your predecessor, Minister Lametti. I feel that if there's a meeting of parliamentarians on Parliament Hill as part of an official process, it should be chaired by a member of Parliament. That is to take no umbrage with your choice of the chair this evening; it's just to say that this small piece that we're involved in should be wholly our process.

I'd like to get your thoughts and your response to that, Minister.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore, for the question.

First of all, let me say that I completely agree with you, insofar as Parliament's involvement in this process is part and parcel of ensuring that Canadians understand the importance of the Supreme Court of Canada and the role it plays and of ensuring that Canadians are better acquainted with the judges who are going to be fulfilling those important roles. I think parliamentary consultation and parliamentary involvement are part and parcel of that process. This committee hearing is an important feature. The consultations that were done by me and my office with you and other opposition critics are an important part of that process.

There was input provided by academics around the country during the time we were reflecting on how to construct this process. One concern that was expressed was to ensure that an overly partisan or overly political hearing did not occur in the context of getting better acquainted with Supreme Court nominees.

It was felt, in that light, that having an esteemed professor, a member of the legal establishment in the country, preside over the joint committee hearing would ensure that the tone was measured and appropriate for the circumstances. That is the basis upon which the legal professor has been named. It's going to be Érik Labelle Eastaugh presiding over the hearing this afternoon.

I think that's an important step. It also demonstrates that all of us in the legal profession have a vested interest, as indeed do all Canadians, in the importance of a rigorous process to seek out a nominee to the Supreme Court of Canada and ensuring that the process yields exceptional results, which I believe it has.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Minister.

I agree with much of what you just said, except for the part about having the meeting chaired by a professor rather than our chair. I have every confidence that the people around this table and our Senate colleagues who serve on the Senate legal and constitutional committee would be able to have a meeting—as we do regularly—where we would have an interview. We do not have a veto. We don't choose who the Supreme Court appointment is; that's your role. You make that choice. Our role is to ask that individual questions and receive responses. I have confidence that our chair would be able to do that.

Minister, I want to ask you now about the dialogue between the Supreme Court—and this has been at the forefront in recent years—and the legislature. In our case, that is the Parliament of Canada.

There have been two recent cases. The Ndhlovu case dealing with the mandatory listing on the sex offender registry of those convicted of sex offenses was narrowly struck down by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. The government responded, and this committee considered Bill S-12.

I'm on record to say that I think it was a tepid response. I think we could have gone further. We had moved an amendment that would have made it mandatory for all child sex offenders, all offenses against children, to be listed. However, that doesn't go to the point of my question. There was a government response.

Similarly, a year and a half ago, the Bissonnette case, which dealt with an individual who went into a mosque and murdered six people, struck down the provision in Canada that if you take multiple lives, you would have consecutive life sentences.

I know as a New Brunswicker that this hits home because of the experience in Moncton, where an individual killed three Mounties. Rather than being given a sentence discount for multiple murders, as was the case before, this individual got a 75-year parole ineligibility.

At our justice committee, the widow of one of the victims said that she took some comfort—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Moore, I apologize. I didn't put up the 30-second notice, but the time is up.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay. Maybe give a quick response, Minister, on when you are going to engage in that charter dialogue and respond to this outrageous situation that right now provides a discount for multiple murders and they're not receiving consecutive life sentences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

That was six and a half minutes.

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

Very briefly, Madam Chair, I'd say that I believe firmly in the dialogue between Parliament and the court. I think it's fundamental to a constitutional democracy. I appreciate the work of this committee in ensuring that we met the deadline on Bill S-12.

With respect to the characterization of the decision by the court in Bissonnette, I don't share that characterization. I think the constitutional principles that the court stood by in that case are important. They're important for us to reflect on as parliamentarians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Mrs. Brière, you have six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hello to you both. Thank you for being here with us this morning.

This is the sixth judicial appointment since the implementation of this new process. I would like you to explain to us what improvements have been observed with this process. Do you still think that the process is adequate and that it helps select the best candidate among everyone who expresses their desire to fill the next vacancy at the Supreme Court?

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

The new process is truly an improvement over the one we had before in many ways.

First, the process is run by the Advisory Board, which is independent from the government. What is more, the Advisory Board's work is transparent with respect to eligibility criteria for the position of justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The criteria to be satisfied are very clear for Canadians, and especially for potential candidates.

I believe that the appointment of Mrs. Moreau shows that the new process produces exceptional results. As Mr. MacLauchlan said, it was made clear that we needed someone with expertise in criminal law and constitutional law. The process resulted in the appointment of a person who has at least 30 years of experience presiding over criminal jury trials. Chief Justice Moreau will have the opportunity to put her expertise to use in her new role as justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[H. Wade MacLauchlan]

As the minister mentioned, the key asset of the Advisory Board is its independence. This aspect contributes to changing the perception of the Canadian public and of the candidates with respect to the process and, at the end of the day, improving the reputation of the Supreme Court of Canada because people see that the justices are appointed through an entirely independent selection process. In that sense, it is an improvement over the previous approach.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

What impact has the profile of justices already appointed and currently sitting on the Supreme Court had on the choice of the next appointment? To what extent do you take that into consideration for selecting the next candidate?

[H. Wade MacLauchlan]

As I mentioned in my remarks, one of the first things our board did was to meet with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Richard Wagner. We spent more than an hour with him openly discussing the current requirements and needs of the Supreme Court. It is in the context of that exchange and other discussions held by our board that we identified the need to have one justice with expertise in criminal law and constitutional law, as I was saying this morning. That is one of the first things our board had to recognize.

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

Mrs. Brière, I would just like to add that in appointing a justice of the Supreme Court, we always have to take into consideration the geographic aspect and regional representation. When we lost Justice Brown, it was clear that we needed to choose another justice from Western Canada or Northern Canada to respect the constitutional convention of representing each region, for instance. That is another aspect that is part of our analysis and our process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

You have 10 seconds left, Mrs. Brière.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

In that case, I will simply close by saying that, as a lawyer, I am very proud to know that the majority of Supreme Court judges will be women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Brière.

Mr. Fortin, you have six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister and Mr. MacLauchlan, thank you for being here today.

I am excited about what I have read about Justice Moreau so far. I think that this is an excellent appointment, and I look forward to meeting her later today. I will be surprised if I change my mind following that meeting. I think that we all agree that this is an excellent appointment, so we can start by congratulating ourselves.

That being said, with all due respect, I have a few questions about the advisory board. I think that we can all agree that this independent board does an excellent job. The appointment or recommendation of Justice Moreau speaks for itself. However, I can't help noticing that the advisory board does not include any members from Quebec, aside from Ms. Kratt, who was born in Quebec but practises law in Alberta.

Minister or Mr. MacLauchlan, could one of you explain to me if there is a hidden agenda there or if this is just a matter of chance?

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

I can promise you that there is no hidden agenda.

I want to once again point out that three members of the advisory board are appointed by the Government of Canada and the other five are appointed by the other groups that I mentioned, including the Canadian Judicial Council and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Strictly speaking, that is not something that we focused on, so there is no hidden agenda.

This board is made up of people with a good knowledge of all fields of law, particularly civil law. The fact that the board was able to find someone who is perfectly bilingual, and who I believe is also the first Franco-Albertan to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada, shows that the process works because the board did a great job in finding such an exceptional candidate.

Did you have anything to add, Mr. MacLauchlan?

[H. Wade MacLauchlan]

I would add that the advisory board was looking at the overall needs of the Supreme Court and Canada. During our interviews, we asked each candidate a specific question regarding their knowledge of civil law and their approach to bijuralism, which is an important aspect of the Supreme Court's work.