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.