Justice Committee on June 29th, 2026

[Maureen A. McTeer]

Definitely. We heard from the chief justice that it was one of the essential criteria. The court needs to have this. I don't think anybody can substitute for Justice Moldaver, but that was actually very important in the consideration.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you.

It has come up in the conversations we're having today that there's this idea that the judiciary and judges need to be above reproach. However, as we know, there also needs to be the perception and vision that they are above reproach.

I want to ask about expectations when it comes to recusal and how judges are to navigate conflicts or perceived conflicts. Is this in the screening process and the interview process? Is it broached with candidates how they will navigate issues where they may have a conflict or a perceived conflict?

[Maureen A. McTeer]

That was not raised in these.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Should it be, in your view? This has actually come up quite recently in public discourse surrounding the chief justice and how he is to reconcile public statements he's made on an issue with a case coming before the court.

Is that not a relevant barometer of how a judge would approach the office?

[Maureen A. McTeer]

I really don't think so. I think we are looking at people of the highest moral character. We have to trust their own judgment and decision-making. There seems to have been an attempt to politicize the courts. We have to be careful. The courts are not there to basically do what politicians want. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament makes the laws. All the judges do is interpret the laws.

With respect to recusing yourself, if it's so outlandish, then of course there should be objections made, but generally speaking, the members of the Supreme Court are not eunuchs. They have opinions and views. Especially if it's something that was said before they even became... I think it's even more unlikely that they should be tempered or affected by that.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Do you share that view, Minister, that how a judge will approach potential ethical questions or conflicts of interest is not a relevant consideration in the interview process or the vetting process of a potential Supreme Court justice?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think the issue of a reasonable apprehension of bias would be so heavily fact-dependent that you wouldn't necessarily be able to uncover it in a general way through a process that's considering a person's character and integrity more broadly.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

How they navigate those issues.... You don't think it could be done without a fact scenario?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

In the absence of a fact scenario to drop on, with respect to Monsieur Joyal, for example, I can't think of an item other than judgments he may have issued that are currently in an appeal period, which would obviously be a very different set of facts from those you're thinking of. I struggle to see.... Without a huge objection to recognizing that you should make sure that there's not an apprehension of bias when you're taking a decision, I have trouble figuring out how that would fit into the consultation process, given the very fact-specific nature of any claim of bias.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawton.

[Maureen A. McTeer]

Madam Chair, perhaps I can add to that.

If in fact that is going to be something that the committee feels is important, it is certainly something that in our public report we will give some thought to.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thanks very much.

We will now move to our last five minutes.

Ms. Dhillon, please go ahead.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Ms. Begum.

Ms. McTeer and Mr. Giroux, we know that confidentiality is a large part of this process. The question is, with this confidentiality, how can we reconcile disclosing also to Canadians what goes on behind the process of selecting a judge in order to have transparency? Can you please tell us about this balance a little bit?

[Maureen A. McTeer]

Well, I believe confidentiality is not just important; I believe it is at the heart of the process. Respect for the confidentiality, I think, will also affect the number of people who are willing to apply, because these questionnaires are very specific. They contain a lot of personal information for which no one has given permission to be in the public domain.

There's that element, but I also think that because we're an independent group, you reach a point where, if confidentiality is at the heart of what we're doing, there has to be an understanding by the public that we are free, if you will, of political bias or other biases. I think that's probably why we were chosen. It's not the government that chooses us. It's the Canadian Bar. It's the Indigenous Bar. It's the federation. It's a series of groups. The Canadian Judicial Council presents the names.

I just feel that you can go only so far. The right to know, if you will, or the interest in knowing.... I don't call it a “right”. I think we use that term willy-nilly all the time now. The interest of the public, the interest in knowing, is in being able to trust that it is an independent process. The best we can offer is to make that commitment.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Ms. Begum, please go ahead.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm glad I have an opportunity to follow up on some of the conversation. As someone who wears many hats as a member with a diverse background, I think true diversity of thought really transcends more than tokenism or the check mark that Ms. McTeer spoke about. I think it really relies on deep, meaningful experiences. Given the track record of Justice Joyal and what we've heard this morning, it really shows that depth. Learning about Justice Joyal's experience and his work, whether it's in francophone or....

Actually, I'll take a moment to quote the remarks of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs in their news release: “For many years, he has demonstrated that the administration of justice is strengthened when courts are prepared to listen, to learn, and to build respectful relationships with First Nations.” That's just one of the many validators who spoke so highly about Justice Joyal's experience and his balanced approach, his wisdom and his open-mindedness.

I'm wondering if one of you could speak to that depth of knowledge, diversity of experience and thought.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Very quickly, since we have very limited time left, we're dealing with somebody who has experience as a Crown prosecutor in the private sector and three decades on the court dealing with matters of criminal law and constitutional law. In addition to his experience sitting in a role as judge, we're dealing with someone who has given so much of his personal time towards the profession and towards the judiciary more broadly, serving on committees with the Canadian Judicial Council and serving in a capacity, in my experience, on the courts modernization committee to help improve the processes for all Canadians.

You pick up a lot of life experience along the way, working not only with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, as you referenced. There is a list as long as my arm—and I am six feet, seven inches—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

—of people who are willing to endorse Chief Justice Joyal to be the next Supreme Court justice in Canada. It's that depth of experience that justifies his appointment. I think we're moving in the right direction. I take it from the comments from different members today that there's widespread agreement on that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your participation in today's discussion.

You have helped us and Canadians understand the process.

Ms. McTeer, thank you so much for your hard work.

Monsieur Giroux, thank you.

Mr. Fraser, as always, it's a pleasure to have you at this committee.

Members, I thank you for your engagement today. I will remind you that at 1:30 p.m., we will be having a question and answer session with the Honourable Justice Joyal, which I'm really excited to participate in with all of you. The Senate committee, as well as our justice committee, will be participating, and I will see you then.

The meeting is adjourned.