If I may, Chair, I'll offer an initial response.
I do find the line of questioning that we just heard deeply concerning. I don't want to make assumptions about motivation, but it seems clear that there's at least some attempt to try to have Canadians question the independence in the judiciary based on their political affiliation. Just so Canadians at home have some comfort, for more than a decade, the process for all judicial appointments—not only at the Supreme Court but every superior court appointment, including every one that I've made over the course of the past year—there has been an independent judicial advisory committee that has been struck, and they are forbidden from considering the political activities of the applicants.
They independently come up with a recommendation. They either recommend against an appointment or give advice that they're highly recommended. In my experience over the past 10 years, there have been zero cases of a judge appointed who was not recommended or highly recommended by a group who was forbidden from considering political activity.
The independence of the process is essential to public confidence. Confidence is essential to faith in our democracy. It doesn't get more serious than this, and I really must draw attention to and critique forcefully any attempt by any parliamentarian to call into question the integrity of the justice system. That is not a healthy thing for this committee to be digging into and, frankly, is so far removed from the process and the facts on the ground that I think you're right to provide the platform for us to correct that and add perspective.