Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the last question and to comment on the statements made by the member.
At the beginning of my speech, I clearly indicated that I was against hearings on judicial appointments. We do it for other appointments, under the Standing Orders. We all agree that it is already in the rules.
Besides, the motion does not provide for hearings on the appointment of judges, not to mention justices of the Supreme Court. The United States holds such hearings. As far as I know, almost no other jurisdiction in the world that makes Supreme Court appointments hold hearings, as the United States do. I do not see why we should imitate the Americans.
The hon. member argued that the appointments are made solely by the Prime Minister. It is not true. The Prime Minister relies, of course, on cabinet. Cabinet is consulted on such issues, as are the justice minister and all of the ministers. That is how things are done.
I am not in favour of having televised public hearings that delve into the private lives of justices of the Supreme Court, and so on, as we have seen in the United States. The member's colleague may agree with me, since he did not mention it in his motion. I would not go for that; I am totally against it.
The current process is a good one. Can it be applied to other appointments? It depends on parliamentary committees. It is up to them. But we currently have a process in place and it is effective.