MPs to question new Supreme Court pick

[stignasty]

MPs to question new Supreme Court pick

Last Updated Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:16:05 EST

CBC News

The next person nominated to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada will have to appear at a televised hearing before a committee of members of Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday.

"There will be two rounds of questioning by committee members for three hours in total," Harper told a news conference in Ottawa.

Link

[shoop]

It's a good step. I found this quote in the article to be a bit strange.

The prime minister dismissed reporters' questions about whether a prospective judge might refuse to be questioned in a way unprecedented in Canadian legal circles.

Why would a prospective judge refuse to answer questions? Isn't providing some transparency to the process the rationale for public questioning?

[Wilber]

It's a good step. I found this quote in the article to be a bit strange.

The prime minister dismissed reporters' questions about whether a prospective judge might refuse to be questioned in a way unprecedented in Canadian legal circles.

Why would a prospective judge refuse to answer questions? Isn't providing some transparency to the process the rationale for public questioning?

In many ways refusing to answer is an answer in itself. If he wants the job, refusing to answer probably wouldn't be in his best interests. The PM gets the final say anyway but it would be politically risky for him to appoint someone the Parliamentary Committee really objected to.

[stignasty]

In the US they question the Supreme Court pick because of their system of checks and balances. Doing it in Canada is quite pointless. The fact that the executive sits in the legislature coupled with the fact that parliamentary committees are set up in the same proportion as the standings in the House of Commons makes this an unnecessary exercise.

[Riverwind]

In the US they question the Supreme Court pick because of their system of checks and balances. Doing it in Canada is quite pointless. The fact that the executive sits in the legislature coupled with the fact that parliamentary committees are set up in the same proportion as the standings in the House of Commons makes this an unnecessary exercise.

Legally speaking you are correct. However, much of our parlimentary system is governed by tradition. For example, the governor general is technically choosen by the Queen but she always chooses the candidate picked by the current PM. If the parlimentary review process is effective then it will become a new tradition that will politically impossible to discard.

[shoop]

Why is it unnecessary? What if the nominee performs terribly under the scrutiny of questioning? This gives the government a chance to more fully vet their potential candidate?

This provides more input to the people of Canada. A potential nominee who performs miserably under the glare of the television cameras just might not get in.

Your obscure points about the seat of the executive and makeup of committees come across as trying to sound knowledgeable rather than having any real point.

In the US they question the Supreme Court pick because of their system of checks and balances. Doing it in Canada is quite pointless. The fact that the executive sits in the legislature coupled with the fact that parliamentary committees are set up in the same proportion as the standings in the House of Commons makes this an unnecessary exercise.

[fellowtraveller]

An excellent proposal and way overdue.

For the first time, Canadians will have some real sense, in advance, of the people forming the highest Court.

[stignasty]

Why is it unnecessary? What if the nominee performs terribly under the scrutiny of questioning? This gives the government a chance to more fully vet their potential candidate?

I'll try to break it down for you.

The Prime Minister chooses the appointee.

The Prime Minister's party controls the committee that reviews the appointee since parliamentary committees are made up in the same proportion as parliament.

As a result, over half of the three hours of questioning will be done by members of the Prime Minister's party. I may be cynical, but I don't think that government MPs will risk a trip to the back benches or to a less prestigious committee in order to check the power of their boss.

The opposition parties may try to drag the appointee through the mud, but seeing that there is nothing to gain, I doubt it.

When all is done and said, the governing party will pass the appointee.

It's as pointless as the Senate election in Alberta.

[shoop]

Hey, instead of being arrogant try and actually read what others post instead of going in with a made up mind based on false information.

This committee will not be constructed the same way as regular standing committees. My source on that? The link *YOU* posted.

The committee will be made up of 12 members of Parliament, chosen from each of the four parties represented in the House of Commons in such a way that no party holds a majority.

Looks to me like that means *no party* will have more than half the time allotted to asking this person questions.

I actually have some faith members of the committee may actually ask the appointee good questions.

Why are the Senate elections in Alberta pointless? There has already been one Senator appointed from an Alberta election. If an Alberta spot opens up while Harper is in power you can sure bet there will be another?

Is letting the people choose all their representatives in Parliament pointless? The arrogance. tsk tsk tsk

I'll try to break it down for you.

The Prime Minister chooses the appointee.

The Prime Minister's party controls the committee that reviews the appointee since parliamentary committees are made up in the same proportion as parliament.

As a result, over half of the three hours of questioning will be done by members of the Prime Minister's party. I may be cynical, but I don't think that government MPs will risk a trip to the back benches or to a less prestigious committee in order to check the power of their boss.

The opposition parties may try to drag the appointee through the mud, but seeing that there is nothing to gain, I doubt it.

When all is done and said, the governing party will pass the appointee.

It's as pointless as the Senate election in Alberta.

[wellandboy]

The fear of change, the fear of openness and transparency in government coming from the progressive side. Ah the irony.

[stignasty]

Hey, instead of being arrogant try and actually read what others post instead of going in with a made up mind based on false information.

This committee will not be constructed the same way as regular standing committees. My source on that? The link *YOU* posted.

The committee will be made up of 12 members of Parliament, chosen from each of the four parties represented in the House of Commons in such a way that no party holds a majority.

Looks to me like that means *no party* will have more than half the time allotted to asking this person questions.

I actually have some faith members of the committee may actually ask the appointee good questions.

Okay, read a bit further, the PM will not be bound by any of the results of the questioning. The only purpose is to be able to make the claim of accountability. The PM names an appointee, he gets questioned one afternoon and the PM makes the decision. Window dressing.

Why are the Senate elections in Alberta pointless? There has already been one Senator appointed from an Alberta election. If an Alberta spot opens up while Harper is in power you can sure bet there will be another?

Is letting the people choose all their representatives in Parliament pointless? The arrogance. tsk tsk tsk

You should ask the 64% of Alberta voters who declined the invitation to vote in the senate election why it's pointless.

Arrogance? That's the talking point, perhaps you could explain how being cynical about a "process" that the most conservative province in the country chose to ignore is arrogant.

[stignasty]

The fear of change, the fear of openness and transparency in government coming from the progressive side. Ah the irony.

I love the idea of change. The problem is that /this isn't change/. You might have noticed that I didn't say that this was a bad idea (or a good one for that matter), I said that it was a pointless process that will change nothing in the long run.

[Wilber]

At least people will get to see one of these worthies in action somewhere else than in a court room and before they are appointed. They will get to judge the judge as well as the person appointing him. Could be interesting.

[shoop]

There is something wrong with Alberta because of the way it's electorate votes.

Nope, don't see any arrogance on your part.

Glad to see you have moved off your false talking point about the make up of the committee. Nothing wrong in admitting you made an error.

You should ask the 64% of Alberta voters who declined the invitation to vote in the senate election why it's pointless.

Arrogance? That's the talking point, perhaps you could explain how being cynical about a "process" that the most conservative province in the country chose to ignore is arrogant.

[stignasty]

There is something wrong with Alberta because of the way it's electorate votes. : blink:

Nope, don't see any arrogance on your part. : lol:

Glad to see you have moved off your false talking point about the make up of the committee. Nothing wrong in admitting you made an error.

Talk about misinterpretation . . . I didn't say there was anything wrong with Alberta because of the way its electorate votes. I said that the fact that 64% of the electorate declined to vote for a senator was evidence that the senate election was a joke. Isn't it saying something if almost 2/3 of the most conservative voters in the country gave the senate election the cold shoulder?

Just for the record, I really am quite fond of Alberta. If I wasn't I wouldn't have lived here for 44 years.

I understand that "arrogant" is the new conservative insult word, however I'm still at a loss to see how my cynical view of this facade of accountability makes me arrogant. Please elaborate.

No one party will have a /majority/ on the committee, true, my bad. Do you think the government will give itself much less than half of the chairs around the committee table? Do you think it will make any difference since the committee has no real power?

[shoop]

Using terms like *facade of accountability* and *real power* are what makes you arrogant and the way you tried to *break it down* for me, without having taken the time to see if what you were saying was actually correct.

Let's look at the term *real power*. Does that flow from consitutional power? Or power as it evolves from convention and the power that flows from the legitimacy of giving constituents a say in procedings?

Remember the Canadian Senate constitutionally has a very similar amount of power to the House of Commons. However, it has no legitimacy due to the process in which Senators are selected.

If we were in a system where Senate elections guaranteed those elected would become members of the Senate, and the Senators would have the legitimacy to exercise their powers than yes I believe turnout in Senate elections would be much higher.

Let's be realistic about the committee that will pose questions to the prospective Supreme Court Justice. Is it *likely* that the person will perform so poorly that Harper will change his mind and not appoint him or her? No. Is it *possible*? Yes. That very possibility is enough to justify a three-hour questioning of a prospective Supreme Court Justice. What can the trying the process once hurt?

I understand that "arrogant" is the new conservative insult word, however I'm still at a loss to see how my cynical view of this facade of accountability makes me arrogant. Please elaborate.

No one party will have a /majority/ on the committee, true, my bad. Do you think the government will give itself much less than half of the chairs around the committee table? Do you think it will make any difference since the committee has no real power?

[tml12]

can anyone really be against this that isn't a member of the Liberal Party?

I mean seriously, CAN ANYONE???

[shoop]

NDP supporters who kneejerk attack anything Harper does?

can anyone really be against this that isn't a member of the Liberal Party?

I mean seriously, CAN ANYONE???

[Spike22]

I like this idea. As they hold one of the most powerful positions in the country they should be accountable and have to answer a few questions; like are you a homo, do you have a handgun, are you a left wing liberal tree huggin' granola cruncher? What's the harm in this process? (I can hear the lawyers spinning up now hehe)

[shoop]

There is no harm. Probly because there are no MPs who will ask suck jacka** questions as yours.

What's the harm in this process? (I can hear the lawyers spinning up now hehe)

[geoffrey]

It's kind of a waste of time/effort/money. It doesn't do anything, it doesn't work in our system like in the US.

The masses will think its cool and effective though, sure to get support from some.

[Spike22]

There is no harm. Probly because there are no MPs who will ask suck jacka** questions as yours.

What's the harm in this process? (I can hear the lawyers spinning up now hehe)

You are a wanna be lawyer right?

[scribblet]

Harper had to move quickly and has. Eventually there will be a bigger change to the system as promised - free vote in parliament. The only people not in favour of change are the liberals who want the status quo and no accountability.

[shoop]

I think that waste is another false objection.

What is the extra money involved? The room they use on parliament hill probably sits open a lot of the time, doing stuff like this is the job of parliamentarians. What time? The day or so of prep on the part of the MPs staff plus three hours questioning?

These are all minimal expenses and worth it on that *small* chance that the justice makes an error that justifies not confirming them for the position. (In the eyes of the PM.)

The masses? wtf is up with that...

It's kind of a waste of time/effort/money. It doesn't do anything, it doesn't work in our system like in the US.

The masses will think its cool and effective though, sure to get support from some.

[FTA Lawyer]

It's a good step. I found this quote in the article to be a bit strange.

The prime minister dismissed reporters' questions about whether a prospective judge might refuse to be questioned in a way unprecedented in Canadian legal circles.

Why would a prospective judge refuse to answer questions? Isn't providing some transparency to the process the rationale for public questioning?

One of the valid reasons for not answering specific questions is that to do so could give the appearance that a judge has pre-decided or does not have an open mind on cases that will inevitably come before the court.

I'm uneasy about this new development. I don't want to shout it down because increased transparency is generally a good thing, but I am quite fearful that this process will become a political and therefore media circus.

Consider the concern put this way...if you don't ask questions that have a tendency to make a nominee look like they have pre-decided issues, then what are you asking questions about? And if the answers are fluid statements that only apply for now and the judge maintains an open mind about cases that will come before him or her (as should be the case) then why do we need to get such answers at all?

For now I am prepared to sit back and watch before I draw any conclusions about this reform...but, unfortunately, I think whether or not it succeeds will depend on the media's ability to report as opposed to sensationalize the proceedings...and in that ability I have little confidence.

FTA