Article content continued

These problems, if addressed properly, can be rectified, and to do so I propose the following:

First, pick up on the 2004 innovation, only implemented once, of having the justice minister appear before the committee to explain and justify her selection.

Second, parliamentarians should be given weeks, not days, to prepare for the public interview. Allow MPs (and the media, and the public) the time to examine prospective justices’ records, whether that includes judgments from their time on lower courts, their academic writing, or public statements.

Third, do more to ensure MPs ask better questions. The public deserves to know how a future judge will approach the role, how they understand the Court’s relationship with Parliament and the government, how they understand rights and their limits, or conceptions of deference and the limits of the Court’s power, etc.

Fourth, eliminate restrictions on what MPs can ask. Judicial candidates tend to be intelligent, capable people. In some contexts, such as in relation to how they might decide potential future cases, they can simply refuse to answer a question.

Finally, and most significantly, make the appointee a nominee instead. No, I am not calling for a parliamentary confirmation vote, which risks turning the appointments process into a partisan circus and blurring lines of accountability. Instead, allow the prime minister to put forward the name of a nominee, with the understanding that the formal appointment will follow the public vetting process. If public vetting or the public interview turn up serious questions about an individual’s record or approach to his or her role on the Court, the prime minister should be free to select a different nominee.