Visit our mobile site

The Globe and Mail

Jump to main navigation
Jump to main content

News Search
Search Stock Quotes
Search The Web
Search People at canada411.ca
Search Businesses at yellowpages.ca
Search Jobs at eluta.ca

Dan Cook on the Supreme Court committee review

Globe and Mail Update

Play-by-play

All times noted (EST)

1:08 p.m. Committee review delayed.

1:11 p.m. Committee review begins. Opening remarks by Justice Minister Vic Toews, who is acting as Chair.

1:13 p.m. Vic Toews: Rationale for process.

1:14 p.m. Vic Toews: Defamatory statements not protected by Parliamentary privilege.

1:15 p.m. Vic Toews: Judge does not have to answer all questions.

1:16 p.m. Vic Toews: Brief bio of Justice Rothstein.

1:19 p.m. Presentation by Professor Peter Hogg, Q.C.: Consider this a job interview.

1:28 p.m. Professor Peter Hogg: If Judge Rothstein has provided a written decision on a case; he can't be expected to provide an oral explanation today.

1:29 p.m. Professor Peter Hogg: Types of questions to consider:

(1) Resolve difficult legal issues
(2) Energy and discipline
(3) Open mind
(4) Patience and courtesy
(5) Well-written and well-reasoned decisions
(6) Work with his colleagues

1:31 p.m. - 1:42 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Who I am and what I'm about. Well spoken with a couple of one-liners.

1:43 p.m. Justice Rothstein: 'The role of Judges' Neutral arbitrators with no personal agenda.

1:48 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Mr. Rothstein acknowledges being unilingual will require a greater effort on his part when reviewing French cases.

1:49 p.m. Justice Rothstein concludes his opening remarks.

1:52 p.m. Question Hon. Sue Barnes (Lib): What types of questions will you not answer.

1:55 p.m. Justice Rothstein: (1) Cases before the Court (2) A case that has been decided.

1:58 p.m. Question Real Menard (BQ): You have gaps in civil law. Will you rectify this?

1:59 p.m. Justice Rothstein: It will be difficult in the beginning, but hopes to make a positive contribution.

2:03 p.m. Question Real Menard (BQ): Gun registry question.

2:04 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Sorry, political question. Your area Mr. Menard.

2:07 p.m. Question / Statement Joe Comartin (NDP): Doesn't like the process. Ask's first question to Professor Hogg: Other than the U.S., can you name another country where a Justice is questioned?

2:10 p.m. Professor Hogg: U.K., South Africa.

2:13 p.m. Plain Spoken Justice Rothstein: 'pussy foot,' 'stark raving idiot'

2:17 p.m. Question Diane Ablonczy (Con): How do you view your role as a Judge? i.e. judicial temperament

2:18 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Judges shouldn't invent the law; they should apply the law.

2:24 p.m. Irwin Cotler (Lib): Major kudos to Justice Rothstein.

2:25 p.m. Question Irwin Cotler (Lib): (1) Why law? (2) Who are your mentors? (3) What have you learned from your experiences?

2:27 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Big love in, thanks Cotler for the kudos. Law was an accident via his commerce education at University: Rothstein ran (and won) for President of the Manitoba Students Union.

2:33 p.m. Question Carole Freeman (BQ): What do you think about this process?

2:34 p.m. Justice Rothstein: To early to tell. (Laughter) Process could degrade a Judge.

2:36 p.m. Question Carole Freeman (BQ): Any ideas for an alternate process?

2:37 p.m. Justice Rothstein: No.

2:43 p.m. Question Rob Moore (Con): What can Canadians gather from this hearing?

2:44 p.m. Justice Rothstein: (1) The knowledge that candidates are qualified (short list: three original candidates). (2) Some of the good works that Judges do. (3) Judges are ordinary, real people. (4) Some exposure to the candidate (Rothstein).

2:52 p.m. Justice Minister Vic Toews: Recess called (5 — 10 minutes)

3:01 p.m. Question Anita Neville (Lib): Have social norms changed?

3:04 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Judges have to look at the law and the facts.

3:10 p.m. Question Daryl Kramp (Con): [The love in continues.]

3:20 p.m. Question Stephen Owen (Lib): [Four minute question] Can you reconcile the concept of judicial independence?

3:24 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Doesn't know what the situation is with the provinces. In terms of the courts role with Parliamentary process and defamation: the Court has no role.

3:29 p.m. Question Daniel Petit (Con): Can you comment on the criteria for the swingers club?