News

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?

3:31 p.m. Justice Rothstein: 7-2 decision, swingers club didn't violate the criminal code.

3:32 p.m. Question Daniel Petit (Con): What about people representing themselves in courts?

3:33 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Poses a difficulty for a Judge, as a Judge wants the case to be resolved in the fairest way. Very difficult problem.

3:35 p.m. Question Daniel Petit (Con): What about the presence of cameras in the courtroom?

3:36 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Reluctant about cameras.

---

Second round: 4 minutes per member

---

3:42 p.m. Question Real Menard (Con): How do you plan to help develop the law?

3:43 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Not comfortable with thinking that Judges should be advancing the law with a social agenda in mind.

3:45 p.m. Question Real Menard (Con): On freedom of expression.

3:43 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Freedom of expression is absolute in almost all cases. Refer to Section 1.

3:47 p.m. Question Joe Comartin (NDP): Plugs a Globe and Mail article.

3:48 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Judge reads The Globe and Mail.

3:51 p.m. Question Diane Ablonczy (Con): How do you balance individual liberty v. security?

3:52 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Cases may be before the court.

3:53 p.m. Question Diane Ablonczy (Con): What's the proper balance?

3:54 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Up to Parliament and the Courts.

3:55 p.m. Question Hon. Irwin Cotler (Lib): What about foreign judgments?

3:56 p.m. Justice Rothstein: In the past, courts have used U.K. decisions. Can use foreign judgments as 'guidance.'

3:59 p.m. Question Carole Freeman (BQ): What are you going to do to make Supreme Court rulings easier to understand?

4:00 p.m. Justice Rothstein: One of the obligations of Judges is to make judgments easier / accessible.

4:02 p.m. Question Carole Freeman (BQ): Do Judges need to take into account the political and social impacts of their rulings?

4:03 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Putting it in a context of a legal decision, that's what the Judges were doing.

4:05 p.m. Question Rob Moore (Con): Where should judges not go?

4:06 p.m. Justice Rothstein: When speaking publicly, they should do so when 'both sides' are around.

4:10 p.m. Question Daryl Kramp (Con): Regional representation on the Supreme Court.

4:11 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Regional representation is good. In terms of expanding the court, hasn't given it any consideration / thought.

4:13 p.m. Question Stephen Owen (Lib): [Another long winded question]

4:16 p.m. Justice Rothstein: Partly through transparency and partly through the judicial council; these things help guide Judges.

4:20 p.m. Question Daniel Petit (Con): [Had two opportunities to articulate his question and he couldn't pull it off.]

---

4:23 p.m. Committee members unanimously agree to skip round 3 and forward to Professor Hogg's summary.

---

4:25 p.m. Final Summary Professor Hogg: Thanks everyone. Let's await the Prime Minister's decision.

4:27 p.m. Final Summary Justice Minister Vic Toews: Thanks everyone. Let's Justice Rothstein know that he attended one of his classes thirty-years ago. Rude interruption by NDP member Joe Comartin: suggests Justice Rothstein got Justice Minister Vic Toews through law school.

Justice Minister Toews to confer with Prime Minister Harper on today's proceedings.

4:29 p.m. Meeting adjourned.

---

Supreme Court hearings: today's agenda

All times noted (EST)

13:00: Meeting begins

13:00-13:10: Opening remarks by Hon. Vic Toews, Committee Chair

13:10-13:25: Introductory remarks by Professor Peter Hogg, Q.C.

13:25-13:45: Presentation by Hon. Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein

13:45-16:45: Questions by committee members (excluding Chair)

13:45-15:15: First round: 8 minutes per member (approx. 90 minutes)

15:15-16:00: Second round: 4 minutes per member (approx. 45 minutes)

16:00-16:45: Third round: 4 minutes per member (approx. 45 minutes)

16:45-16:55: Summary by Professor Hogg

16:55-17:00: Final remarks by Hon. Vic Toews, Committee Chair

17:00: Meeting adjourned

Updated Monday, February 27 at 11:20 a.m.

Send your comments on this item to email@dancook.com

---