Andrew Lawton

Were they part of your review process specifically around legal thought? We know there's a range of legal perspectives and ways in which people approach the law. One of the concerns raised by a number of scholars was that when Beverley McLachlin was chief justice of the Supreme Court, the court had a very elevated level of unanimous decisions. I think it was somewhere over 60%. It means that even [more]

Should it be, in your view? This has actually come up quite recently in public discourse surrounding the chief justice and how he is to reconcile public statements he's made on an issue with a case coming before the court. Is that not a relevant barometer of how a judge would approach the office?

How they navigate those issues.... You don't think it could be done without a fact scenario?

Thank you. It has come up in the conversations we're having today that there's this idea that the judiciary and judges need to be above reproach. However, as we know, there also needs to be the perception and vision that they are above reproach. I want to ask about expectations when it comes to recusal and how judges are to navigate conflicts or perceived conflicts. Is this in the screening [more]

Are diversity of thought and diversity of perspective considerations as well?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to all of you for your work and for appearing here today. Ms. McTeer, I'll start with you. You mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of diversity for judges. I was hoping you could drill into what exactly that means. What diversity are you referring to when you talk about your process?

If I can, Minister, I'd like to get to the role of the court and the role of judges. One of the outstanding legal questions, or at least one of the sources of debate, is who should have the final say. Is it the court or is it Parliament? Is it democracy or is it the judiciary? Is that a consideration that you had looked at in terms of how the judge that you were going to support being on the [more]

Do you share that view, Minister, that how a judge will approach potential ethical questions or conflicts of interest is not a relevant consideration in the interview process or the vetting process of a potential Supreme Court justice?

Thank you.

I'm familiar with that service as a customer. Thank you for that. In the minute I have left, you indicated earlier that you wanted to speak to ways that you are looking at increasing the revenue stream. You have about 55 seconds if you'd like to share that now.

Further to that point, you're identifying areas where you hope to make up a deficit. The government hasn't been able to actually get any other mechanism that is viable for this through law enforcement or other groups. They could come to you and say, “Hey, we'll give you this much money conditionally to participate.” Is that not at all something within the scope of what you're willing to do?

I think that speaks volumes about the way the government views things. This is a very important question because, of those 7,000, not all of them are executives. You would have people in there who are getting bonuses of a couple of thousand dollars.

Will you provide it to the committee?

Will you provide it to the committee?

I've used it myself.

What about the at-risk program?

You have two bonus programs, don't you?

I don't need the descriptions, just the numbers that you expect for each of them this year, please.

How much did you pay to keep those good people last year?