Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for convening this special session of the committee. I am really appreciative of everyone for being here and certainly of the lady to my left.
I'm pleased to discuss Mr. Justice Rowe. The purpose of this meeting is twofold: first, to discuss the government's selection of Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal as the government's nominee to the Supreme Court of Canada; and second, to describe the process that led to that selection. This will allow Canadians to understand the process that has been used in nominating Justice Rowe, and will allow you, as parliamentarians, to hold the government to account.
I know how busy the committee members are, and I greatly appreciate the time that you are devoting to this process.
I am, of course, joined by the Right Honourable Kim Campbell, who served as the chairperson for the Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments.
As you know, the advisory board has been at the heart of the government's new appointments process for the Supreme Court. Seven distinguished individuals served on the board, including four nominated by independent professional organizations. In addition to the chairperson, the advisory board includes a former judge, three members of the legal profession and two non-lawyers.
The advisory board's work has been integral to creating an independent, transparent and non-partisan selection process for the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to express personally, and on behalf of the Prime Minister and our government, our sincere gratitude to each of the advisory board members for their outstanding work and dedication to this process.
I would also like to thank the Canadian Judicial Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, and the Council of Canadian Law Deans for nominating such excellent individuals for this critical task.
Shortly, Ms. Campbell will describe the steps the advisory board took in creating the short list that it provided to the Prime Minister on September 23. I know that arriving at that short list of exceptional candidates required many hours of painstaking work, carefully reviewing all the detailed applications, and undertaking extensive consultations to assist in assessing each candidate against the published qualifications and assessment criteria. The value of these efforts was reflected in the excellence of the short list that the board produced, and I believe it clearly demonstrates the outstanding qualities of the government's nominee.
Our appreciation also extends to all those who were consulted throughout the selection process. The informed views and insights of those who know the candidates personally, who understand the demands of a judicial role, and who can advise on the institutional needs of the Supreme Court are truly invaluable in reaching the final selection of the nominee.
Special thanks certainly are due to Ms. Campbell for her able leadership in chairing the advisory board. I'm honoured to be appearing with her today. Our connections run deep. Not only did Ms. Campbell serve as a member of Parliament in the heart of Vancouver, but she has also opened many doors for women in the law and beyond and served as Canada's first female minister of justice. I'm proud to be among her successors in that role. She was the perfect choice to chair the advisory board, and I'm delighted she agreed to do so.
The government is also indebted to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs for the outstanding secretariat support they provided to the board. Quite simply, this process could not have happened without the professionalism, efficiency, responsiveness, and experience of the commissioner's office. I know that many staff worked long hours tirelessly throughout the summer and the fall to pull this together, and for that I am very grateful.
Last but certainly not least, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the candidates who applied for the vacancy. It goes without saying that this process could not have succeeded without their willingness to participate, and I recognize that making a decision to apply was not one made lightly or without personal cost.
I said when I appeared before you earlier that I knew it would be a humbling task to make a choice among so many outstanding candidates. That prediction proved truer than I had imagined and I can only say that I feel tremendous pride at the remarkable level of legal excellence in this country.
Let me now briefly review what has brought us here to this stage of the process. Our government made a commitment to establish a new process for the selection of the Supreme Court of Canada justices, one that is open, transparent, accountable, inclusive, consultative, and one that promotes diversity. We also promised that appointees would be functionally bilingual. Through the collective efforts of all those involved in the process, I believe we achieved those objectives.
Canada has an outstanding Supreme Court. It has long been a source of pride for Canadians and a source of inspiration for other countries. We are blessed to have an exceptional cadre of men and women who served on the courts up to the present day. But the process for selecting the court's justices has not always matched the excellence of its jurists. The process was often ad hoc and opaque and did not meet evolving norms of openness, transparency, and accountability. In short, a modern, dynamic, 21st century court needed a modern, dynamic, 21st century selection process, which is what we move towards.
The initial step was key. We opened up the process and established the first application-based approach to identifying qualified candidates for the Supreme Court. Anyone who met the statutory eligibility criteria could apply. This was a significant departure from past practice, which involved either the proverbial tap on the shoulder or in some more recent cases, saw initial long lists of candidates developed by the government itself on the basis of closed consultations.
Applications were invited from anywhere in the country to support our goal of ensuring that our highest court moves towards a better and fuller reflection of the diversity of Canadians. This was also to ensure that the most outstanding jurists in the country regardless of where they live have the opportunity to be considered for vacancies as they arrive and for which they are eligible.
I recognize the concerns expressed by some that this opening up of the process occurred at the expense of ensuring regional diversity on the court. With great respect for the sincerity of those who feel this way, I do not share this view.
The breadth and depth of expertise on Canada's bench and bar in every part of the country is quite remarkable. I am convinced that at any given time there will be outstanding individuals across Canada who will choose to put their names forward for a given vacancy. This will ensure that the Supreme Court's regional character is maintained.
Moreover, and in the context of the current process, the Prime Minister specifically directed the advisory board to include candidates from Atlantic Canada on the short list in recognition of the custom of regional representation and the fact that Justice Cromwell hailed from the region.
Our commitment also included a requirement that the short list only recommend candidates who are functionally bilingual given our country's bilingual character. As we expected, there was a rich pool of outstanding candidates reflective of the diversity of Canadian society who met this requirement and those who potentially aspire to serve on the Supreme Court in the future, are now aware of the expectations.
The process we have adopted has generated widespread public interest and debate, which is itself a positive thing. Canadians care deeply about their Supreme Court and the critical role it plays in our democracy. We believe this process has sufficiently advanced the goals of openness, transparency, accountability, and excellence, and a court that reflects the faces and the voices of Canada.
In light of this experience, it is our intention to follow this process for filling future Supreme Court of Canada vacancies subject, of course, to further refinements that may be suggested by this committee and by the advisory board. We believe our selection process is in keeping with the values of Canadians today and that it will support a modern Supreme Court of Canada that is reflective of and responsive to those values.
I would now like to turn the floor over to Ms. Campbell to allow her to describe the process that the advisory board went through in its mandate and then I'll provide some concluding remarks.
Over to you, Madam Former Prime Minister.
Thank you very much, Madam Minister.
I will perhaps say a few words in French.
It is a great pleasure for me to be here with you and to take part in your activities as a “veteran”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Right Hon. Kim Campbell: I am happy to see you all and I appreciate the atmosphere here. I respect the work you do for Canadians.
I would like to say on behalf of all of the members of the independent advisory board how honoured and delighted we were to be given this task.
I can tell you that it was a great honour for me to chair a remarkable group of people. One of them, when I was able to call on Monday to say who the Prime Minister's nominee would be, complimented me as chair. I said it was like conducting the Vienna Philharmonic. They really were a wonderful group of people devoted solely to producing the very best possible list of candidates. As we said, our goal was to create a list that would keep the Prime Minister up at night trying to figure out which one of these excellent people to appoint.
Shortly after our appointment was announced, we convened by conference call. Time was limited. The announcement went out August 2, and the deadline was August 24. We wanted to use that time as expeditiously as possible.
One of the terms of reference was for us to reach out and solicit good candidates for the courts. The first thing we did was to send the materials to all of the organizations represented on the committee and then to reach out further to every other organization of lawyers that we could think of in the country. I said I thought we should err on the side of overkill, so it was every possible kind of organization. I think there were about 19 different organizations in addition to the four: the Canadian Judicial Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, and the Council of Canadian Law Deans
We occasionally received, in reply to these missives, letters recommending individual candidates, and we immediately sent material to those individuals. We said that their name had been put forward with a strong recommendation that they would make an excellent judge on the Supreme Court of Canada. We asked them to please review the materials, and if it interested them, we warmly encouraged them to apply. That did in fact encourage some people to apply. This is something that we can talk about later.
One of the interesting transitions of this is that we all know that for many senior jurists or senior members of the profession, the idea of applying is sometimes difficult. Finding ways to encourage people to apply was something we wanted to do.
We were very delighted that there was a good response. We met in Ottawa on August 16 in person to discuss the process that we would pursue and to have a meeting with the Chief Justice. Chief Justice McLachlin was available at that time. That meeting, in which we had a very good conversation with her about what it actually means to serve on the court, what things actually help someone to succeed in that court, what the needs of the court are, was very helpful to us. We were very grateful to her for the time we spent with her. It was a very open conversation among the members of the committee and the Chief Justice.
We received 31 applications. I won the pool—I had guessed 32. I won the envelope of toonies that we had put together. I know you are shocked to hear that there was gambling on that committee.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Right Hon. Kim Campbell: It was a number that was very reassuring because of the 31 applicants from all across Canada, almost all had some French and met the standards of French. Only a very small number did not have French at all, and most had considerable French. That was very interesting for me to see.
I want again to echo the words of the minister in thanking all of the people who filled the applications. It was a long application form. Interestingly, the more senior you are, almost the harder it is to go back to dig up the material, because you think you're never going to apply for anything again, and there you are having to re-create your life.
People did it. The deadline was August 24 at midnight Vancouver time. For those in eastern Canada, that was a good thing, because some of them, I think, were sending off their applications at 2:00 in the morning their time. Happily we got them.
Afterwards, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs did a wonderful job of taking all the applications and loading them onto secure tablets and also printing them out. Each of the members of the committee had binders with the printed version, but we also had secure tablets that were password protected which we could take with us so we could review the materials.
We came to Ottawa on the morning of Monday, August 29, and really began in earnest to do our work. I won't go through all the details, because you will have your own questions, but I do want to give you a little idea of the philosophy, which certainly I had as chair, and which we brought to the exercise.
One of the things that was important from my perspective was that every person who applied would know that he or she was getting a full and fair review. We started off by taking groups of candidates and each of us went off separately to review the applications, so there was no groupthink, there was no influence one over the other. We each looked, knowing what the terms of reference were and knowing what the criteria were, to develop our perspective on the individual candidates. Then we came together to see where there was consensus, where there was disagreement, and where there was disagreement to try to discuss more fully the nature of the candidates.
We also realized that we would need to reduce the number of 31 candidates to a manageable size. The Prime Minister would only appoint one, and the maximum number of names we could send to him was five. We began to work to whittle down the list. We decided that we would interview 10 candidates. I have to say that, again, the commissioner's office was incredibly helpful in setting up appointments for us to talk to references. We spoke broadly to chief justices and senior members of the bar across the country about various candidates and had great co-operation. The candidates themselves were incredibly co-operative about finding time to fit within our schedule, to come to Ottawa for a full interview.
We developed a questionnaire for the referees so that each person got the same questions, although we always included an open-ended question at the end, so there would be comparability. We created a script of questions to ask the applicants, so that again there would be comparability in terms of their responses. I think it was a very good questionnaire. We allowed an hour for the interviews, although I will say Justice Rowe, as you will find, is a man of few words. I thought the interview was going to be over in 10 minutes, but as soon as we asked him to elaborate on some issues, we got a lot more information. Some people are more succinct than others, but all of them had extraordinarily wonderful stories to tell about their own lives, but also had very interesting and often very nuanced understandings of the law and the role of the court.
We interviewed the candidates, and immediately after each interview the candidates went upstairs to do the functional bilingualism test. If they were francophones, it was in English, and if they were anglophones, it was in French. Also during the interviews, they were asked questions in both languages. The candidates themselves were extremely helpful in accommodating their schedules in the summer, in August, when many of them, I think, probably hoped they could stay at their cottages, but interestingly enough they came for the interview, which was wonderful.
Then we worked and deliberated. The hard part was to deliberate and create a short list of five candidates. I'm glad it was hard, because what that reflects was the richness of the applicants. It's very, very difficult, and I think it's important to say that there is certainly no shame in being one of the applicants for the Supreme Court of Canada and not being the one who's appointed. All of the people whose careers we reviewed, and even more so perhaps the people who we interviewed, were really remarkable, any one of whom could have served with distinction.
Our job was to try to find the most promising, the most accomplished, and it was not an easy task. However, it was a very reassuring one. It was a wonderful thing to see. I was actually also very pleasantly surprised at the level of French competence among the applicants. Again, as the Honourable Rob Nicholson will remember in our days many years ago in justice together, the judges and lawyers were learning French. Even out west it was sort of becoming the thing they wanted to do, and I must say this is something Justice Rowe represents, the commitment of anglophone jurists to become part of that national conversation, and I think it was really great.
Let me finish by saying that, from our perspective, the values of the process were, first of all, the open application, the fact that you didn't have to know somebody. I think in the past, prime ministers and their ministers of justice have always tried to find very good people.
All of us who have fought to increase diversity, to increase the representation of non-prototypical people in various fields, know that sometimes people just don't notice those who are not like them or who they don't encounter in their daily lives, so having a process that basically allowed any lawyer in Canada to put himself or herself forward for consideration was really wonderful. It meant that if you weren't in the gaze of the normal advisers, you still could be considered. Of course, as I say, we felt that our moral obligation was to give each of those candidates the fairest possible review and include them in the process.
Also, our review was an independent and non-partisan review. Our whole focus was to look for competence. The government may have a view about a philosophy or whatever; that was not our view. Our view was to provide to the Prime Minister a list of candidates who were very competent and who brought with them a richness of perspective that would be an adornment to the court.
In terms of the fairness measures, first of all, we considered the candidates by number so that we didn't even get caught up in calling them by name in case that would have created any early stage bias. We just looked at them in terms of their qualities, which they had revealed in great detail in those difficult application forms. We reviewed them individually before we came together to share our perspectives to make sure there was no influence that might keep somebody from standing up for a candidate. That's very important. Sometimes two people will read an application, and they'll see it slightly differently. One person may say “Meh”, while another person may say “Ah, but look at this”, and you go, “Oh, yes”. There was a lot of that to try to maximize the appreciation for the applicants. As I say, there was consistent questioning for their references, consistent questioning in the interviews, so we could create comparability.
Also, each interview was debriefed immediately afterward with a note-taker so that we didn't rely on remembering what had been said or even our own notes. As soon as we had finished an interview, we sat down with a note-taker or went around the table and debriefed in great depth so that those impressions would be vivid when it came time to consider the ultimate challenge of creating a short list.
In terms of challenges for the future, I think the process was remarkable. I was pleased that as I went about the country doing other things quite unrelated to the advisory board, members of the legal profession spoke to me of their happiness with this idea, particularly, I think, with the openness of the application and the fact that the review was by a group of people who had no agenda other than to try to find excellence in its many different forms.
The timing of the process was tricky. August is not the optimal month. It's not just in Europe that everything closes down in August. People whose assistants or secretaries were on holiday were really having a hard time putting the story of their life together. But they did it. They were remarkable.
In regard to the length of the process and a possible revision of the applications, it would be to just have more time. I think for some people it was a bit of pressure to do it, although people did it, but if there were more time, that would be great.
Challenges for the future would include outreach and recruitment. I think, having once done this, there is importance in making sure that people know what the process is; that talented, interesting members of the legal profession, whether jurists or members of the bar, know what the process is; and that all members of the legal profession and communities encourage people who they think have wisdom and skill to think about it and perhaps prepare themselves for the process in the future.
Thank you for welcoming us here today. I'm very pleased to have been part of this process, and I very much look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
Let me now turn to the merits for the considerations that the government put in in terms of the nominee himself.
As I've indicated, the quality of the candidates on the short list from the advisory board was outstanding. My task of reviewing the candidates and arriving at a recommendation to the Prime Minister was an incredibly difficult one, to say the least. I recognize this is one of the most, if not the most, important responsibilities that I perform as the Minister of Justice, and I take my responsibilities incredibly seriously.
In terms of the consultations, I consulted with the Chief Justice of Canada, the applicable provincial and territorial attorneys general, members of this committee and the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, the opposition justice critics, and members of cabinet. I then presented the results of these consultations to the Prime Minister, along with my recommendation. While I obviously cannot reveal the content of these consultations or my advice to the Prime Minister, I can say that I am convinced that Justice Rowe would be an outstanding addition to the court and would continue to serve Canadians with great distinction in that role.
In terms of Justice Rowe's qualifications and why the government chose him as its nominee, Justice Rowe has extensive appellate court experience, having been appointed to the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court in 1999, and then two years later elevated to the Court of Appeal in 2001. He is a jurist of exceptional quality in both the strength of his legal reasoning and the clarity of his writing. His judgments, evidenced by his ability to understand the social context in which legal disputes arise and to appreciate the diversity of views, perspectives, and life experiences are evident.
Born and raised in St. John's, the son of a fisherman, Justice Rowe's varied professional career lends a depth to his decision-making. Before he was appointed in 1999, he had an impressive career as a litigator in Ontario, becoming queen's counsel in 1992. Prior to that, he was a foreign service officer at the department of external affairs. There he worked on critical international disputes with France and the EU concerning Atlantic fisheries alongside such counsel as Ian Binnie, QC. He was then appointed as deputy minister to the premier and the head of the civil service in Newfoundland and Labrador. During this time, he coordinated efforts to achieve a constitutional amendment to create a public non-denominational school system in the province. His wide range of experience in both public practice and the public service will bring a rich and nuanced perspective to the court.
Furthermore, Justice Rowe has an impeccable reputation, both personally and professionally. A man of integrity, his career exhibits a strong commitment to public service and combines rigorous legal knowledge with open-mindedness and respect for others. This includes his activities with Action Canada, a youth leadership development program where he came to know and mentor future leaders from a range of backgrounds and experiences.
Regional diversity was also an important consideration. Hailing from Newfoundland, Justice Rowe brings a unique perspective that has never been present on the Supreme Court of Canada.
It's for all of these reasons the government chose Justice Rowe as the individual best suited to fill the current vacancy on the court and fill the large shoes left by Justice Cromwell. Let me just add that the government is delighted to have nominated someone who would be the first jurist from Newfoundland and Labrador to sit on the Supreme Court. Justice Rowe would continue in a long line of outstanding jurists from Atlantic Canada serving all Canadians on our highest court.
It is with pleasure that I am able to present before this committee, with Ms. Campbell, and we are very open to answering your questions at this time.
Thank you very much.
Welcome to you, Minister, and of course, Ms. Campbell. Thank you for appearing before the committee, and for all your efforts in this regard.
I had to think, Minister, as you were saying that Ms. Campbell has promoted women throughout the legal profession, there were some exceptions, including me. For the record, I was very honoured to be her parliamentary secretary for about three and a half years, and to serve in cabinet with her. I've been very grateful for those promotions and that opportunity.
Ms. Campbell, I'm very pleased that you're here today. I, too, was going to say basically the same things that the chairman did, that your service to this country is continuing right up and to including this. I don't have to tell you how important this whole process is. We are grateful that you've taken time to do this.
I was very interested in the way you handled this. You answered one of the questions that I had, which was whether there were any personal interviews. You seemed to cut a good number there. You have 31 to 32 people, and you don't want to interview all of them. In many ways, that's unfair to them if they're not going to be on that short list. However, to have the 10 there, I think is an excellent idea, so you get that opportunity to see that interaction. I was pleased to hear that.
One of the interesting things as well that you said was that it's difficult in August sometimes to get something done. When I heard this was being done in August, I actually thought that was a good time because a lot of the courts don't sit in July and August. I thought you might be able to do it.
Is there a better time to do it, do you think? It will be up to the minister, of course, but what do you think? Is there a better time of year to do this—maybe in January?
Perhaps I could say a bit about the process of how we did it.
Our terms of reference made a particular point of recognizing the diversity of Canadians, and that identified a number of characteristics where individuals are often under-represented or not represented in the judicial community. One of our candidates made a very interesting comment and said that diversity isn't so much reflected in decisions, but in what you bring to the conference. I think those of us who have worked for the advancement of women recognize this. It's not so much that a woman would decide this and a man would decide that, but that you bring a different reality and different questions perhaps to the broad discussion of issues.
I think this commitment to diversity played out, and as the minister has said, our terms of reference also included finding qualified candidates—that's plural—from Atlantic Canada. We assumed that meant at least two candidates from Atlantic Canada. There were a lot of Atlantic Canadian applicants, obviously, so that was not difficult, but there was a broad diversity in the candidates. I think the terms of reference sent a message to people who were thinking of applying that they should not be discouraged from applying if they are members of an unrepresented social category. The fact of of the matter is that, particularly in the legal profession, there is a lot of lack of diversity in many aspects of it.
The terms of reference were a clear message to the Canadian legal community, and that was reflected in the applications. Our goal was to find candidates of great competence. Many of them represented what you might call checking off the box, but it's a broader thing. The names that we provided to the Prime Minister provided some very interesting choices. Even in the case, for example, of Justice Rowe—who doesn't check off any of those boxes, except that no one from Newfoundland has ever been there—what was also important for us was the breadth of his understanding of the country. We asked candidates to tell us about their understanding of the diversity of Canadian society. It wasn't just are they from a category that they would check on the application, but what is their lived experience of the reality of Canadian society? That was a very interesting question to hear people answer, whether this had touched them in a way, and whether they had dealt with it. Justice Rowe's experience, particularly in the work he's done through Action Canada, has taken him to indigenous governments, Haida Gwaii, and the governments in the north, etc.
He spoke in great...well, you can ask him about it tomorrow, but that was important to us. When we were talking about what you bring to the conference, or when the members of the Supreme Court are sitting and talking about an issue, are there things that are not being said because nobody knows about them? I think of when Bertha Wilson came to the court, and about the decisions on property, for example, in common-law couples. These were really important things that came from a particular person's recognition that there was an issue. I think that is really important. I don't for a nanosecond say that it is the only thing, but I think what was communicated was the welcome to candidates of many different backgrounds to apply.
We're committed to confidentiality of the candidates, so we can't give you all of the list, but there was a really wonderful richness. I think that is the most important thing. Only one person can be appointed, but that person has to reflect that respect, appreciation, and knowledge of the diversity of Canadian society. The candidates were a very interesting group, and as I say, remarkably proficient in French, much to my delight.
Actually, we didn't rank them. In the first go-round we just said, “yes”, “no”, “maybe”. That was the first thing. In other words, we said yes, to go to the next stage, and no, if we thought, for whatever reason, this candidate.... It was usually, perhaps, because the person had not had a lot of experience compared to the others, didn't have that kind of ability, and then maybe it was, “Oh, this is a tough one”, and that's where we had the very interesting conversations.
The assessment criteria are actually in the terms of reference, and I think were very much what we looked at: personal skills and experience, so superior knowledge of the law—we looked for knowledge of the law and legal judgment; analytical skills and the ability to resolve complex legal questions; the ability to work under time pressures, clearly; a commitment to public service. It's in the terms of reference.
Then there were personal qualities. An irreproachable personal and professional integrity. This we explored quite forcefully with the different references to whom we spoke about the people: “What can you tell us about this person? In your view, is there anything that would come back to haunt, etc.?” We looked for respect and consideration for others; I think that's important. We questioned on an ability to appreciate a diversity of views, perspectives, and life experiences, including those relating to groups historically disadvantaged in Canadian society. Again, it was very interesting to see how those answers unfolded, often through personal experience, often through their lifetime experience. That was important to us. What is that texture? How has Canadian life, in all of its diversity, impacted on this individual in his or her understanding? We also looked at moral courage, discretion, open-mindedness. Those were the personal qualities we looked at.
Then there were the institutional needs of the court: ensuring a reasonable balance between public and private law expertise, bearing in mind the historic patterns of distribution between these areas in the Supreme Court; expertise in any specific subject matter that regularly features in appeals and is currently under-represented on the court; and ensuring that the members of the Supreme Court are reasonably reflective of the diversity of Canadian society.
One of the things that interested me very much about Justice Rowe was his experience in government, both as head of the civil service in Newfoundland and then his work as a foreign service officer. There will be, probably, interesting cases with respect to jurisdictional disputes, etc., the balancing of federal-provincial relations in all sorts of areas of policy and with indigenous issues, environmental policy, etc. I thought that experience, plus his broad experience in the country, positioned him well to be a constructive participant in the law in that area.
At the very beginning we joked and said, well, if we could deconstruct all these people and take part of this and part of this, but that's not how it works. People are full-fledged human beings and you have to see them in their entirety. It's actually very reassuring. I think you would enjoy it very much to appreciate how a person can be wonderful in many different ways and can bring a kind of humanity and wisdom from many different sources. At the end of the day, that person, if he or she goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, has to be a legal thinker, has to be a jurist, has to be able to write, has to be able to collaborate effectively with other judges on the court. The wonderfulness that would make somebody effective on the court can take many different forms, and that was why, for us, it's not like you're comparing apples and oranges, it's like you're comparing many different wonderful types of apple. I love McIntosh and I like to cook with the Bramley. In other words, they were all quite splendid, but how they got there was unique to each one of them. It was a great privilege and hard work to look at these people and say, what can we give to the Prime Minister that will give him some choice, but no matter which candidate he chooses, he can't go wrong, that person will be an adornment to the court?