On February 27, 2006, the door of judicial accountability in Canada opened a little wider - but just a crack. For the first time in history, a nominee for the country's Supreme Court, Manitoba Court of Appeal Judge Marshall Rothstein, had to face cameras and questions from an all-party Parliamentary committee before ascending to our country's highest court.

The committee's scope of inquiry, however, was lamentably weak. At the outset of the hearing, law professor Peter Hogg stipulated that Justice Rothstein could not be quizzed on any matter on which he might potentially have to render judgment. That pretty much ruled out all questions of substance. Indeed, when asked by Bloc Québecois MP Réal Menard about his views on the gun registry, aboriginal issues, and whether poverty should be considered a prohibited ground of discrimination, Rothstein demurred, stating that "it may well be that the Supreme Court will have to deal with this issue so I can't say more."

The closest glimpse Canadians got of how Justice Rothstein perceives the role of the court in the law-making process was his answer to Conservative MP Diane Ablonzcy's question on what constitutes "judicial temperament." Rothstein responded that "judges should be applying the law, they shouldn't be inventing their own laws." Nonetheless, he admitted that "judges are forced a little bit ... to get into a policy area," when they have to rule whether particular limits on freedom are compatible with the principles of a free and democratic society.

The hearings were successful in revealing the "human" side of Justice Rothstein. In the days to follow, the media was full of stories about the judge's background, including how he worked his way through law school as a waiter, how law was almost an "accidental choice" of profession, and how he loves cooking, even printing his recipe for "Rothstein's Salmon Supreme."

But Canadians should know more about their Supreme Court judges than how they like their fish. The high court is the ultimate arbiter of law and justice in our country. Its decisions affect the day-to-day lives of Canadians on a range of issues, including choice in health care, government spending, and social policy. The judges who sit on the court naturally have a profound impact on its decisions.

So why are we so timid about putting our judges to the test Opposition MPs and members of the legal community claim a true inquiry would politicize the selection process. But to the contrary, it is the closed-door policy which Canadians find overly political.

According to an Ipsos Reid opinion poll taken in March, 2003, two in three Canadians surveyed said that Supreme Court judges are influenced by partisan politics. That's not surprising, when you consider that our Constitution gives the prime minister unfettered discretion to appoint whomever he chooses to the bench. There is no requirement for a review committee, no list of recommended candidates, and no obligation to consult anybody.

The Rothstein hearing was a first step in making this process more accountable, but it did not go far enough in fulfilling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's election promise to create a more open appointment process. The PM should allow the committee greater latitude in its questioning, and, as members of his own party requested, allow MPs to vote on the choice of nominee. He should also introduce term limits for judges as several European countries have done. And he should ensure regional representation is maintained as Canada's population growth shifts westward.

Taken together, such reforms would go a long way to restoring public confidence in the Supreme Court and ensure that Canada benefits from the best and most accountable legal system possible. That would indeed be a "supreme" accomplishment for the new government.