Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Nicholson.
I have a question for you. I'm going to read a motion that was voted on in the House of Commons on June 7, 2005 which stated the following:
Pursuant to order made on Friday, June 3, 2005, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion moved by Mr. Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, seconded by Mr. Côté (Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier): That the House denounce the recent remarks made by Mr. Justice Michel Robert stating that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of political opinion when appointing candidates to the federal judiciary and that it call on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to create a special subcommittee with the mandate to examine the process for appointments to the federal judiciary and make recommendations for reform, with the primary goal of eliminating political partisanship from the process, by October 31, 2005.
There were 157 votes for and, of course, there were 124 against, and you know who they were.
I would like to know if you intend to respond to this wish within the strategy you are devising. Earlier on, Mr. Murphy asked whether or not the committees were being “stacked”. That was the term that was used; it was translated in that way from the English to the French. In 2005, that is to say last year, a Chief Justice crossed the line and said that partisanship was not a valid reason for not nominating a person. The Bloc Québécois wisely decided that indeed, that should change. I do not know why he has changed his mind today, but that is the situation.
Do you believe, as Minister of Justice, that this change or what you are proposing as a change, can answer to the order made in the House at that time, in which indeed the Liberals were being criticized for being a little too partisan in their appointments? The House came to a decision on it.