Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Minister.
You probably know that your appointment was welcome as a breath of fresh air. However, the remarks you've made today show that you intend to continue in your predecessor's footsteps. Continuity has its advantages and its disadvantages. We see there being more disadvantages than advantages to the reforms you are proposing.
I think the committee has no doubts as to the integrity and the quality of our judiciary. You're going to have to explain how you intend to implement what you are proposing. Will you need to introduce a bill? How do you intend to change the composition of judicial advisory committees? Are you acting on purely ideological considerations? Is the reality not that the Conservatives want to move the justice system to the right, that they do not believe in judicial discretion and that they are convinced that they need to direct judges?
Aside from police officers themselves, who is asking to have police officers sitting on these judicial advisory committees? Do you not understand that there is something worrisome in this? Yesterday, I asked for written material on this subject. Civil society, right-leaning and left-leaning, does not support your reforms in the least. Why? Because police officers have no place intervening in the process to select judges.
Would you be able to name one country operating in a comparable way to Canada which has done the same thing or intends to? Could you tell us what is behind this decision, who is asking for this and what possible benefits there could be? Once again, are you not simply governed by ideological considerations which will disrupt the balance we thought was wisely established?