It concerns in part
the motion dealing with the judicial appointment process that Mr. Ménard tabled.
I must say that we Liberals are completely in agreement with having the committee review the judicial appointment process. Nevertheless, we do have some concerns about the part of his motion that states:
That, as soon as the study of Bill C-18 is completed, the Committee devote three sessions to hearing witnesses who will inform the Committee of the consequences the government's proposed changes will have on the integrity of the legal system.
Other bills at second-reading-stage have been referred to the committee, such as Bill C-22, which pertains to the age of consent. We would prefer to continue the second-reading stage study. Once we have completed our study on Bill C-18, we will begin looking at Bill C-22.
Once again, we would have been receptive to the idea of striking a legislative committee to review Bill C-22, in order to allow the committee, for instance, to review the judicial appointment process. That would avoid a slowdown of the work we're doing in committee and allow us to comply with the objective, stated many times by the government, of reviewing the whole issue of the age of consent.
I am therefore wondering if the government could demonstrate some openness—first of all, we would need the consent of our colleagues from the two opposition parties, the Bloc and the NDP—to have Bill C-22 referred to a legislative committee rather than this committee.