Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, welcome back, everybody. Happy new year. It's good to see everybody.
I hope this committee can get off on the right foot and get moving forward on the important issues at hand. That is not how I would characterize this motion, if I were asked—to be frank.
First, I would start by saying thank you to former member of Parliament and justice minister David Lametti. As we all know, he has announced that he has decided to retire and move on to private practice.
In my view—and I know this view is shared, certainly by the people on this side of the table and, I believe, around the House—he was a remarkable member of Parliament. He served as the Minister of Justice with integrity and honour. I was very proud to work with him and have nothing but total admiration for the work he's done. I just wanted to say thank you to him.
One of the many problems with this motion is that every time you have a discussion like this, it somehow impugns the integrity of the justice system. I'm looking across the table at five lawyers and one person who had the wisdom not to become a lawyer. It sends the wrong message to the general public, because I think everybody who has practised will agree that Canada has one of the greatest judicial systems. It's the envy of the world. I'm very proud to be a part of it.
Justice Lametti has, as I said, a great track record as justice minister, including judicial appointments. I'm very proud when I look at the people who were appointed under Justice Lametti's watch and at the people who have been appointed under our current Minister of Justice's watch. It's a source of pride, frankly, because they are quality people.
The process by which they're appointed is also something I'm very proud of, because if you look back over the past seven years and you look at the number of women, for example, who have been appointed to the bench since 2016, it's over 50%. This is the first time in Canadian history we've ever seen that. The bench now is more reflective of society as a whole—it's something we should all be very proud of—all while maintaining the integrity and quality of our system.
To proceed with this motion would be unfortunate, because it can only lead to a discussion that will become political and, as I said at the outset, send the wrong message to the general public about why we're having this discussion. This is because it raises questions that aren't real and are about how we may have a problem when we don't.
Just to address Mr. Moore's other point, about legislation, we've been patiently, as a committee, trying to deal with Bill C-40. We left here in December, after not several days but several weeks of filibustering delaying the passage of that bill. We are so close to having it done. There are families and people across this country who are watching us and who have respect for the integrity of our system. If we waste time on this motion and delay dealing with Bill C-40 any further, it will be a complete shame and a display of a total lack of respect for all those who are waiting patiently.
Therefore, I will be voting against this motion, in the hope that we can move on very quickly and get back to Bill C-40.
I should point out, too, that in the last 12 months, there have been 100 judicial appointments filled. In keeping with that accelerated pace, this meeting started at 11 o'clock and eight appointments have been made since we sat down here this morning.
Thank you, Madam Chair.