Judges Act  Madam Speaker, we often like to say in the House that good intentions do not necessarily make good bills. I will not impute bad intentions to anyone with regard to this amendment. On the contrary, I think it comes from a good place. However, by setting a fairly strict obligation in its application, we may be losing some flexibility.

Judges Act  Madam Speaker, I understand that clause 84 seeks to create a roster of people who could sit on various panels. Since we do not know in advance which judge may have to make representations before these panels for various types of misconduct, we would want to have a roster of people who have many different qualities, including being bilingual, because there may be French-speaking and English-speaking judges on the lists.

Judges Act  Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I think we have seen abuses of process in the past. The case of Justice Michel Girouard was an example. By eliminating some recourse to common law courts, we can avoid not only appeals, but also everything that is incidental to an appeal. There are various dilatory measures that can be taken in the case of an appeal in a common law court.

Judges Act  Madam Speaker, I mentioned at the end of my speech that adding another amendment raised some concern. What is that going to accomplish? That is ultimately the question. I am not against ideas being debated or everyone being able to express their point of view, but the way that it is done is sometimes problematic.

Judges Act  Madam Speaker, one of the analyses I did in my first speech on Bill C‑9 was under section 99 of the Constitution, which addresses judges' security of tenure. Different jurists and analysts who worked on the bill mentioned that this principle of immovability was respected. The foundation of the analysis process for misconduct is that it is to be done by peers and a judge must not be removed for minor issues.

Judges Act  Madam Speaker, even though it is late, we are wrapping up our work and we may be a little jagged, it is a pleasure to speak to the return of Bill C‑9 as amended by the Senate. This all feels a bit like groundhog day. I was rereading the notes from my last speech on Bill C‑9 and they begin with a reminder to wish everyone a merry Christmas.

Judges Act  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to answer the same question I asked the Minister of Justice. Do we not run the risk of limiting the number of candidates who could be added to the list of judges and laypersons if we strike “as far as possible” from the sentence about selecting candidates who reflect diversity, especially given that there is a shortage of judges?

Judges Act  Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from the minister, and I commend the fact that he is with us so late tonight to debate his motion. The Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we are satisfied with the work that has been done. However, I would like to make a small clarification, and this is what I would like to hear the minister talk about.

Democratic Institutions  Mr. Speaker, an inquiry into Chinese interference must be launched before we rise for the summer. It takes a lot of time to investigate, and we have wasted too much time already. If we want to reassure the public, we need to shed light on the interference that occurred in the last election before another one is called.

Democratic Institutions  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues must realize by now that the Bloc Québécois will not give up. Public trust in democracy is at stake. The people are calling for an independent public commission of inquiry. Its commissioner must be approved by the House. The commission will have to report on its work, not in five years, not in two years, but in the next few months.

Anti-Asian Racism  Mr. Speaker, since we are on the second hour of considering Motion No. 63, it is important to remember when the first hour occurred. It was in December. It is said that six months is an eternity in politics. I think we had a clear example of that today. In that first hour of consideration of the motion, we did not yet have the revelations from The Globe and Mail and Global News on Beijing's interference in our elections.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and his hard work. International humanitarian aid represents 0.3% of Canada's GDP, despite the government's commitment to increasing that figure to 0.7% of GDP. This bill could have been passed long ago, because lives that depend on it.

Democratic Institutions  Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Chinese interference, or rather, let us talk about those who are the victims of it, those who the government refuses to talk about. Let us talk about the defenders of democracy from Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Solomon Islands. Let us talk about the Uyghurs and the Tibetans.

Democratic Institutions  Mr. Speaker, the situation speaks for itself. No pro-democracy groups and no representatives of the victims of the Chinese regime support the government's initiative. None. The government would know that, had its special rapporteur taken the time to talk to them before publishing his report.

Questions on the Order Paper  With regard to BGRS, which is handling the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) relocation program: (a) on what date was the contract awarded to BGRS; (b) what firm was responsible for the relocation program prior to BGRS; (c) was the contract awarded to BGRS as a result of the expiry of the previous contract with that firm; (d) if the answer in (c) is negative, why was there a change in the firm responsible for the program; (e) was the contract awarded by mutual agreement or through a competitive bidding process; (f) how many compensation awards to CAF members in connection with their relocation have been subsequently claimed retroactively or cancelled (i) since the start of the contract with BGRS, (ii) for the duration of the contract with the firm that preceded BGRS, broken down by year; (g) how many complaints have been received regarding file management (i) since the start of the contract with BGRS, (ii) by the firm that preceded BGRS, broken down by year; and (h) what is the ratio of the number of complaints per number of files handled (i) since the contract was awarded to BGRS, (ii) by the firm that preceded BGRS, broken down by year?