Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Carleton for starting off this debate, as it is an important one. However, I want to clarify a couple of things.
In the four hours of testimony that was given by the former attorney general before the justice committee, she stated that the Prime Minister told her this was her decision to make. She said specifically that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. She said that nothing that transpired was unlawful. Nor was anything criminal.
I want to return to the point where she said that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts. The member for Carleton has, on repeated occasions in the House, asked questions about why jobs are being considered in this context.
What I am talking about refers back to the statute. The statute should ground our analysis of what we are talking about. Subsection 715.31(f) of the Criminal Code says that the purpose of this statute is “to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons—employees, customers, pensioners and others....”
Does the member for Carleton agree that citing employees in a statute gives legitimacy to making appropriate inquiries about job impacts?