Arif Virani

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am going to anticipate where that question was going. I believe it was going toward the issue of the Supreme Court appointments process.

What I would say is what I have already said on the record, and that is that we take any disclosure of personal and confidential information very seriously. It is very troubling. Secondly, I would reiterate for Canadians who are watching that they should have the utmost confidence in the process we are using to uphold the administration of justice and the rule of law, and to ensure that the people who are selected for that high office are merit based and are fully eminent and capable of fulfilling that high office in its important function of protecting the rule of law in this country.

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I will confess absolute incredulity to that question. I agree that trial fairness is pivotal. The notion that we should intervene politically and dictate to an independent prosecution service what should be disclosed is called intervening in that trial. That renders null and void the trial fairness that the member opposite is seeking to uphold. That is not what we will do. That is not what any government or any parliamentarian should seek to do in this process or any other process.

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, as I have already said in response to the member for Durham, and I will repeat it again, this very matter that has been underscored by the member opposite is currently before the courts. It is important to let that court process unfold. She cited an application that has been made for third party records. That is exactly what has transpired. The Ontario Court of Justice is deliberating on that application. Justice lawyers and counsel for Mr. Norman are participating in that process.

We will not comment on that process because it is improper to do so. We will not interfere politically in a prosecution under the auspices of the Conservative Party's urging.

[Public Services and Procurement, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the issue of this matter, in respect to the important issue of Vice-Admiral Norman, is before the courts. The Ontario Court of Justice presently is deliberating on this very issue. We have an opposition day motion. We now have opposition questions. They are proposing questions that relate to that court process.

The reason why it is improper for both the questions and the responses to touch on that matter is that it could either improperly influence, or be seen to influence, that judge in his or her deliberations. We take the judge's role seriously, as should all members of this House.

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, let me explain this in crystal-clear words. The reason why we observe the sub judice convention is that currently in this proceeding, in the Ontario Court of Justice, a judge is deliberating about the records that the member has just raised. We do not want to actually influence or to be seen to be influencing that judge in their deliberations because that would be improper. It is improper for members of the government and improper for any members of this House.

The hon. member knows this, as did his former colleague, the hon. Peter Van Loan, who said, specifically, that members are expected to refrain from discussing such matters. That was the hon. Peter Van Loan. I perhaps urge the member opposite to listen to his former colleague.

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the prosecution in question that has been underscored here is being handled by the PPSC, which operates independently from the Department of Justice and the office of the Attorney General. Counsel to the Attorney General is fulfilling all its obligations before the court with respect to the ongoing third-party records application. It is absolutely improper to comment further on this issue, as the matter is before the courts. The member opposite knows this as a lawyer, and we will not, despite his pleadings, intervene in a matter and fetter the discretion of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the Department of Justice is deeply troubled by the publication of personal details concerning the recent selection process. What we can state is what has already been stated. The Prime Minister stated that the leak did not come from his office, and the Minister of Justice understands that the leak did not come from the justice minister's office either.

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, we underscore that Canadians should have complete confidence in the administration of justice and complete confidence in the selection process used for Supreme Court justices. It is merit-based and it considers Canada's finest jurors for the short list. We have taken great pains to ensure that the hon. Kim Campbell leads up that selection process. We have ensured the bilingualism of Canadian judges. What we will always do is defend that institution and its important role in our democracy and in upholding the rule of law.

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I will add to the response I just gave in French. We want to underscore that the integrity of the very process we are talking about depends on the confidentiality of all parties involved. As we have said, we are troubled by the publication of personal details about the Supreme Court justice selection process. It is unfair for any of the parties involved to see their names used this way in the media, and it is absolutely wrong to weaponize personal information for political purposes.

[Justice, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, we are very concerned about the release of details pertaining to the most recent Supreme Court of Canada justice selection process.

The appointment process is sound. It is merit-based and guarantees that our most eminent jurists are included on the short list. Let me reiterate that Canadians should have full confidence in the administration of justice.