Madam Chair, I was not privy to that meeting. People have different practices with respect to the way they take part in meetings.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 43% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Madam Chair, I was not privy to that meeting. People have different practices with respect to the way they take part in meetings.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Madam Chair, I think the question is evidence as to why two-for-ones are never a good deal.
If there were two questions there, I reject the premise of both of them.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Madam Chair, I want to add one thing to the previous question. Cabinet privilege means I am not going to discuss whether we discussed it or did not discuss it. I would counsel the other side not to draw inferences other than that I am not going to answer the question because it might be covered by cabinet privilege.
With respect to justices, we have put together a process across Canada with judicial appointment committees in both Ontario and Alberta. We have made a number of appointments there. We are working through those appointments. We had a number of very good applicants, and we have made a number of outstanding appointments.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Madam Chair, that question would fall under the usual strictures of cabinet confidence.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Madam Chair, as I have said on a number of occasions this evening, I was not privy to the conversation in question. I have said publicly on more than one occasion that I have not felt any such pressure in this or any other matter.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Mr. Chair, I will neither agree nor disagree, because, as I have already said, anything I say in this matter could be used in ongoing court proceedings.
I will point out that there are competing versions of the interpretation of the Shawcross principle, and they were evident at the committee.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Mr. Chair, I do not believe I was minister at the time.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Mr. Chair, we have set up a rigorous process of judicial advisory committees across Canada that are made up of a variety of different people from different walks of life, including members of the bar. That is the first step, the first winnowing that allows candidates to progress.
The quality of our judicial appointments is outstanding. People are entitled to make contributions to political parties in Canada, and it is not a factor in their appointment.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Mr. Chair, I reject the premise of that question.
First, I do not believe I was ever someone who cited the jobs figure in any sort of way. Having been Minister of Justice and Attorney, I maintained a certain distance from the file for the same reasons I have already given this evening, which is there is ongoing litigation and anything I can say might have an impact on the course of the litigation, and therefore I will not say anything. It is covered by litigation privilege and the sub judice rule.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2019
Mr. Chair, once again, I would point out for the hon. member, as I pointed out a number of times this evening, that we put together a process. Our only role in the process, in the Department of Justice, was to meet the third party records obligations. We put together a process that was effective, fair, that identified this potential scope of documents and then put together a process that would then analyze the complexity in a non-partisan way, in the sense that the final decision was going to be an officer of the court.
I would remind hon. members that the court supervised this process.