House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 43% of the vote.
Justice May 14th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in our judicial and parliamentary institutions. The process was designed to make sure that the defendant had every opportunity to access the information relevant to his case and to challenge any decision not to disclose part or all of some document. Canadians can rest assured that this process worked and that the justice system is intact.
As Vice-Admiral Norman's own counsel said, “our justice system is truly unassailable.”
Justice May 14th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, my department's only involvement was to provide government records in response to a request from the defence to help support the defence of Vice-Admiral Norman. The Department of Justice processed these 52 requests on behalf of seven departments.
The process of determining whether documents were relevant and whether any redactions were necessary was made and conducted by civil servants and then verified by the court. It was up to the court to make the final decision as to whether or not information would be redacted, not the government.
Justice May 14th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, the government met all of its obligations with respect to the third party records applications. All documents in this case for priority individuals identified in February by the defence were provided to the court as required.
During this case, more than 8,000 documents from this government organization were submitted to the court. The decision to redact information was made by public servants and overseen by the court.
Justice May 14th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the government met all of its obligations with respect to the third party records applications. All documents in this case for priority individuals identified in February by the defence were provided to the court, over 8,000 documents from seven different departments. As the Prime Minister has just said, the decision to redact information was made by public servants in this case, and overseen by the court. We met all our obligations.
Justice May 13th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, it is a curious question with an accusation that is baseless.
In fact, in this particular case, the PPSC was acting independently of the federal government because the supervisory role in this case, under the Criminal Code, was actually held by the Attorney General for Ontario.
The director of public prosecutions and the prosecutor in question have said that there was no contact or government interference in this case.
Justice May 13th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, all the various premises of that question are categorically false.
The Department of Justice co-operated with the court in order to provide the requested documents. The documents that were requested were given, more than 8,000 of them from seven different agencies. Of course that takes time. The redaction was done independently of political bodies.
The court itself cited the government and its co-operation in this matter.
Justice May 13th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, there were requests from the court, and we provided the court with more than 8,000 documents from seven different government agencies. In fact, the court complimented us on our co-operation in this matter. The decision to redact those documents was made not by the government but by an apolitical agency.
Canadians can be assured that our judicial system, our prosecution system, operates completely independent of government, and we can be proud of this.
Justice May 13th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, the investigation in question was led by the RCMP, an institution that we, in Canada, are very proud of. The RCMP turned the evidence it collected over to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, another institution that we are very proud of. This was a criminal prosecution led by the director of the Public Prosecution Service and she was the one who decided to stay the charges. There was no interference.
Justice May 13th, 2019
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. As we have said a number of times on this side of the House, we have full faith in our institutions in Canada.
The charges in question were laid by the prosecution service by the director of public prosecutions. The process was managed by the prosecution service of Canada, and the stay was decided by the prosecution service of Canada. The evidence was gathered by the RCMP. It was turned over to the prosecution service of Canada.
The director of public prosecutions as well as the prosecutor in this case have both stated that there was no government interference or contact.
Justice May 10th, 2019
Madam Speaker, as I have said a number of times in this House and outside this House, it is the RCMP that investigates in such matters. The RCMP investigated and turned evidence over to the prosecution service. It is the prosecution service of Canada, which operates independently of government, that evaluated the evidence and decided to lay charges, proceeded with the trial and ultimately decided to stay charges.
All of this was undertaken independently of the government. There was no political interference, as the member herself said.