David Lametti

[Justice, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the premise of that question is entirely false. As the director of public prosecutions has said on at least two occasions, as the prosecutor in question has said, there was no political interference in this case; there was no political interference in the decision to lay charges; there was no political interference in the decision to stay charges; and there was no political interference over the course of the trial.

This government produced documents as it was supposed to in accordance with the court orders. We did so in good faith. There are systems of governance in Canada; our judicial systems function well.

[Justice, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, as I just said, we are talking about over 8,000 documents from seven different government agencies. We co-operated with the court. We produced the documents in question. The decision to redact is made independently of political bodies.

In short, we co-operated, the system worked and we are proud of Canada's judicial system.

[Justice, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the Department of Justice co-operated with the court for the production of documents. We are talking about over 8,000 documents from seven different government agencies. The decision to redact is made independently of political bodies.

As counsel for Vice-Admiral Norman said, our justice system is “truly unassailable”. It has proven itself, our institutions have proven themselves and there was no interference from the government in this case.

[Justice, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, investigations are the realm of the RCMP in Canada, and it did that.

As the hon. member well knows, the decision to lay charges, to evaluate that evidence and lay charges, rests with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and that was done here, as was the decision to stay charges.

[Justice, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, we have full confidence in our government institutions, and they all functioned very well in this case. The RCMP investigated and laid charges. The investigation, the decision to lay charges and the prosecution were handled by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, as was the decision to stay charges.

All those decisions were made independently of the Department of Justice, of my office and of the Government of Canada. Our institutions are functioning well, and the rule of law is alive and well in Canada.

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I wondered what that whistling was in my ear. When took my earpiece out, I realized it was the hon. member.

I think Canadians expect us as a government to move forward with balanced debate, with respect for democracy, but also with the ability and the desire to get pieces of legislation through Parliament in order that they be enacted in law. Reflecting on that balance, the government feels it is time to move forward with the bill.

Again, I repeat. Because of the degree of agreement that exists in the House, because of the time taken, and because of the narrow scope of the bill, it is time to move forward. There has been ample opportunity to discuss the bill, debate the bill and amend the bill. I just cited a member opposite for his yeoman's work on the bill, and Canadians deserve to have the bill enacted because of the vices that it corrects.

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has brought up Bill C-75. We feel it is an outstanding piece of legislation that goes a long way toward improving the efficiency, fairness and speed, frankly, of our criminal justice system.

The unifying theme of Bill C-75 is, in fact, to make the criminal justice system more fair, more efficient and better working, particularly in light of rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada, such as Jordan, which force us to take those matters seriously.

The elements brought up in Bill C-84 do not have that same goal in mind, if I may, and therefore it is appropriate that Bill C-84 be part of a separate piece of legislation. It just did not fit in Bill C-75.

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2019]

It would be a pleasure to speak to that issue, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his work with that amendment. He rightly identified a gap in the previous legislation in which, although some events associated with bestiality could be caught under other sexual offences, bestiality simpliciter would not be caught. He rightly identified that and moved that forward in committee, and I thank him for that. It is a better bill because of that.

He is absolutely right that studies are now increasingly linking bestiality with other forms of sexual abuse, particularly with children, so it is important to move forward in a coherent and unified fashion.

Once again, I thank the member for his work on the bill. I thank him in particular for this particular amendment.

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the hon. member's wisdom in all matters procedural in this place.

I am in an awkward position to answer that question in the sense that I was not privy to the conversations and negotiations that were had in order to advance the agenda of this place as things move forward.

Although this is a small bill in terms of length, it is an important bill focusing on two kinds of activity, which we as Canadian society feel are reprehensible. Therefore we are taking strong measures against each of them in each case. Both were deemed important enough to be included in the bill. Both were deemed important enough to create a new government bill, and so we are moving forward with it because Canadian society wants us to.

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I share the substantive concern that the hon. leader of the Green Party is raising. I can speak to the bills that I am, as minister, shepherding through the House. Certainly, on Bill C-84, the process has worked in the sense that a number of very good amendments were made at committee stage and there was robust debate.

Both Bill C-75 and Bill C-78 have had a number of interesting discussions in the House. They have gone to the other place. We are thinking about amendments on them based on our work in this House and on what the Senate is doing.

The process is working. I think we are approaching it in good faith. The fact of the matter is that sometimes we run out of time, and we feel we have done that in this particular case.