House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Privacy June 17th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. We are reviewing that decision, which was made on Friday.
The letter from the Supreme Court confirms what our government has been saying all along, which is that Bill C-13's proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant. It is absolutely essential to review this Supreme Court decision and pass this bill.
Privacy June 17th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, we received the Spencer decision from the Supreme Court a full two business days ago, but let me tell the member this. The Supreme Court's decision actually confirms what the government has said all along, that Bill C-13's proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant.
The Supreme Court's affirmation, in fact, of Mr. Spencer's conviction on possession of child pornography charges very much reinforces the long-held position of this government that children and Canadians in general must be protected from the scourge of cyberbullying, online criminality, and certainly sexual exploitation.
Justice June 17th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, this is coming from the architect of Kyoto and the stunning electoral victory of the Liberal Party, speaking of wrecking things.
As was already indicated, yesterday's comments had nothing to do with the Supreme Court of Canada. They had everything to do with the recent transfer, on request, of a Federal Court judge to the Quebec Court of Appeal. That has happened, and with respect to a Supreme Court appointment in the future, next December, to replace Mr. Justice LeBel, there is no process in place as yet.
Justice June 17th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, again, those are very convoluted, conspiratorial comments.
As the Prime Minister has just clearly indicated, this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court of Canada. This is about an appointment to the Quebec Court of Appeal. Mr. Justice Mainville, as I said yesterday, is an eminently qualified Quebec jurist, and under section 3 of the Judges Act, he is certainly qualified and eligible to join the Quebec Court of Appeal. We do not have a process in place to replace the Supreme Court judge next December.
Justice June 16th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her long-standing interest in this subject, to protect vulnerable Canadians and to protect communities. Those are the two goals, certainly among others, found in Bill C-36.
We intend to meet the deadlines that have been set by the Supreme Court in the Bedford decision and to do so in a way that we believe will improve the lives of those who choose to leave prostitution. We have put parameters in place designed specifically to protect the community, children in particular.
We hope that all members will support this effort, which will make Canadians safer.
Justice June 16th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I did not follow those mental gymnastics because the Superior Court of Quebec is a Supreme Court in the province. I would ask the member to go back and maybe read Hansard.
The reality is that we have a very capable individual here, who applied for and has now been appointed to the appeal court of the Superior Court of Quebec. I know he will provide tremendous service to our country, as he has through the Federal Court. I do not know why the opposition members spend so much time attacking the judiciary these days.
Justice June 16th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, insinuation and speculation is the mainstay of the NDP. Clearly this is an individual of outstanding legal merit, similar to Mr. Justice Nadon, who I remind the hon. member she referred to as an excellent jurist and a brilliant man.
This individual is the same. In fact, clearly, he is someone who was a member of the Quebec bar association for 33 years, in addition to sitting five years as a judge. She should get behind this individual and support him and his good work as a new appeal court judge in the province of Quebec.
Justice June 16th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, once again, the member is wrong.
It is in fact the reality that this individual is not only highly qualified but applied for this position.
It would be interesting for Quebecers to know that this member and her party seem to be continually taking the side of a Toronto defence lawyer who is standing up for Quebec.
Justice June 16th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, once again, we are not attacking anyone. We made a decision based on merit and legal excellence.
These appointments are vetted. These appointments come on application from individuals. The intention is always to have the best minds, those with the best ability, sitting in Quebec, as in all the superior courts of our country, and that includes the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition chooses to constantly try to politicize these issues.
Justice June 16th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, it appears the Leader of the Opposition is reading from one of his illegal handouts that came from one of his illegal offices.
As I said in French, our government is guided by merit and legal excellence. Mr. Mainville is an expert in public sector law negotiations, administrative law, and constitutional law. He lectured at McGill. He has been a member of the Quebec bar for 33 years and sat as a Federal Court judge for five years.
I believe his wealth of legal knowledge will be welcome at the Supreme Court and will be of significant benefit to the Quebec Court of Appeal.