Ralph Goodale

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on September 23, 2018, there were 17 offenders under the responsibility of CSC who were convicted of at least one terrorism-related offence. Fourteen of these offenders were in custody, and three were in the community under supervision.

“In custody” includes all active offenders incarcerated in a CSC facility, offenders on temporary absence from a CSC facility, offenders who are temporarily detained in a CSC facility and offenders on remand in a CSC facility.

“In the community under supervision” includes all active offenders on day parole, full parole, or statutory release in the community supervised on a long-term supervision order, offenders who are temporarily detained in a non-CSC facility, offenders who are unlawfully at large for less than 90 days, offenders on remand in a non-CSC facility, and offenders supervised and subject to an immigration hold by Canada Border Services Agency.

With regard to (b), for security reasons, any computers that can be accessed by inmates are not linked to CSC's security systems, external networks, or the Internet. Inmates incarcerated in federal correctional facilities have no access to the Internet or social media. As a result, should there be any online activity by an inmate, it is not occurring via a CSC computer.

CSC continues to manage the risks that computer access can pose on an ongoing basis, and current policy provides measures to detect any misuse of computers by inmates.

[Justice, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said from the very outset in this matter, this case is before the courts. We have an independent judicial system. It is up to representatives for the Crown and representatives for the defence to make their respective arguments in court, and the courts will determine the right way to proceed going forward. I would hazard a guess that the courts in this country do not need the assistance of the official opposition.

[Justice, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we have been saying for over a month that both sides in this legal proceeding, the prosecution and the defence, have competent, independent counsel. In the case of the prosecution, it is the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The defence obviously has very capable counsel. They will take the proceedings that they believe are relevant. The matter is in the hands of the judge in the case, and the judge will decide. That is how our court system works.

[Justice, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there is obviously an outstanding legal proceeding before the courts right now. The matter of the disclosure of documents is a matter the judge is seized of in that case. The various parties to the court proceeding will make their legal arguments, and the judge will decide with respect to issues such as privilege and confidence. It is in the hands of the courts, and that is where it should be determined.

[Public Safety, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, no, in fact, for quite some time now in the correctional system, Correctional Service of Canada has properly managed the use of EpiPens, for example, and insulin syringes.

There is well-established procedure for dealing with these circumstances in a safe way to prevent the spread of disease and to save lives. Public safety is what this is all about.

[Justice, November 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, all members of the House share the deep angst of the families who have tragically lost children to crime. That is why I asked for a thorough review by the corrections commissioner to ensure that long-standing policy in these matters has been followed, and to reassess the appropriateness of those policies to determine that they are, in fact, the right ones. The report was made available late yesterday. I am reviewing it at the moment. We all want this system to be as good as it can possibly be for the protection of the public.

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, again, the tactic being employed by the opposition is to drive by with smears and innuendoes. That is the very reason we have the sub judice rule in the House of Commons that members of Parliament should not ask questions and ministers should not answer questions that could somehow impinge upon an outstanding court proceeding. The court will determine what documents are relevant. The court will determine what rules of privilege and confidence apply. The court has the jurisdiction in this matter.

[Ethics, November 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, again, I presume the hon. gentleman's question relates to the issues presently before the courts. There is an outstanding legal proceeding before the courts and between the prosecution and Vice-Admiral Norman. The parties to that proceeding will seek disclosure of documents. That is routine. If any of those relevant documents are in the possession of the government, the government will provide them to the court, but it is up to the court to decide and not the House of Commons. The court will determine how to apply any rules with respect to privilege or confidence.

[Ethics, November 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen a demonstration of why these issues should be dealt with in courts of law, so we can avoid the innuendos and the drive-by smears. The fact of the matter is that the rules of court are there. The independent judiciary is there to manage these matters. Our distinguished law officers at the table have said very clearly, when matters of sub judice, they should not be the subject of either questions or answers in the House of Commons.

[Ethics, November 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, indeed there is no cover-up. The fact of the matter is that there are outstanding legal proceedings before the courts, including proceedings that will occur this very week on this very topic. The appropriate place for those issues to be resolved are in the courts of law.

The hon. members opposite do not have a mandate from either the prosecution or the defence to act in this matter. They should leave it to the legal counsel to follow the rules of court, follow the laws of evidence and allow the case to be decided in court appropriately.