Mr. Speaker, again, the innuendo that is buried in that question is absurd.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.
Justice October 30th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, again, the innuendo that is buried in that question is absurd.
Justice October 30th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, the innuendo in the hon. member's question is entirely inappropriate.
The hon. members opposite are not legal counsel. They are not legal agents in the outstanding prosecution. They have no standing with either the defence or the prosecution. They are not parties to the legal proceedings.
All members need to allow Canada's independent court system to do its job without partisan interference.
Justice October 30th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, there are obviously outstanding legal proceedings with respect to this matter. As has been explained in the House repeatedly, while those proceedings are outstanding, it is certainly inappropriate for the government to make comment on the proceedings. It is equally inappropriate for the opposition to press questions on that matter, because that has an interference with the judicial process, which members of Parliament are supposed to refrain from.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police October 30th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages the 2017 annual report on the RCMP's use of the law enforcement justification provisions.
Office of the Correctional Investigator October 30th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages today the 2017-18 annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator.
I am also tabling the response to one recommendation in that report that is directed to me in my capacity as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the response to one recommendation directed to the Department of Public Safety, as well as the response to the 19 recommendations that were directed in the report to the Correctional Service of Canada.
Ethics October 29th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, for a very good reason, we have an independent court system in this country. It indeed is the envy of the world.
The prosecution is in the hands of the independent Public Prosecution Service, which, incidentally, was created by Stephen Harper. The defence is in the hands of very competent defence counsel. They have mature rules of court and statutes to pursue. The two sides will pursue their interests, and justice will be done.
Ethics October 29th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, in this line of questioning over the last number of days and weeks, the official opposition has tried to meander around a lot of indirect insinuations and accusations. That is the very reason why Peter Van Loan said in the House, “It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice.”
The point is to protect the independence of the courts and to avoid these drive-by smears.
Ethics October 29th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. gentleman is pursuing a line of questioning which, according to the rules of the House, is inappropriate. One of the reasons for that is that criminal prosecutions in this country are handled completely independently of government. They are in the hands of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and indeed that service was created in 2006 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ensure independence and impartiality.
Ethics October 29th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, as has been explained in the House on numerous occasions, the matter being raised by the hon. gentleman relates to a matter that is now before the courts. When a matter is before the courts and therefore sub judice, according to the rules of the House, according to learned opinions by people like Peter Van Loan, for example, it is improper to ask questions about an outstanding court case and it is equally improper for ministers to endeavour to answer those questions.
Justice October 25th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, we are always very happy to work with members of the opposition in constructive legislative endeavours, but I would also invite the hon. gentleman to look at the other side of the question as well, and he will find that a pardon can be a very effective tool. It is cheaper, it is faster, there is no fee, there is no wait time, the record is sealed and segregated. It can be reopened only in extraordinary circumstances, such as the person reoffending and committing another offence, and the effect of a pardon is protected by the Canadian Human Right Act.