Ralph Goodale

[Justice, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, again, I advise the hon. gentleman that his allegation is absurd.

[Justice, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has an allegation of wrongdoing or of criminal behaviour, he should provide that information to the RCMP. He should also have the courage to make the allegation outside the House.

[Justice, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, such an assertion is absolutely absurd. The fact is that there are legal procedures and processes that we have established in this country under our court system to pursue prosecutions and the defence of prosecutions. That is the forum in which these matters are dealt with. In the House of Commons, while the debate can get hot and furious at times, the fact is that matters that are sub judice must be left to the courts to deal with.

[Ethics, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, not only did former Minister Van Loan cite that particular rule on the occasion I referred to, on May 11, 2015, but in fact the sub judice principle was raised in the House by the former Conservative government, not once, not twice but over 300 times, when it was serving as the Government of Canada, and it was probably viewed rather favourably by the Speaker of the day.

[Ethics, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman is a very good friend of the much beloved Peter Van Loan. Mr. Van Loan would advise him, in the very words he used 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.” Those are the words of Peter Van Loan, on May 11, 2015, and they apply equally well today.

[Ethics, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, legal proceedings are conducted in courts of law. In the particular case referred to, the prosecution is very ably represented by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The defence counsel is obviously very adroit and a very accomplished professional. They have the rules of court. They have the laws of evidence. They have the normal procedures to follow. It is in a court of law, not on the floor of the House of Commons, that these matters should be prosecuted.

I would note that hon. members opposite do not have any mandate from either side in the issue to raise the issue here.

[Ethics, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member once again is pursuing a line of questioning that relates very directly to a matter that is outstanding before the courts.

As has been explained repeatedly in the House, when there is a matter such as that which is sub judice, it is not only inappropriate for ministers to respond, but it is inappropriate for the question to be placed, which could impinge upon an outstanding court proceeding.

[Justice, October 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to look into the circumstances of this particular case. I believe it may fall under provincial jurisdiction, but I will examine that.

The rules with respect to day parole that apply at the present time were in fact implemented through a legal framework under a private member's bill that was proposed by a member of the Conservative Party.

[Parliamentary Protective Service, October 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation in many ways may need to be amended, but I would note that the matter referred to by the hon. member is under the jurisdiction of the House and not under the jurisdiction of the government.

[Justice, October 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question indicates clearly, unequivocally and beyond all doubt that what he is referring to is a matter that is in fact sub judice. The rules that are pronounced by the table and the rules as articulated in the House by Mr. Van Loan are very clear. Whether the opposition wishes to persist in the line of questioning or not, that line of questioning is inappropriate and ministers are prevented from responding to those questions for fear of prejudicing the matter before the courts.