House debate  Mr. Chair, as I described in a previous line of questioning, the Department of Justice set up a procedure with the court in order to fulfill its obligations with respect to third party records. That is all the Department of Justice was doing in this case. We identified over 140,000 potentially relevant documents in a variety of different places.

House debate  Mr. Chair, again, I do not accept the premise of the question. I point the hon. member to the statement by the director of public prosecutions herself. On at least two occasions she said there was no political interference in the case, and the prosecutor in the case also said that.

House debate  Mr. Chair, we are proud of Canada's diversity and inclusion. Our government believes that all Canadians should be safe to be themselves. In that regard, the major accomplishment was passing legislation that adds gender identity and expression as prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as adding gender identity and expression to the list of distinguishing characteristics of an identifiable group, so that they are protected by the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.

House debate  Mr. Chair, the law establishes baselines in things like the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, it is also the manner in which we interpret the law and the structures we put in place, not just to deal with transgressions but to deal with the victims and groups within society that are targeted.

House debate  Mr. Chair, the actual detail is that I was briefed on the Norman matter. I would remind my colleague that there was document disclosure between the prosecution and the defence in this matter. However, my department was only involved with respect to third party record applications.

House debate  Mr. Chair, I thank the member for giving me the answer to the previous question, as I had missed section 159. Our government is committed to reducing the stigma and discrimination experienced by people living with HIV or AIDS. That is why, on World AIDS Day, we were pleased to release our report on the criminal justice system's response to non-disclosure of HIV.

House debate  Mr. Chair, once again, I take note of the hon. member's question. I am aware that the OECD said it would follow it, but it is a fairly routine procedure for the OECD to look at a number of different cases in a number of different countries.

House debate  Mr. Chair, once again, these institutions in Canada are robust. We are very proud of the RCMP and the prosecution service, which is newer but was a welcome contribution from the Conservative government at the time. We think it was a good thing, and it is working well.

House debate  Mr. Chair, I was not minister of justice at the time, so I do not know the exact timing of what happened, and I have no comment on it.

House debate  Mr. Chair, I can say again that the director of public prosecutions has stated on at least two occasions that there was no political interference in the prosecution or the carriage of the case and the decision to stay the case, and the RCMP is fiercely independent in its investigative role.

House debate  Mr. Chair, once again, there has been, according to the actors in the system who manage the system, the director of public prosecutions and the RCMP, no political interference in this case, in their view.

House debate  Mr. Chair, as I have said on a number of occasions publicly, I have felt no pressure from anyone in cabinet or in the Prime Minister's Office to exercise my powers of directing a DPA in this particular case. If such pressure were to happen, I would immediately react. I cannot speak for what my predecessor felt.

House debate  Mr. Chair, that was certainly her statement. As I said, there are competing accounts. I was not privy to any of those discussions or conversations, and I do note that there were competing narratives.

House debate  Mr. Chair, again, I cannot comment, because I was not party to those conversations.

House debate  Mr. Chair, once again, there are perfectly compatible competing interpretations of events in which everyone is telling the truth.