Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2016-17 annual report of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the RCMP conducts its own investigations. The decision to collect evidence and to go see the Public Prosecution Service was made completely independently from the government. The PPSC is another institution that is completely independent from government.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to have signed a historic memorandum of understanding with the Government of Quebec to create an advisory board for Quebec. This board will reflect the province's unique legal tradition and ensure greater participation by its government in the selection process for Supreme Court judges from Quebec.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the RCMP is an independent body and chooses to investigate and gather evidence on its own, independently of government sources. With respect to documents, our government fulfilled all requests to the court for third party records applications.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we are the party of the charter, and we respect the fundamental rights of every Canadian. The bill is making its way through the parliamentary process of the National Assembly of Quebec. We will respect that process.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, our government defended the fundamental rights of every Canadian and will continue to do so. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects rights. We are the party of the charter. Our position is clear: we will defend rights. At this time, the debate will be held in Quebec by Quebeckers.

House debate  Madam Chair, not only is the hon. member wise, but he is also bilingual. I congratulate him for that. One of the many ways that this bill improves access to family justice is by making it easier for administrative services to carry out certain tasks that currently fall on the courts.

House debate  Madam Chair, the hon. member is the epitome of thoughtfulness. I think that has come out in his time in the House. The best interests of the child is a fundamental principle in family law that must be reinforced to ensure that the support and protection of our children are always paramount.

House debate  Madam Chair, I would remind the member that this particular matter is under the carriage of the Minister of Public Safety.

House debate  Madam Chair, I have said on a number of occasions that I will not enter into the to and fro of courtroom proceedings. A lot of things get said. What I will say, and what I have said a number of times this evening to the hon. member and the hon. member's colleagues, is that the director of public prosecutions has said on at least two occasions that there has been no interference whatsoever in this case, no political interference particularly, and the prosecutor of this case has also said that.

House debate  Madam Chair, I have said a number of times this evening that I was willing to read into the record the process that we put in place to respond to the third party demand for documentation. It was a rigorous process, and we were complimented at the end of it by the judge.

House debate  Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for his question and I thank him for shifting gears as well. I will say that he is well aware, with respect to the first part of his intervention, that the powers that are held by the director of public prosecutions with respect to deferred prosecution agreements and then those powers that are ultimately held by the attorney general are all described in the law.

House debate  Madam Chair, I cannot speak in any informed manner to any of the basic premises of that question because I was not party to the various conversations and circumstances that are leading the hon. member to draw certain conclusions. I would say that the government has conducted itself in the best possible fashion in a variety of different cases across the past three and a half years.

House debate  Madam Chair, any conversations that we would have had while my predecessor was still in cabinet would be matters of cabinet privilege.

House debate  Madam Chair, as I said in answer to an earlier question, I will not comment on the nature of the process with respect to SNC-Lavalin and DPAs because there is an ongoing appellate procedure, and anything I can say or do might be interpreted as having taken a stance in that matter.