House debate  Madam Chair, the hon. member is a lawyer who will understand that when I say, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that I will not make any pronouncement about my own interpretation in that regard, it is simply because there is ongoing litigation. There is an appeal process before the Federal Court.

House debate  Madam Chair, I do not give advice to Parliament as such. I will note that there were different interpretations of the Shawcross principle that were given at committee, and he can read those opinions and form an opinion on his own.

House debate  Madam Chair, again, I will not elaborate on either the powers in this particular instance of the DPP or the powers in this particular instance of the attorney general, as elaborated in the law, simply because anything I can say might be interpreted and used in the course of the appellate proceedings.

House debate  Madam Chair, again, I will not agree or disagree in this kind of proceeding, because anything that I can say might be used in the course of litigation. I will remind the hon. member that there were various interpretations of the Shawcross principle, and that was one of them.

House debate  Madam Chair, I thank the hon. member for his work on the justice committee and, indeed, for Bill C-417, which our government supported. It is one of the first things I did when I became the newly appointed minister of justice to make sure that we supported that bill, with the support of the chair of the justice committee as well.

House debate  Madam Chair, it is my understanding that the majority of members on the justice committee felt they had heard enough. There were competing narratives and competing interpretations of the Shawcross principle. I know that the Ethics Commissioner is enquiring into the matter. We have every confidence that the Ethics Commissioner has a number of very important powers for investigating the matter and look forward to that report by an independent officer of Parliament.

House debate  Madam Chair, while what the hon. member said is true to an extent, the Ethics Commissioner does have significant powers to shed light on this matter. We had testimony before the justice committee that gave competing versions of events. As I said earlier this evening, it is quite possible that all of the deeply beliefs in those competing narratives are true in some way.

House debate  Madam Chair, as I said, it was a breakfast meeting where we discussed a number of legal issues.

House debate  Madam Chair, as I said, it was a breakfast meeting, and we discussed several issues.

House debate  Madam Chair, I have nothing to offer the hon. member on that.

House debate  Madam Chair, as I said before the committee, the answer is no.

House debate  Madam Chair, as I said earlier this evening, I met informally with Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques during my first cabinet meeting, but I never spoke with Mr. Butts.

House debate  Madam Chair, as I said publicly and before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the answer is no.

House debate  Madam Chair, as I have said a number of times this evening, I will not comment on this issue. As Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice, I might influence a matter before the courts. I will therefore not answer the question.

House debate  Madam Chair, as I said earlier this evening, this issue is a matter of cabinet confidence. This does not mean we discussed it. We did not discuss it, and I will not discuss it. That is all.