Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act  Madam Speaker, I rise today to join this important debate on Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts with regard to ending the captivity of whales and dolphins. Both I and my constituents in Parkdale—High Park have anticipated this piece of legislation for some time since it moved from the Senate to this House.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act  Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the Green Party for her contribution to today's debate and for her contributions every day in the House. They are always welcome and always to the point. I want to ask her about an important aspect she mentioned in her comments today on Bill S-203.

Democratic Reform  Madam Speaker, in all fairness, we will take no lessons from the other side about making changes to the electoral system. The legacy of the unfair elections act has been long, and we heard about it extensively in 2015. We acted promptly to deal with it. With respect to the social media platforms and the position they are taking today, we find that disappointing.

Democratic Reform  Madam Speaker, we categorically reject the premise of that entire question. First, Bill C-76 was fundamental to ensuring the stability of the democracy in this country in response to the unfair elections act. Second, when we are talking about elections and electoral fairness, we need to talk about online platforms, including social media companies.

Parliamentary Internship Programme  Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you will find agreement for the following motion regarding the parliamentary internship programme, of which I am a proud former intern: That the House: a) recognize the fiftieth anniversary of the Parliamentary Internship Programme, founded in 1969 through a motion of this House, which operates on a non-partisan basis under the auspices of the Speaker, and is administered by the Canadian Political Science Association; b) congratulate the ten current interns, alumni, and staff of the Parliamentary Internship Programme; and c) reaffirm its support for this outstanding experience for young professionals to learn about and participate in Parliament.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, let us hear what the actual director had to say: No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political influence in either the initial decision to prosecute Mr. Norman or in the decision to stay the charge today.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, what I can say in response to that question is that the investigation was handled by the RCMP. The decision to prosecute was made by the director herself. The decision to stay the charges was made by the director herself. I want to highlight the comments of Mr. Norman's counsel once again.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, it is quite unfortunate that it has come to this. In the last four months we have had two occasions when the director of public prosecutions has felt it incumbent upon herself to issue public statements about non-interference. The first was in February, when she talked about comments that related to a different matter that was being elaborated on in this House.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, the minister played no role in the decision to stay proceedings. He was not aware of the decision made by the director of public prosecutions in this case. The PPSC acts independently, but in this case, it is acting on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, which, under the Criminal Code, is responsible for overseeing the case.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, once again, I will emphasize three key points. First, the decision to investigate was made by the RCMP. Second, the decision to lay a charge was made by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Third, the decision to withdraw the charge was also taken by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, the question of political interference was raised a number of times by the director herself, yesterday. I just read her comments into the record. What I can say about the investigation and the legal process is that the government fulfilled all its obligations. All the documents from the individuals identified by the defence were submitted to the court.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, I respect the member's service to this country, as we all respect Vice-Admiral Norman's. However, what I can underscore and perhaps elaborate for her is how the legal process works. The legal process conducts itself in an independent manner. When requests for documents are made, we identify the documents.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is a lawyer and shares the same profession as me. Therefore, he should know that when we investigate a charge, that is done by law enforcement, and in this case the RCMP. He should know that when we lay a charge that it is sent by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, an entity that his party created while in power.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, in different contexts, I have a lot respect for the member opposite for the advocacy he does for the men and women in uniform in the country. However, it is important to underscore that there are men and women in uniform, namely the RCMP, who took charge of the very investigation that the member is impugning.

National Defence  Mr. Speaker, since 2015, Canada has re-emerged as a significant contributor to the international community. Canadians across the country know how essential the brave members of the Canadian Armed Forces are to the collective security of our allies. They speak to me about our support for Ukraine through our renewal of Operation Unifier, about our work on peacekeeping training in Poland and about Canada's role as the leader of the multinational NATO battle group in Latvia as part of Operation Reassurance.