Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, I am painfully aware of the fact that we are debating a subamendment, but I thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for his desire to clarify the record. If he needs to rise on another point of order, I am sure he will feel free to do so. The point is that the member for Timmins—James Bay stood in the House just moments ago and asked a question of the member who just rose.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, I rise today to participate in this discussion. I will be frank in echoing the comments that were made by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. In the context of a debate we have had, which is an important debate and discussion, we have had fruitful testimony, justice committee hearings and an Ethics Commission investigator.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, it is important to underscore again the three amendments that were proposed. One is the addition of bestiality simpliciter; second is the addition of persons who are convicted of bestiality to the sex offender registry, and last was this prohibition order. This is important because it dovetails with some of the comments raised by members on the other side of the aisle, who were asking what we are doing to address the concerns of advocates in the area of animal cruelty.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke that the important aspect of the private member's bill initiated by the member for Beaches—East York is that it started an important debate that needed to take place in this chamber. I will readily admit, as I am sure most parliamentarians would, that we learned a lot, in the process of going from that bill to where we are with Bill C-84, about the need to update and improve our animal protection laws and to find consensus where consensus can be found.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, the question being raised by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is important. I have multiple responses. First, let us look at what is being addressed here. We are providing a concerted response to a Supreme Court decision that, incredibly, failed to convict an individual who committed an act of bestiality using his stepdaughter and his dog.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his work on the committee and for his role as vice-chair. The amendment proposed by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, which I noted in my opening remarks, was critical in terms of having the sex offender registry include, for the first time, bestiality simpliciter offences and that such offenders be registered in the same registry we have for other types of sexual assault not involving animals.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, this is my first time rising since the events on Friday. I want to state for the record my solidarity, and the solidarity of all parliamentarians, with the people of New Zealand and the Muslims who were killed and injured at the two mosques in Christchurch. I rise today to speak to Bill C-84.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we examine again the evidence that was received from the former attorney general who stated that the Prime Minister told her that it was her decision to take, who said that the PMO staff told her that they did not want to cross any lines, who stated that it was appropriate to discuss job impacts, who stated that nothing was unlawful and that she was never directed.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, as we have said in this chamber, it was extremely important not just for parliamentarians but for all Canadians to hear different perspectives on this matter, specifically the perspective of the former attorney general. That is why the government and the Prime Minister took the extremely historic step of waiving cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege, a privilege that all lawyers in this chamber know to be sacrosanct.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, the waiver of privilege in this context was wide and historic. It was wide insofar as it relieved the former attorney general from her cabinet confidence responsibilities as well as her solicitor-client responsibilities. What was not waived—and this is important for the other side and for all Canadians to understand—is the aspect of privilege that relates to two ongoing matters that are before the courts.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, this very important matter was raised in the House by members this morning. I would like to point out that the objective of the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada is to eliminate the negative consequences for the employees, customers or retirees of a given company.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, let us contemplate the reverse scenario. The reverse scenario would be if ministers, upon taking new appointments or changing portfolios, were not briefed. That would impede ministers in the execution of their functions and impede them in serving the public interest.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, upon his appointment, the minister was briefed on numerous files that relate to his portfolio. This is standard practice for all new ministers or ministers who change their portfolios.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, it was extremely important for the former attorney general to come to the committee and to share her views on this important issue. The waiver of cabinet confidences and of solicitor-client privilege is an exceptional form of relief, and it was provided here because all Canadians needed to hear the former attorney general speak to this important issue.

Justice  Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the House of Commons, the government's goal has been to allow the former minister to speak freely about the matters that relate to this issue that has been raised. The integrity of judicial proceedings is also a priority for our government. The waiver that has been provided does not cover any information shared by the director of public prosecutions with the former attorney general.