Arif Virani

Madam Speaker, forced sterilization of any woman is absolutely unacceptable. Our government believes firmly that everyone must receive culturally safe health services, no matter where they live. The coerced sterilization of indigenous women is a serious violation of human rights and completely unacceptable. We are taking a public health approach to this issue, as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services. We are investing in public health approaches in indigenous communities. The existing provisions in the Criminal Code do capture a broad range of criminal behaviour, including coerced sterilization.

Mr. Speaker, the deaths that occurred on 9/11 as a result of an unspeakable act of terror at the hands of al Qaeda were a tragedy. I apologize for not being more sensitive at the standing committee to Mrs. Basnicki, a 9/11 widow, about her loss. Nevertheless, I remain firm in my conviction that all Canadians should also be outraged whenever a government is complicit in the torture of a Canadian citizen, in direct violation of the Charter of Rights, no matter how heinous that citizen's crimes. When that complicity in torture occurs, a government should acknowledge it and take responsibility for it, as we have done.

Mr. Speaker, neither the current Minister of Justice nor the former minister of justice has been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office to take a decision on this or any other matter. As the Prime Minister was very clear yesterday with the journalists gathered in Vaughan, Ontario, the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail article are false.

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.The purpose of these amendments to the Criminal Code and all measures we introduce is to protect workers and to convict and make liable the executives of any company.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm in the House that this government takes the issue of sex trafficking and trafficking in general with the utmost seriousness. We will always address this issue with the utmost concern. We will take the member's comments into consideration with respect to our negotiations, both in what we are doing domestically and in what we are doing internationally.A report is coming through from the Standing Committee on Justice on human trafficking, including sex trafficking. We wait eagerly for the results of that committee's recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate for the House that at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone else in his office to make a decision on this or any other matter. As the Prime Minister said very clearly yesterday to the journalists gathered, the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail article are false.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the opposition critic and her concern for the welfare of refugees in our country. We obviously share that concern. Our government shares it. I share it as a refugee myself. However, I find it highly implausible and a bit, let us say, inconsistent for that party to talk about the quality of life for our refugees when it eliminated health care for refugee applicants, in violation of the charter, when it was in office.

Madam Speaker, we completely agree with the party opposite that the situation right now is completely unacceptable, not only to indigenous women, but also to all women in Canada.As I said, the existing provisions in the Criminal Code capture a broad range of criminal behaviour, including this situation.That includes the situation vis-à-vis coerced sterilization with respect to indigenous women, which has been highlighted, which needs to be addressed and will be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I too have sat here attentively during the full hour of question period. I will say, again, that at no point were the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office to make any decision on this or any other matter. As I have reiterated, the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail article, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday, are false.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the documents and the policy he referred to, it is extremely important to emphasize the truth for those Canadians watching us on television. There are three criteria for these agreements.First, there must be an admission of responsibility. Second, a penalty must be paid. Third, they must pay victim restitution. Fourth, they must co-operate with ongoing investigations. These agreements are not about get out of jail free cards; they are about holding corporate directors responsible for corporate wrongdoing.We agree with the member opposite that those people need to be held accountable, and they are.

Madam Speaker, the answer to that is no. Again, I am refreshed by the fact that a member of the Conservative opposition is actually citing an Islamic-based organization in Edmonton to support his proposition. If we recollect, our position was not only to accept 25,000 refugees into our country by February 29, but also to accept them no matter what race, religion or perhaps persuasion they came from. This is a distinct contrast to the policy of the previous government, which cherry-picked religious minorities to the detriment of Sunni Muslims.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and the former minister of justice have not been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's cabinet on this or any other matter.As the Prime Minister said very clearly yesterday in front of a media scrum, the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail article are false.

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the decision that was rendered yesterday in a matter that is currently before the court. That was a preliminary inquiry about an evidentiary threshold in an ongoing criminal matter.It would be entirely inappropriate for me as parliamentary secretary, or indeed for any member of Parliament, to comment on an ongoing criminal matter. I will refrain from doing so.

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. Finally, he should know that when a decision is made to withdraw a charge or stay it, that is also done by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. All of those entities, and all of those steps were taken independently, as they should be in the country.

Madam Speaker, the issue of this matter, in respect to the important issue of Vice-Admiral Norman, is before the courts. The Ontario Court of Justice presently is deliberating on this very issue. We have an opposition day motion. We now have opposition questions. They are proposing questions that relate to that court process.The reason why it is improper for both the questions and the responses to touch on that matter is that it could either improperly influence, or be seen to influence, that judge in his or her deliberations. We take the judge's role seriously, as should all members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that is an absolute misconstruction of what is actually taking place. There is a court that is dealing with a third party records application. We have heard the court order. We are co-operating with that court order, as any government would. We provided the documents. It is now for a judge in the Ontario court to decide whether our co-operation has been sufficient or is deficient. It is for a judge to determine this matter. It is not to be debated in the House of Commons nor is it to be determined by a political actor. That is what the independence of the rule of law is all about. That is what I would urge the Conservatives to respect.

Madam Speaker, I will add to the response I just gave in French. We want to underscore that the integrity of the very process we are talking about depends on the confidentiality of all parties involved. As we have said, we are troubled by the publication of personal details about the Supreme Court justice selection process. It is unfair for any of the parties involved to see their names used this way in the media, and it is absolutely wrong to weaponize personal information for political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the government is very much looking forward to hosting the first three amigos summit on Canadian territory in some time, an event that was cancelled by the previous government when relationships were so frayed that a meeting was not be possible. However, at that meeting, we are looking forward to meeting our campaign commitment, which is to lift the Mexican visa. We are undertaking the reviews necessary to ensure this is done appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, at absolutely no point has the previous minister or the current minister been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister himself or any members of his office to make any decision on this or any other matter. As the Prime Minister said clearly yesterday to the gathered journalists, the allegations contained in the original media article are false.

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. The reason the Minister of Border Security was so appalled by this line of questioning is that members should not impugn the integrity of the people who are leading the judicial system or who are independent officials. Second, members should not impugn the integrity of people who do not have a chance to stand up in this House and defend themselves. I will do it for them. The director of public prosecutions operated independently at all times.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, it is a tremendous day to be a Canadian.Over the past two days, our government and our leader have been celebrated and welcomed by the UN and by the president for our refugee resettlement efforts.Thousands of Canadians got involved and actively participated in integrating Syrian refugee families. Now, 13 other countries want to learn from Canada's experience. Today, we are proud to launch the global private sponsorship partnership with the UN and George Soros.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Vegreville is not one of job loss, but of job maintenance, and in fact job creation. The individuals in Vegreville will have their positions secured in Edmonton. In addition, in moving the processing centre to Edmonton we will increase efficiencies, reduce processing times, and make that centre more able to employ more Albertans.What we are doing for the people of Vegreville is reaching out to the member opposite and the mayor the town to facilitate that transition, and we continue to look forward to executing that in the coming days and months ahead.

Madam Speaker, the answer to that is simple. We concentrated on government-assisted refugees because we take seriously the duty of care that Canada has on the international stage to respond to a national and international humanitarian crisis. To purport that these individuals are being left unattended to or unsupported by the government is simply incorrect. The statistics speak to $600 million of settlement funding directed at the refugees themselves. Are there barriers along the way? Of course. Are there challenges we are trying to address? Of course. We are doing that in solidarity with Canadians who believe in this effort and believe in this government's response.

Madam Speaker, we underscore that Canadians should have complete confidence in the administration of justice and complete confidence in the selection process used for Supreme Court justices. It is merit-based and it considers Canada's finest jurors for the short list. We have taken great pains to ensure that the hon. Kim Campbell leads up that selection process. We have ensured the bilingualism of Canadian judges. What we will always do is defend that institution and its important role in our democracy and in upholding the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to walk the member opposite through this process. A demand is made for third-party records; 144,000 are identified. Then we cull that group to see which ones are responsive; 8,000 are then deemed responsive. Then claims of cabinet confidence are made, not by members of the political staff but by civil servants in this country, and when those claims of privilege are made, the court then verifies if they are valid or invalid. This happens every day in litigation around this country. There is nothing different in this case from any other. However, the most important thing that did not happen is that there was never a decision by a political person to interfere in this matter or any other matter.

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. He is impugning the law enforcement officials and the independence of their work. Who the member should also listen to is not just from our side of the House, but the defence counsel for Admiral Normal who said “The decision to stay this prosecution...was discretion exercised by prosecutors and the (Director of Public Prosecutions), unimpacted by any political considerations, as it should be.”

Mr. Speaker, I will note that this government and our country stands for values of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity. As proof positive, I have been appointed and have the honour to serve with the Minister of Canadian Heritage as the parliamentary secretary for multiculturalism. We will be entrenching those values in all of the policies we implement, including policies that will promote these important values going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform the House that we are meeting this important campaign commitment. Bill C-24, enacted by the previous Conservative government, set a very dangerous precedent. It created two tiers of citizenship in this country. Regardless of whether one is born here or whether abroad, like myself and many members of the House, we deserve a government that values and respects our citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. The Liberal Party believes this. Canadians recognize this. With Bill C-6, we will be implementing this important fundamental principle and putting it back into our immigration system.

Madam Speaker, as I have already said in response to the member for Durham, and I will repeat it again, this very matter that has been underscored by the member opposite is currently before the courts. It is important to let that court process unfold. She cited an application that has been made for third party records. That is exactly what has transpired. The Ontario Court of Justice is deliberating on that application. Justice lawyers and counsel for Mr. Norman are participating in that process. We will not comment on that process because it is improper to do so. We will not interfere politically in a prosecution under the auspices of the Conservative Party's urging.

Madam Speaker, let me explain this in crystal-clear words. The reason why we observe the sub judice convention is that currently in this proceeding, in the Ontario Court of Justice, a judge is deliberating about the records that the member has just raised. We do not want to actually influence or to be seen to be influencing that judge in their deliberations because that would be improper. It is improper for members of the government and improper for any members of this House. The hon. member knows this, as did his former colleague, the hon. Peter Van Loan, who said, specifically, that members are expected to refrain from discussing such matters. That was the hon. Peter Van Loan. I perhaps urge the member opposite to listen to his former colleague.

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. She said: The decision to stay this prosecution was discretion exercised by prosecutors and the DPP, unimpacted by any political considerations, as it should be. She further underscored that that is in fact how things are supposed to work. I agree with her assessment.

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.Third, regarding notice to those companies, they have had adequate and ample notice.Fourth, the resources of those companies are larger than those of most nations on this planet, for goodness' sake. To purport that they have not had the ability to address these issues is absolutely and categorically false.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I feel I should make it clear that we are following the rule of law in the Norman case. We are complying with all of the judge's orders and co-operating fully. I would emphatically reiterate that it is important to let the Ontario judge play her role independently. Interfering in this matter, as the Conservatives are now urging us to do, would be a clear violation of the rule of law. We want to obey the law, as every parliamentarian must.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her question.I want to point out the facts and the exact figures. These are the facts: first of all, we carried out consultations and vetted the candidates carefully; second, we appointed judicial candidates from any Canadian political party. The third thing I want to emphasize is this. Seventy-five per cent of the people named as judges in this country have no affiliation to, or donation history with, the Liberal Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, changes in the way Canadians access content have disrupted many business models. The reality is that the benefits of the digital world are not shared equally between the web giants and our artists, journalists, and creators. Our government wants to level the playing field among the stakeholders involved. That is why we will be making amendments to our legislation to adapt it to the digital reality. This includes a review of the Broadcasting Act. We strongly believe in protecting our culture and promoting access to Canadian content on all platforms.

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current minister or his predecessor been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or members of his office to make any decision in this or any other matter. Absolutely, the member opposite has it right. The attorney general is the chief law officer of the Crown. Absolutely, they provide legal advice to government and they have a responsibility to act in the public interest. That is something the minister takes very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation with the Barreau du Québec. Some organizations decided to take legal action, and that is their choice. As this matter is now before the courts, we have no further comment.

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. We know these social media platforms have the resources and the ability to take action, and to take action now. We know that Bill C-76 was given first reading well over a year ago and its long endurance within this Parliament is largely due to the blockage of that legislation by the Conservative Party at PROC.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member opposite for that question and also for raising that unanimous consent motion in this House. When it is endorsed by this House, it is endorsed by every member of this House. That is the first point.The second point, and it needs to be restated, is that there are three important factors here. The people who decide to lay charges are the independent RCMP officers, whom we respect and I hope all members respect. The second point is that the people who decide to lay charges are the independent director of public prosecutions, and the people who decide to withdraw charges are also the independent DPP.

Mr. Speaker, at no time was the current Minister of Justice or his predecessor pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or his office to make any decision on this or any other matter. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, these allegations are false.

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.Most importantly, what she said is that, “I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors is intact.”

Mr. Speaker, the issue of food security is an important one for all Canadians, newcomers and people who have been here for several generations. Have there been some issues with refugees using food banks? Indeed, there has. Are we working hard on those issues? Indeed, we are. We have secured housing for refugees. We are working on securing jobs for them. I put it to my friend opposite, if we had no plan, then I am wondering why the UN is studying our position at the refugee summit on this very day.

Mr. Speaker, I take great issue with actually challenging a unanimous consent motion that was delivered on behalf of this Parliament through you, Mr. Speaker, and which represents every member of this Parliament. However, the most important thing is that the Conservatives continue to assert political interference when that was not the case. Second, as I explained in French and will explain again to the member in English so that she can fully understand it, is that in this case, the director of public prosecutions was acting in the name of the Attorney General of Ontario, and in that event, if there could have been any direct political involvement, it would have been done by the attorney general of the province and not by the Attorney General of Canada.

Madam Speaker, we were proud to stand with members of both sides of this House to inaugurate the national Holocaust monument to commemorate survivors, and the six million Jewish people, as well as other victims, who were murdered during the Holocaust. We also plan to stand in solidarity in the fight against anti-Semitism, and all forms of racism.Our government is committing to building a more inclusive society. The National Capital Commission, which is an independent crown corporation, is responsible for the day-to-day operations, management, maintenance, and safety of the monument.

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.Yesterday, the director of public prosecutions said there had been no contact or influence from outside the PPSC on either the initial decision or the decision to stay the charge.

Madam Speaker, the prosecution in question that has been underscored here is being handled by the PPSC, which operates independently from the Department of Justice and the office of the Attorney General. Counsel to the Attorney General is fulfilling all its obligations before the court with respect to the ongoing third-party records application. It is absolutely improper to comment further on this issue, as the matter is before the courts. The member opposite knows this as a lawyer, and we will not, despite his pleadings, intervene in a matter and fetter the discretion of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

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. Decisions as to what is redacted and what is covered by cabinet confidences are made independent of political actors, as they should be.Furthermore, we do not intervene in that judicial process, because we safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. That is the way the system is supposed to work, and that is something I would hope all members of this House would appreciate and protect.

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.It is also important to note what the director of public prosecutions said in her own words, which is, and I quote:“No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political—

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office to make any decision on this or any other matter.It does indeed warm my heart to now hear two Conservative colleagues talking about how important the rule of law is. I wish they would have recognized those kinds of concepts when they were openly criticizing Beverley McLachlin when she served as Chief Justice of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of respect for Mr. Norman and for any man or woman who works for Canada, such as police officers or members of the RCMP.There was no political interference in this file. That would be impossible because, in this instance, the DPP was working on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario.If hon. members have any questions they can ask Ms. Mulroney.

Mr. Speaker, at no time was the current Minister of Justice or his predecessor pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or his office to make any decision on this or any other matter. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, these allegations are false.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it draws attention to a very serious situation.We, government members, along with all other members of the House and all Canadians stand in solidarity with the Muslim community and the friends and families of those who lost their lives last Sunday.We know that Quebeckers and other Canadians espouse the values of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity that Canada is known for.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the Department of Justice is deeply troubled by the publication of personal details concerning the recent selection process. What we can state is what has already been stated. The Prime Minister stated that the leak did not come from his office, and the Minister of Justice understands that the leak did not come from the justice minister's office either.

Madam Speaker, I will add to the response I just gave in French. We want to underscore that the integrity of the very process we are talking about depends on the confidentiality of all parties involved. As we have said, we are troubled by the publication of personal details about the Supreme Court justice selection process. It is unfair for any of the parties involved to see their names used this way in the media, and it is absolutely wrong to weaponize personal information for political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of respect for Mr. Norman and for any man or woman who works for Canada, such as police officers or members of the RCMP.There was no political interference in this file. That would be impossible because, in this instance, the DPP was working on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario.If hon. members have any questions they can ask Ms. Mulroney.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague opposite. I work very hard to stand up for both official languages in the House. At no point has the Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office to make any decision on this or any other matter.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Romania, as well as Bulgaria, because the two go part and parcel in terms of dealing with the EU, we take our commitment to the EU and our relationship with the EU very seriously. The steps we are taking are that we are engaging in dialogue with both Romanian and Bulgarian officials. The minister has met with such individuals, as have I. In fact, the Romanian delegation is here today.We are taking this situation very seriously in terms of expanding a dialogue to address the visa issue so we can move forward with a productive relationship.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the previous minister of justice and the current Minister of Justice, there has been absolutely no pressure or direction exercised upon either of those two individuals by the Prime Minister himself or by anyone in his cabinet, on this or any other matter. The allegations contained in the media articles that surfaced yesterday are false, as the Prime Minister stated clearly to journalists in Vaughan.

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.The purpose of these amendments to the Criminal Code and all measures we introduce is to protect workers and to convict and make liable the executives of any company.

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the decision that was rendered yesterday in a matter that is currently before the court. That was a preliminary inquiry about an evidentiary threshold in an ongoing criminal matter.It would be entirely inappropriate for me as parliamentary secretary, or indeed for any member of Parliament, to comment on an ongoing criminal matter. I will refrain from doing so.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and the former minister of justice have not been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's cabinet on this or any other matter.As the Prime Minister said very clearly yesterday in front of a media scrum, the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail article are false.

Madam Speaker, we heard the opinions of Quebeckers and Canadians everywhere. As part of our #DigiCanCon consultations, we heard from over 30,000 people from across the country. It was obvious that they want a government that finally cares about the arts and supports Canadian culture. We listened and we took action.We have invested $2.2 billion in arts and culture, the largest investment in the G7 and the largest investment in the past 30 years in Canada. This is about investing in our creators and promoting their stories and Canadian content around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the deaths that occurred on 9/11 as a result of an unspeakable act of terror at the hands of al Qaeda were a tragedy. I apologize for not being more sensitive at the standing committee to Mrs. Basnicki, a 9/11 widow, about her loss. Nevertheless, I remain firm in my conviction that all Canadians should also be outraged whenever a government is complicit in the torture of a Canadian citizen, in direct violation of the Charter of Rights, no matter how heinous that citizen's crimes. When that complicity in torture occurs, a government should acknowledge it and take responsibility for it, as we have done.

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate for the House that at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone else in his office to make a decision on this or any other matter. As the Prime Minister said very clearly yesterday to the journalists gathered, the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail article are false.

Mr. Speaker, neither the current Minister of Justice nor the former minister of justice has been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office to take a decision on this or any other matter. As the Prime Minister was very clear yesterday with the journalists gathered in Vaughan, Ontario, the allegations contained in The Globe and Mail article are false.

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. We know these social media platforms have the resources and the ability to take action, and to take action now. We know that Bill C-76 was given first reading well over a year ago and its long endurance within this Parliament is largely due to the blockage of that legislation by the Conservative Party at PROC.

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. The reason the Minister of Border Security was so appalled by this line of questioning is that members should not impugn the integrity of the people who are leading the judicial system or who are independent officials. Second, members should not impugn the integrity of people who do not have a chance to stand up in this House and defend themselves. I will do it for them. The director of public prosecutions operated independently at all times.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times in this chamber today, at no point whatsoever were the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office to make a decision on this or any other matter. I have been patient, but at least half a dozen times members opposite have said that the former minister was fired in the context of accepting the honour of taking on serving Canada's veterans. In terms of the men and women who have fought for this country and served so valiantly, that is actually an inappropriate statement to be making in the House and it should be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or his predecessor been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in his office to make a decision on this or any other matter.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, at no point was the current Minister of Justice or his predecessor pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or his office to make a decision on this or any other matter.

Madam Speaker, the answer to that is simple. We concentrated on government-assisted refugees because we take seriously the duty of care that Canada has on the international stage to respond to a national and international humanitarian crisis. To purport that these individuals are being left unattended to or unsupported by the government is simply incorrect. The statistics speak to $600 million of settlement funding directed at the refugees themselves. Are there barriers along the way? Of course. Are there challenges we are trying to address? Of course. We are doing that in solidarity with Canadians who believe in this effort and believe in this government's response.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. At no point has the current Minister of Justice or his predecessor been directed or pressured by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office to make a decision on this or any other matter. The Attorney General of Canada is the chief law officer of the Crown and provides legal advice to the government, with a responsibility to act in the public interest. He takes his responsibilities very seriously.

Madam Speaker, forced sterilization of any woman is absolutely unacceptable. Our government believes firmly that everyone must receive culturally safe health services, no matter where they live. The coerced sterilization of indigenous women is a serious violation of human rights and completely unacceptable. We are taking a public health approach to this issue, as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services. We are investing in public health approaches in indigenous communities. The existing provisions in the Criminal Code do capture a broad range of criminal behaviour, including coerced sterilization.

Mr. Speaker, at absolutely no point has the previous minister or the current minister been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister himself or any members of his office to make any decision on this or any other matter. As the Prime Minister said clearly yesterday to the gathered journalists, the allegations contained in the original media article are false.

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been directed or pressured by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office to make any decision on this or any other matter. The Attorney General of Canada is the chief law officer of the Crown and provides legal advice to the government, with a responsibility to act in the public interest. He takes those responsibilities very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone else in the Prime Minister's Office, and let me reiterate that, or anyone else in the Prime Minister's Office, to make any decision on this or any other matter. The Attorney General of Canada is the chief law officer of the Crown and provides legal advice to the entire Government of Canada. He has the responsibility to act in the public interest and that responsibility is one he takes very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, the remediation agreements the member opposite is referencing are something that were widely consulted upon by the Government of Canada. That process was led by PSPC. That consultation concluded during the year 2017. There was an announcement made in the budget. There was a press release. There was a study done at committee. The government has been entirely transparent with respect to amendments we have made to the laws of Canada with respect to remediation.

Madam Speaker, we completely agree with the party opposite that the situation right now is completely unacceptable, not only to indigenous women, but also to all women in Canada.As I said, the existing provisions in the Criminal Code capture a broad range of criminal behaviour, including this situation.That includes the situation vis-à-vis coerced sterilization with respect to indigenous women, which has been highlighted, which needs to be addressed and will be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, to be crystal clear, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office, including all employees therein, to make any decision on this or any other matter.The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Crown, providing legal advice to the government. He takes that responsibility very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, the current Minister of Justice and his predecessor have neither been pressured nor directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office to make a decision on this or any other matter. Clearly, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Crown and provides legal advice to government, with a responsibility to act in the public interest. The minister takes this responsibility very seriously.

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. The second was yesterday. The fact that she feels compelled to issue these kinds of statements, declaring in the loudest voice possible that no influence occurred, is actually a function of the type of question we are facing in this House. I think it is a sad state of affairs, because independence is important.

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office, including the individual just mentioned by the member for Carleton, to make any decision on this or any other matter. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Crown and provides legal advice to the government, with a responsibility to act in the public interest. The Attorney General takes this issue very seriously.

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.Yesterday, the director of public prosecutions said there had been no contact or influence from outside the PPSC on either the initial decision or the decision to stay the charge.

Mr. Speaker, we have been abundantly clear. At no point has the Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office to make any decision on this or any other matter.The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Crown and provides legal advice to the Government of Canada, with a responsibility to act always in the public interest. He takes those responsibilities seriously.

Madam Speaker, let me explain this in crystal-clear words. The reason why we observe the sub judice convention is that currently in this proceeding, in the Ontario Court of Justice, a judge is deliberating about the records that the member has just raised. We do not want to actually influence or to be seen to be influencing that judge in their deliberations because that would be improper. It is improper for members of the government and improper for any members of this House. The hon. member knows this, as did his former colleague, the hon. Peter Van Loan, who said, specifically, that members are expected to refrain from discussing such matters. That was the hon. Peter Van Loan. I perhaps urge the member opposite to listen to his former colleague.

Mr. Speaker, in respect to caregivers, the House and the government stands behind the significant contribution that caregivers make to Canadian society. We stand by our campaign commitment, which is to eliminate the LMIA fee of $1,000 that is required to hire a caregiver. We also stand behind our commitment to work with provinces and territories to facilitate the work and the hiring of caregivers.Caregivers represent a significant contribution to our country. We recognize that and we are working on processing their claims expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office to make a decision in this or on any other matter.As the Prime Minister stated clearly yesterday, the allegations contained in the original article in The Globe and Mail are false.

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office to make any decision on this or any other matter. I absolutely agree with my colleague across the way that the Attorney General of Canada is the chief law officer of the Crown and provides legal advice to the government, with a responsibility to act in the public interest, as the hon. member points out. The Attorney General takes those responsibilities very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.We are standing up for the CBC, which is why we reinvested $675 million. We are also defending our national anthem. We always take pride in the changes, initiated by Mauril Bélanger, to the lyrics of the national anthem. Now that they are gender neutral, they are more inclusive and better reflect diversity. This is an important symbol for us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for her continued advocacy and support on behalf of the arts in her riding and around the country.Our government is committed to the arts. We are committed to supporting creative labs and to bringing artisan creators together to work and grow. That is why we have invested $5.25 million in the Artscape Daniels Launchpad to give creators and entrepreneurs access to spaces, tools, and technology, plus the skills and opportunities needed to innovate and thrive in today's creative economy.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite.What I can do is share what the two witnesses said about this at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.It is the fact that we have institutions, that the prosecution is unfolding as it should. The member for Vancouver Granville went to great lengths to underscore that in this case and in all cases, the institutions are doing what they should and the rule of law remains intact.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sudbury for his question and for his dedication to the Franco-Ontarian community in northern Ontario. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was proud to announce an investment of $12.5 million from the Government of Canada towards the construction of Place des Arts du Grand Sudbury. Investments like this one contribute to our vision of a creative Canada, while also creating good jobs for the middle class and new opportunities for artists, creators, and the entire community.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Vegreville is not one of job loss, but of job maintenance, and in fact job creation. The individuals in Vegreville will have their positions secured in Edmonton. In addition, in moving the processing centre to Edmonton we will increase efficiencies, reduce processing times, and make that centre more able to employ more Albertans.What we are doing for the people of Vegreville is reaching out to the member opposite and the mayor the town to facilitate that transition, and we continue to look forward to executing that in the coming days and months ahead.

Madam Speaker, we are very proud of our creative community and we are taking concrete measures to support them. Our vision for Canada's creative future is threefold: investing in our creators, ensuring their stories are told, and promoting Canadian content at home and throughout the world.Our government is supporting our cultural sector with a $2-billion investment. Our new vision includes protecting our creative projects and investing even more in the Canada Media Fund.

Madam Speaker, the outpouring of support for the national effort to settle refugees in the country has been overwhelming. As the minister has stated repeatedly in the House, a grand national project of this size and scope is not without its challenges. We have met targets to bring in 25,000 individuals by the end of February. We are working to bring in 44,800 humanitarian people under the refugee category alone in 2016. That includes government-sponsored individuals and privately-sponsored individuals. We are thankful for the incredible support in Newfoundland and other provinces, and we are working to address those needs as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the committee for its report.Our two official languages form the very core of who we are. One of our top priorities is to promote their use across the country and ensure the vitality of our official language minority communities.We plan to examine the report's recommendations and we will work with the Minister of Innovation to address them.

Mr. Speaker, our two official languages are an important part of our history and our Canadian identity, and they are important to us.As far as appointments are concerned, our government is firmly committed to having a strong, open, transparent, and merit-based appointment process to find the best candidate for each position. We are very proud to have appointed a highly qualified Canadian woman under this new process. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is very important and we are certain that the person recommended will have all the required qualifications.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the process for appointing candidates to the Senate or to Canada's judiciary.With regard to judicial appointments, just look at our track record. Our record shows that we have used every available means to verify the candidates' merit and quality. That is the first thing. The second thing is that we have ended up with the largest number of people from diverse communities, such as women, visible minorities, indigenous peoples and the LGBTQ community. That is what Canadians expect of us, of their government. That is what needs to be done to—

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the opposition critic and her concern for the welfare of refugees in our country. We obviously share that concern. Our government shares it. I share it as a refugee myself. However, I find it highly implausible and a bit, let us say, inconsistent for that party to talk about the quality of life for our refugees when it eliminated health care for refugee applicants, in violation of the charter, when it was in office.

Mr. Speaker, our two official languages are at the heart of who we are as Canadians, but so is redefining the process by which we select highly qualified Canadians to fulfill important government appointments.We have revised that process to make it more rigorous, more open, more transparent, and more merit-based for all public appointments. We are proud to have appointed Canadians of the highest quality across all levels of government, thus far, through this process.The official languages commissioner has a very important role, and we will ensure that the recommended person meets that high qualification standard.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that this government and our country stands for values of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity. As proof positive, I have been appointed and have the honour to serve with the Minister of Canadian Heritage as the parliamentary secretary for multiculturalism. We will be entrenching those values in all of the policies we implement, including policies that will promote these important values going forward.

Mr. Speaker, both our official languages are an important part of our history and our Canadian identity and they are important to us.As far as appointments are concerned, our government is firmly committed to having a strong, open, and transparent appointment process and finding the best candidate for each position. The role of commissioner of official languages is very important and we are sure that the person recommended will have all the required qualifications. An announcement will be made in due course.

Madam Speaker, we underscore that Canadians should have complete confidence in the administration of justice and complete confidence in the selection process used for Supreme Court justices. It is merit-based and it considers Canada's finest jurors for the short list. We have taken great pains to ensure that the hon. Kim Campbell leads up that selection process. We have ensured the bilingualism of Canadian judges. What we will always do is defend that institution and its important role in our democracy and in upholding the rule of law.

Madam Speaker, we are very concerned about the release of details pertaining to the most recent Supreme Court of Canada justice selection process.The appointment process is sound. It is merit-based and guarantees that our most eminent jurists are included on the short list. Let me reiterate that Canadians should have full confidence in the administration of 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.We want to assure Canadians that they are getting the answers to the information they are seeking. It is important for Canadians to hear the diverse perspectives on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians should be safe to be themselves, love whom they choose, and be free from discrimination of any kind.We have already made significant progress on these issues with Bill C-16 and Bill C-39. Our special adviser on LGBTQ2 issues, the member for Edmonton Centre, has been working hard and consulting broadly with the community to ensure that when an apology happens, it will be thorough and complete. That applies to veterans who are LGBTQ as well.Funds have been allocated for things like the expungement of records. We will be addressing the issues of veterans.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the debate on Bill C-4 that occurred prior to question period.The member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas delivered her speech. The first question posed to her was from the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.Immediately after posing the question, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa proceeded to leave the chamber and to heckle the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas as he left the chamber from his seat as well as in the corridor.I am a new member. I understand that the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is not. I would appreciate some clarification as to whether this kind of behaviour is appropriate, and if not, I would ask the chair to politely intervene.

Madam Speaker, we were proud to stand with members of both sides of this House to inaugurate the national Holocaust monument to commemorate survivors, and the six million Jewish people, as well as other victims, who were murdered during the Holocaust. We also plan to stand in solidarity in the fight against anti-Semitism, and all forms of racism.Our government is committing to building a more inclusive society. The National Capital Commission, which is an independent crown corporation, is responsible for the day-to-day operations, management, maintenance, and safety of the monument.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of our specifics that were announced today, let me elaborate on the plan. It considers the economic needs of our country and it considers the pressing need for family reunification and our humanitarian tradition, which are important vis-a-vis refugees and people coming in under the agency category.With respect to the economic needs of the country, we hear these needs loud and clear. We are responding to them. The levels that we have announced are over 50% of the overall targets of immigrants that we are bringing to our country. That is responsive to Canadian industry, to Canadian business and to making the country prosper and grow.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House, it was extremely important for the former attorney general to speak to the issues at hand. Waiver is an exceptional remedy, specifically when it relates to cabinet confidences and solicitor-client privilege. Every lawyer in this House who has a seat in the chamber knows that to be the case. The waiver was provided in this case so that the former attorney general could speak to this issue and address the concerns of not just parliamentarians but all Canadians.

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.Most importantly, what she said is that, “I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors is intact.”

Mr. Speaker, changes in the way Canadians access content have disrupted many business models. The reality is that the benefits of the digital world are not shared equally between the web giants and our artists, journalists, and creators. Our government wants to level the playing field among the stakeholders involved. That is why we will be making amendments to our legislation to adapt it to the digital reality. This includes a review of the Broadcasting Act. We strongly believe in protecting our culture and promoting access to Canadian content on all platforms.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very hard work on this issue, because engaging communities is at the very heart of the Atlantic immigration pilot project. We know that the key to retaining newcomers is helping them successfully build their lives and put down roots in the Atlantic region. For example, we have just learned about a catering company in Moncton, started by Syrian refugee women, with support from the local community and local businesses. This is why the pilot project will mobilize communities and bring together businesses, schools, student groups, municipalities, and volunteers to welcome and help integrate new families.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform the House that we are meeting this important campaign commitment. Bill C-24, enacted by the previous Conservative government, set a very dangerous precedent. It created two tiers of citizenship in this country. Regardless of whether one is born here or whether abroad, like myself and many members of the House, we deserve a government that values and respects our citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. The Liberal Party believes this. Canadians recognize this. With Bill C-6, we will be implementing this important fundamental principle and putting it back into our immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, I take great issue with actually challenging a unanimous consent motion that was delivered on behalf of this Parliament through you, Mr. Speaker, and which represents every member of this Parliament. However, the most important thing is that the Conservatives continue to assert political interference when that was not the case. Second, as I explained in French and will explain again to the member in English so that she can fully understand it, is that in this case, the director of public prosecutions was acting in the name of the Attorney General of Ontario, and in that event, if there could have been any direct political involvement, it would have been done by the attorney general of the province and not by the Attorney General of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I am going to anticipate where that question was going. I believe it was going toward the issue of the Supreme Court appointments process.What I would say is what I have already said on the record, and that is that we take any disclosure of personal and confidential information very seriously. It is very troubling. Secondly, I would reiterate for Canadians who are watching that they should have the utmost confidence in the process we are using to uphold the administration of justice and the rule of law, and to ensure that the people who are selected for that high office are merit based and are fully eminent and capable of fulfilling that high office in its important function of protecting the rule of law in this country.

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. Decisions as to what is redacted and what is covered by cabinet confidences are made independent of political actors, as they should be.Furthermore, we do not intervene in that judicial process, because we safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. That is the way the system is supposed to work, and that is something I would hope all members of this House would appreciate and protect.

Mr. Speaker, at no point has the current Minister of Justice or the former minister of justice been pressured or directed by the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office to make any decision on this or any other matter.It does indeed warm my heart to now hear two Conservative colleagues talking about how important the rule of law is. I wish they would have recognized those kinds of concepts when they were openly criticizing Beverley McLachlin when she served as Chief Justice of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation with the Barreau du Québec. Some organizations decided to take legal action, and that is their choice. As this matter is now before the courts, we have no further comment.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, it is a tremendous day to be a Canadian.Over the past two days, our government and our leader have been celebrated and welcomed by the UN and by the president for our refugee resettlement efforts.Thousands of Canadians got involved and actively participated in integrating Syrian refugee families. Now, 13 other countries want to learn from Canada's experience. Today, we are proud to launch the global private sponsorship partnership with the UN and George Soros.

Madam Speaker, as I have already said in response to the member for Durham, and I will repeat it again, this very matter that has been underscored by the member opposite is currently before the courts. It is important to let that court process unfold. She cited an application that has been made for third party records. That is exactly what has transpired. The Ontario Court of Justice is deliberating on that application. Justice lawyers and counsel for Mr. Norman are participating in that process. We will not comment on that process because it is improper to do so. We will not interfere politically in a prosecution under the auspices of the Conservative Party's urging.

Mr. Speaker, the government is very much looking forward to hosting the first three amigos summit on Canadian territory in some time, an event that was cancelled by the previous government when relationships were so frayed that a meeting was not be possible. However, at that meeting, we are looking forward to meeting our campaign commitment, which is to lift the Mexican visa. We are undertaking the reviews necessary to ensure this is done appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I feel I should make it clear that we are following the rule of law in the Norman case. We are complying with all of the judge's orders and co-operating fully. I would emphatically reiterate that it is important to let the Ontario judge play her role independently. Interfering in this matter, as the Conservatives are now urging us to do, would be a clear violation of the rule of law. We want to obey the law, as every parliamentarian must.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member has been a member of the House longer than I have, but I also appreciate that he does not have significant experience in legal matters. Let me just educate him about this one point.The reason why the sub judice convention exists is because we should not have elected officials who are involved in appointing judges potentially influencing a decision made by an appointed judge. That is called inappropriate influence over the judicial decision-making process. That is why all members of Parliament are covered by the sub judice rule, and why his former House leader invoked that convention 300 times in the last Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear on this. We made a promise and we plan to keep it. We recognize that, in the longer term, we need to develop a comprehensive solution for taxing digital platforms as a whole. We are not going to take a piecemeal approach.

Mr. Speaker, we understand the impact of the Vegreville relocation on the community. We also understand the important work being undertaken by the member opposite in defence of her constituents. The testimony we heard at committee yesterday was very, very moving. We understand that this decision will have an impact on community members, and we are taking every measure possible to minimize those impacts. That includes guaranteeing a job for all of the workers who currently work in Vegreville, should they wish to work in Edmonton.We will continue to work with the member opposite in this regard and defend the workers of Alberta.

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. He is impugning the law enforcement officials and the independence of their work. Who the member should also listen to is not just from our side of the House, but the defence counsel for Admiral Normal who said “The decision to stay this prosecution...was discretion exercised by prosecutors and the (Director of Public Prosecutions), unimpacted by any political considerations, as it should be.”

Mr. Speaker, our government's position is to truly support Canada's two main linguistic communities. Our two official languages are at the heart of our identity. We are always there to support our two official languages, whether it is through the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the francophone significant benefit program run by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to increase the number of French speakers outside Quebec, or our court challenges program, which will increase support for people across the country who want to protect the French language.

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.It is also important to note what the director of public prosecutions said in her own words, which is, and I quote:“No other factors were considered in this decision, nor was there any contact or influence from outside the PPSC, including political—

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide the same response in our second official language, English. Our two official languages are at the heart of who we are as Canadians. Our government is firmly committed to a rigorous, open, and transparent process for all public appointments. The Commissioner of Official Languages is a critically important role. We will ensure that the recommended person is highly qualified. Our announcement will be made in due course.

Madam Speaker, our government recognizes there is a legitimate interest in better understanding the process that led to Dr. Diab's original extradiction under the previous government. The Minister of Justice has asked for an external third-party review of this matter so a thorough review, examining the circumstances of that extradiction to France, can take place. That independent external review is being led by Murray Segal. Mr. Segal has been given the tools, access and discretion necessary to conduct a thorough review of the case. We look forward to his report.

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.What we understand is that the committee is doing its work to ensure that those perspectives are heard. We have confidence in the perspective of that committee, as well as in the ability of the ethics investigator to conduct a non-partisan investigation.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that is an absolute misconstruction of what is actually taking place. There is a court that is dealing with a third party records application. We have heard the court order. We are co-operating with that court order, as any government would. We provided the documents. It is now for a judge in the Ontario court to decide whether our co-operation has been sufficient or is deficient. It is for a judge to determine this matter. It is not to be debated in the House of Commons nor is it to be determined by a political actor. That is what the independence of the rule of law is all about. That is what I would urge the Conservatives to respect.

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. All told, over 8,000 documents involving seven organizations were submitted. As far as the status of the file is concerned, the judge even thanked departmental officials for their co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.I have three things to say about deferred prosecution agreements.First, it was announced to Canadians through a gazetting process. Second, consultations took place around the country. Third, it appeared and was vetted at the finance committee of the House of Commons and was also vetted by a Senate standing committee.These agreements exist among five members of the G7: Japan, Britain, the United States, Canada and France. They are important measures that ensure accountability at the corporate level and ensure that employees are rendered harmless.

Madam Speaker, I will confess absolute incredulity to that question. I agree that trial fairness is pivotal. The notion that we should intervene politically and dictate to an independent prosecution service what should be disclosed is called intervening in that trial. That renders null and void the trial fairness that the member opposite is seeking to uphold. That is not what we will do. That is not what any government or any parliamentarian should seek to do in this process or any other process.

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. That information is protected because two ongoing prosecutions are en route now.