Guy Caron

[Foreign Affairs, April 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Netanyahu hung on to power in Israel's election yesterday.

In a last-minute campaign promise, he vowed to annex Israeli settlements in the West Bank. If the Israeli government keeps that promise, there could be serious consequences for stability in the region. Canada's position is clear: the settlements are illegal. The United Nations Security Council agrees.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that Canada would view the annexation of those territories as illegal and act accordingly?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 5th, 2019]

With regard to government advertising for oil pipeline projects, including approved projects and projects in the evaluation phase, since November 4, 2015: what is the total amount spent on advertising, broken down by (i) year, (ii) pipeline project, (iii) department, (iv) advertising platform, (v) supplier?

[International Development, April 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, over 22 million Yemeni are suffering immensely because of the conflict that has been raging there for four years. The Liberals announced $46.7 million in aid for Yemen in February.

Meanwhile, in 2016, Canada authorized the export of $15 billion worth of light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia and the sale of $500 million worth of other weapons, which are being used to create a blockade in various ports, thereby preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the people of Yemen.

What is the point of offering humanitarian aid with the left hand if the right hand is making it impossible for that aid to reach civilian populations?

[Justice, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that she will not be able to say anything about what happened after January 14. For example, she will likely not be able to explain why, after she was shuffled, she wrote that it is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from all political interference.

She will not be able to explain why she resigned from cabinet and, most importantly, she will not be able to tell us what she said during her unprecedented appearance before cabinet following her resignation, which could shed a lot of light on the situation.

If the Prime Minister can give five different versions of the story, why will he not lift all of the constraints preventing the former minister of justice from telling her version?

[Justice, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general of Canada will be testifying before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this afternoon, but that does not mean that we will get the whole story. Any actions or communications involving her that occurred after January 14, the day she was shuffled to Veterans Affairs, are off limits. Allowing her to tell only half the story could leave us with more questions than answers.

Why go to so much effort to control what she wants to say?

Why not allow her to talk about stepping down from cabinet, for example?

Is the Prime Minister's Office that afraid of what she has to say?

[Justice, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between one meeting and 50 meetings.

Here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. Two weeks later, on September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former justice minister to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists managed to get four meetings with senior officials and ministers.

Would the Minister of Finance or the Minister of International Trade Diversification, who each took one of those meetings, be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain what those conversations were about?

[Justice, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, SNC-Lavalin illegally donated nearly $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada and its associations. Today, SNC-Lavalin needs help because it is in big trouble.

The machinery was then set in motion. The company had more than 50 meetings with the government. Why?

Over those two years, the company had 14 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office, or one meeting every two months. Why?

The fact that the former justice minister will appear before the committee is something, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I would like to know why there were so many meetings with lobbyists.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the question is quite simple. I asked another Liberal member the same question, but I did not really get a response.

Bill C-83 was tabled in response to decisions handed down by superior courts in Ontario and British Columbia that deemed the current administrative segregation model unconstitutional. These decisions included a number of recommendations, but upon reviewing Bill C-83, it would seem that most of them were overlooked.

Why did the government not seize this opportunity to respond to the two court rulings that struck down the current administrative segregation model as unconstitutional?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 26th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that Bill C-83 had to be brought in because of superior court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia that found the current segregation policy to be unconstitutional.

In the two rulings handed down in Quebec and Ontario, recommendations were made and put in writing to explain their decision and to guide future government policy or legislation.

Bill C-83, however, fails to implement most of these recommendations, and I would like to ask my colleague why that is.

Why did the government refuse to consider the recommendations of the judges, who ruled that the situation was unconstitutional?

[Justice, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to ascertain is whether there was political interference in a legal matter.

We have many questions but have been given few answers to date. What we do have are many versions of what happened. The Prime Minister gave not one, two or three versions, but five versions.

The former justice minister has not been able to give us her version because she is bound by client-solicitor privilege, which the Prime Minister refuses to waive. Members could not stop laughing yesterday when he stated with a straight face that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is dominated by a Liberal majority, is non-partisan. It is obvious that only an independent inquiry will get to the bottom of this matter. When will they—