Bill C-331 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)

This enactment amends the Federal Courts Act to provide for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court over civil claims brought by non-Canadians in respect of alleged violations outside Canada of international law or a treaty to which Canada is party.

Opposition Motion—Government Policies

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me speak a little about Liberal logic. Instead of helping a small business, the Liberals plan to give millions of dollars to a company worth billions. They somehow think that by giving a company that had already committed $36 million on its own, $12 million more, it would somehow change its decision. That shows their lack of understanding. Canadians see through this. Canadians see that this is not helping families who need help. This shows Canadians that the government does not understand that small and medium-sized businesses need direct help and direct investments. Helping a massively profitable business is an irresponsible use of our taxpayer dollars. It shows a lack of understanding of what Canadians are going through. It shows a lack of understanding of how we can make real changes.

What we need to do is to make investments that encourage new action, not something that is already going to happen. We need to support small and medium-sized businesses. We need to invest aggressively in green energy. On one end, we have $12 million. Let us look at the billions of dollars that go toward subsidizing the fossil fuel sectors. Let us end those subsidies and invest them.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our leader for his comments earlier today. He raised exactly the points that Canadians want answers to from the government, and frankly from the Conservatives as well.

I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for bringing forward the motion we are debating today.

As we know, the previous Conservative government and the current Liberal government have shown Canadians that they are no different when it comes to access for big corporations and the well-connected. The level of access to the corridors of powers for corporate executives and lobbyists is deeply disturbing.

As we know, SNC launched a multi-year lobbying effort to convince the Liberal government to change the Criminal Code so that when big corporations are charged with white-collar crimes, they can access plea deals. For SNC, that would mean it would escape criminal prosecution and the threat of a 10-year ban on government contracts. This lobbying began as far back as February 2016, and it has continued since. Top officials, senior ministerial staff, ministers themselves and even the Prime Minister's Office were on the hit list. By the end of 2016, its lobbying effort reached the Privy Council Office, Export Development Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada and Public Safety. Then, in 2017, it expanded to include the Treasury Board, Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. Twenty-one months later, 51 meetings had occurred. The end result, hidden in the 500-page omnibus budget bill in 2018, was the provision that SNC wanted: access to a get out of jail free card. Effectively, big corporations charged with bribery, fraud, insider trading and other offences could all have their charges dropped.

What followed after that was exposed by the former attorney general. It was plain as day that SNC had tremendous access to the PMO and was succeeding in convincing the PMO to do its bidding. Had the former attorney general caved to the pressure from the PMO, we might never have known about the depth and reach of big corporations like SNC. This episode has confirmed for us what we knew in our hearts but could never quite put a finger on, which is that big corporations have incredible access, influence and power over the Canadian government.

The power that corporations wield showed us that the people the Prime Minister once valued as a part of his elite team were at the end of the day expendable. The former attorney general, gone. The president of the treasury board, gone. The former clerk of the Privy Council, gone. The Prime Minister's former principal secretary, gone.

We also know that it is not just SNC. As it happened, the year that the Liberals launched the advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, big pharma stepped right up and lobbied the government 104 times. Would we not know that the Liberals are dragging their feet and failing to implement a national, universal, public pharmacare program for all Canadians. It does not matter that Canada is the only country with a publicly funded health care system that does not have a national pharmacare plan. It does not matter that at least 640 Canadians die every year due to financial barriers that prevent access to medication. In fact, just this past weekend, I met a senior who told me that she is taking her medication every other day because she cannot afford it.

By the way, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that a universal program would result in $4.2 billion in savings each year. However, the government drags its feet, failing to implement a national pharmacare plan. Why? It is because big pharma stands to lose. Its wealthy, well-connected lobbyist friends tell them it would hurt their profit margin and reduce their executive bonuses and stock dividend payouts. That is why.

Worth noting is the fact that during this period of intense lobbying, drug costs and profit margins for the top 25 pharma companies in Canada continued to grow.

Why stop at big pharma? Let us turn to big oil for a minute. We also know, despite the government repeating a million times a day that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, the only hand-in-hand relationship that it cares about is with big oil. It kept the Harper climate targets and bought a pipeline. What did the money go toward? Millions of dollars in executive bonuses. The wealthy and well connected always have the ear of the government. Let us be real. Climate leaders do not buy a 65-year-old leaky pipeline.

As a result of listening to big oil lobbyists for four years, our emissions are not going down. In fact, they are going up. There was a 12 million tonne increase in CO₂ emissions last year. Under current trends, we will only reach our weak Paris agreement reduction targets in 2230. That is 200 years behind schedule.

Meanwhile, from coast to coast to coast, Canadians are reeling from the impacts of inaction on climate change: extreme weather conditions, forest fires, floods, droughts, rising sea levels, ocean acidification and species at risk. In fact, the IPCC has said that a 1.5°C average rise may put 20% to 30% of species at risk at risk of extinction.

Young people are demanding action. They are saying, “We care. Why don't you?” Instead of being a climate leader, we have a government that buys a pipeline. The Prime Minister promised to stop subsidizing fossil fuels in 2025. We actually saw the Liberals locking in some fossil fuel subsidies for another 20 years instead. The International Institute for Sustainable Development estimates that there are $3.3 billion in subsidies given to oil and gas producers each year.

We also have a government that has provided $12 million to a multi-million dollar corporation, which is owned by one of the wealthiest families in the country, so it can buy new refrigerators. Then the Liberals tell Canadians this is what climate leadership looks like. Are they serious? This is the same multi-billion dollar corporation that recently came clean and admitted it participated in a bread price-fixing arrangement, ripping off Canadians on a loaf of bread for 15 years. This is the same multi-billion dollar corporation that last year went to tax court to fight the Canada Revenue Agency over allegations it had been hoarding cash in an aggressive tax-avoidance scheme in Barbados, potentially hiding $400 million in taxes that should have been paid in Canada.

Meanwhile, the chairman and CEO of Loblaws is estimated to have received over $6 million in total compensation in 2017 alone. After ripping off Canadians on bread for a decade, hiding hundreds of millions in taxes that could have gone toward Canadian public services and fighting the government when it was caught doing it, it still gets to show up for a photo op with the Minister of Environment to receive a $12 million cheque to buy new refrigerators. That is unbelievable. This has to stop.

I proudly stand today to support the motion before us. The very least the government can do is recoup the $12 million in Canadian tax dollars.

The Conservatives are no different from the Liberals. We have seen this play over and over again. It is time for us to turn the channel and vote for change. That could happen in October.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in speech after speech, we have heard members of the New Democratic Party say that they will spend unlimited amounts of money. It is as if they will just click their heels, magic will appear and everyone will given a house and things of that nature.

My question is related the NDP's campaign in the last election. Its former leader said that it would have a balanced budget. Going forward, is the current NDP leadership committed to a balanced budget or does it understand what we have understood for many years, that we need to invest in Canada, our economy and our people?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy the member asked that question. If we look at what the Liberals said they would do in 2015 and what has happened three and a half years later, it is clear as day that their empty promises will never be reality.

On pharmacare, we have seen decade after decade what has happened. I am growing old watching the same play over and over again. What happened in this budget? There is no money for universal pharmacare. The Liberals are going to consult once again. They promise Canadians the sky. They sound so nice and say it with smiles. They talk about sunny ways and all of that. They say that they are different from the Conservatives: Liberal, Tory, same old story.

Business of Supply

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Elmwood—Transcona, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 30, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Government Policies

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Spadina—Fort York.

I would like to address the House on the important aspect of this debate, one that our government takes very seriously: the independence of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the integrity of Canada's rule of law.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, is a federal government organization that was created on December 12, 2006. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act sets out the roles and responsibilities of the director of public prosecutions and the prosecutors that are authorized to act on the director's behalf. The PPSC fulfills the responsibilities of the Attorney General of Canada in the discharge of his criminal law mandate by prosecuting criminal offences under federal jurisdiction and by contributing to strengthening the criminal justice system.

The creation of the PPSC reflected the decision to make transparent the principle of prosecutorial independence, free from any improper influence. Under the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General is responsible for the regulation and conduct of all litigation for or against the Crown or any department.

With respect to the conduct of civil matters, the Attorney General does not have exclusive decision-making authority over litigation positions. When it comes to civil litigation, there is often a high degree of policy involved in determining what position, among the available and viable legal arguments, should be taken in a particular case. Civil litigation differs sharply, in this respect, from criminal prosecutions.

The Attorney General's role in prosecutions must be independent, and he or she must receive orders from nobody, as an attorney general of England said in 1925. Specifically, he or she must act independently. The Supreme Court has found this to be a foundational constitutional principle of our democratic form of government.

The determination of who should be prosecuted for which crimes, which prosecutions should continue and which should not and what sentences or penalties ought to be sought must all be made solely on the basis of evidence and with regard to the fair and effective administration of criminal law and the criminal justice system. It remains, nevertheless, advisable for the Attorney General to inform him or herself of the relevant context, including the potential consequences of any given prosecution. The PPSC reports to Parliament through the Attorney General of Canada. The Director of Public Prosecutions Act states that the director of public prosecutions acts “under and on behalf of the Attorney General”.

The relationship between the Attorney General and the director is premised on the principles of respect for the independence of the prosecution function and the need to consult on important matters of general interest.

In 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act created the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The act formalized the Attorney General's role in federal prosecutions by giving authority for the initiation and conduct of prosecutions to the director of public prosecutions, the DPP. The director acts as the deputy attorney general of Canada in initiating and conducting federal prosecutions on behalf of the Attorney General.

In most cases, the Attorney General him or herself will not be involved in prosecutorial decision-making, although the director of public prosecutions requires the director to inform the Attorney General of any prosecution that raises important questions of general interest. That is found at section 13 of the relevant legislation. Thus, the statutory framework ensures that the Attorney General will be advised of important criminal cases.

As we know, the Attorney General may issue directives to the director of public prosecutions, which may be general or about specific prosecutions. This is set out in section 10 of the act. When a directive is issued, it is issued through a fully transparent process. It is published in the Canada Gazette, where every Canadian can review it.

As well, a general directive must be preceded by consultation with the director of public prosecutions. The Attorney General may also, after consulting the director of public prosecutions, assume the conduct of a prosecution. This too is done through a transparent process where the Attorney General must publish notice of the intent to assume conduct of a prosecution in the Canada Gazette.

The notion of the director of public prosecutions' independence relates to the prosecutorial decision-making process and all step incidental to it. The director of criminal prosecutions is regarded as an independent officer, exercising quasi-judicial responsibilities.

Safeguarding the director's independence is the requirement that all instructions from the attorney general must be in writing and be published in the Canada Gazette, as I have mentioned. Additionally, the PPSC must provide the attorney general with an annual report for tabling in Parliament.

Prosecutorial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy, reflected in the relationship between the Attorney General of Canada and the director of public prosecutions. It reinforces confidence in the judicial system by ensuring that prosecutions are not seen to be improperly influenced by politics. Instead, prosecutions of federal offences are carried out by experienced and skilled prosecutors right across this country, many of whom I know as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and also in my former capacity as a former Crown counsel to the Attorney General of Ontario, where I had the opportunity to work with many distinguished legal minds and lawyers who prosecuted cases on behalf of the Department of Justice federally.

As confirmed in a statement published on February 12 of this year, the director of public prosecutions, Ms. Kathleen Roussel, stated that “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Canada is a nation governed by the rule of law. This basic premise is not only written into our Constitution, but is also found in the actions of our political actors and in the structure of our executive, legislative and judicial institutions, as well as how they relate to one another. Upholding the Constitution requires not only respect for the supreme law of the land, as set out in the provisions of our Constitution, but also the rules and practices that reflect and support constitutional values.

In our parliamentary system, we strive to adhere to and respect well-established constitutional principles and conventions. Foremost among them is the principle of the separation of powers, which our Supreme Court has emphasized is a principle that is fundamental to the working of our Parliament and our courts.

Justice McLachlin, while a judge before the court in 1993, in a case called “New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia”, said that:

It is fundamental to the working of government as a whole that all these parts play their proper role. It is equally fundamental that no one of them overstep its bounds, that each show proper deference for the legitimate sphere of activity of the other.

Our government is unwavering in its commitment to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, as well as the independence of the judiciary. Our government will always stand up for the rule of law, and the evidence before the judiciary committee earlier this year confirmed that the rule of law is indeed intact.

Let me refer to some of that evidence. The evidence from the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, before the justice committee was 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.

The evidence continued from a different witness, who said:

I think Canadians should feel assured that they work in a democracy under the rule of law....

The witness continued:

I think Canadians need to be assured that their police and investigators, with the powers of the state, operate independently, and that the prosecution service, the state charging people with offences, is completely independent. There is a legislative and statutory shield around that, which demonstrably is working

That is the evidence of the former clerk of the Privy Council. It is important that there was complete alignment in the testimony from those two key witnesses before the justice committee on the important point raised today in this motion.

As a government, we will always strive to provide Canadians with the transparency they deserve in a way that preserves, rather than undermines, solicitor-client privilege, the right to a fair hearing in cases that are currently active, the integrity of the position of the director of public prosecutions and the rule of law in our country. It is fundamental to our democracy and fundamental to our legal system, and it is something that all parliamentarians would strive to uphold.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always find it so fascinating to hear the Liberals talk about the importance of protecting the independence of the judiciary. It is actually a fundamental principle of a democratic system and it is what cost the current government the former attorney general, the former president of the Treasury Board, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and the former clerk of the Privy Council when the government attempted to interfere in the independence of the judiciary. However, I am not going to go there today, because I know my friend is still trying to build the walls to protect the damage that was done to the Prime Minister.

Among all the damage control the Liberals did, we found out that in an attempt to go after the former attorney general, someone leaked information about the nomination of Justice Joyal to the Supreme Court. That is a serious breach. In any other government, that would have been considered a very serious breach.

I would like to ask the member about the habit the Liberals have of using their Liberal fund to vet judges with respect to how much they donate to the Liberal Party. Does he understand that is a complete breach of the obligation to separate the pecuniary interests of the Liberal Party from the independence of the judiciary?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his contribution today and on other days. I appreciate that he finds it fascinating that I or anyone would stand up to defend the independence of the judiciary. As someone with 15 years' experience at the bar, I will always stand up for the independence of the judiciary and defend it. That is not what has been impugned in this case.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Are you standing up to defend the interference?