Debates of Feb. 19th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hochelaga talks about being far away in her riding. I must point out that it is not that far to Montreal from here. It is a little farther to Victoria.

However, I put forward an emergency motion precisely for the reason about which the member for Wellington—Halton Hills talked. We are an important institution, a committee that has the responsibility to get to the bottom of this should do so.

We have called for a public inquiry and we know how long that will take and how many rocks it will turn over. However, what we need to do right away is get it to the committee, have the protagonists speak, learn what the rules are and then see whether those rules were transgressed on behalf of the Canadian public, and in public. That was the purpose of the emergency motion. I hope that when the committee resumes this afternoon, its members will see it in that manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know that SNC had met with and lobbied both sides of the House. We had posed the question earlier to the leader of the official opposition with respect to the Conservatives' position on remediation agreements. I wonder if my colleague would share with the House if he or the leader of the New Democratic Party met with this organization. Also, could he give his party's position on remediation agreements?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand there were dozens of meetings with the Prime Minister's Office and officials and that there was a well-known meeting between the then attorney general and the principal secretary, Mr. Butts, which has been recorded as well.

I believe this massive company had lobbied a lot of people. I am told that one of my colleagues and the leader of the New Democratic Party met at the end of a meeting involving business leaders where this issue was raised, according to one report in the lobbyist registry. Indeed, we are told that the official opposition leader also met with that company.

However, my position on the remediation agreement, with all due respect, is utterly irrelevant. I have indicated in my remarks that I think there could be a purpose for them, but that is not what is at issue here. It is not the issue at all. Nice try in trying to change the channel.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to serve as a co-vice-chair of the justice committee with the hon. member for Victoria. We saw the sad spectacle last week of members of the committee doing the bidding of the PMO.

The central issue here is what was said, by whom and when to the then attorney general. It would seem to me that it would be imperative to hear from the former attorney general. If the government has nothing to hide, then let her speak.

Would the hon. member for Victoria agree that by virtue of voting against calling the former attorney general that there is only one conclusion that can be drawn, which is that the Liberal MPs on the committee are voting in favour of a cover-up.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton and I have put forward motions that would allow for certain people to come and testify and for certain records to be produced. I am not yet prepared to conclude that the committee, which he and I have the honour of being vice-chair on, will not do its job. We will find out today. I live in hope.

[Marc Miller, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation governed by the rule of law. This basic premise is not only written into our Constitution, but it is also found in the actions of our political actors and in the structure of our executive, legislative and judiciary 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 rules and practices that reflect and support constitutional values.

As a member from Quebec and someone who has worked in the legal field in several jurisdictions, including in Europe, the United States and Quebec, but mainly in Quebec, I found it very troubling to hear certain members and media outlets suggesting that Quebec does not uphold the rule of law to the same extent as other provinces. That statement is completely false and utterly shameful.

In our parliamentary system we must adhere to and respect well-established constitutional principles and conventions. Foremost among them is the principle of separation of powers, which our Supreme Court has emphasized in a principle that is fundamental to the workings of Parliament and the courts. This principle requires that each branch of government recognize the role of the other branches and respect the appropriate limits of its own role.

As Justice McLachlin, later the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote in New Brunswick Broadcasting in 1993:

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.

In 2005, Justice Binnie observed that it was a wise principle that the courts and Parliament strive to respect each other's role in the conduct of public affairs. He went on to state:

Parliament, for its part, refrains from commenting on matters before the courts under the sub judice rule. The courts, for their part, are careful not to interfere with the workings of Parliament.

We have emphasized, here in the House, the need to respect parliamentary privilege. As Justice Binnie indicated, “[p]arliamentary privilege...is one of the ways in which the fundamental constitutional separation of powers is respected.”

However, we also need to remember that the separation of powers requires respect for the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary and that we need to refrain from interfering either directly or indirectly—and that is important to note—in the adjudicative function of the courts. That applies particularly to courts that deal with criminal and other related cases.

One way we in the House continue to protect the principles of the separation of powers and judicial independence is through respect for the sub judice rule. That rule is embodied in a cherished constitutional convention.

Democratic government under the rule of law has been under attack lately domestically and abroad. Continuing to ensure respect for constitutional conventions is one of the ways our political culture supports a modern parliamentary democracy that is also attuned to the values Canadians cherish, including the independence of our courts and the right to a fair trial.

Similarly, we need to abide by the sub judice convention because it contributes to respect for the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, which are fundamental to any pluralistic democracy.

We need to strike a balance between the powers, roles and duties of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and this long-standing convention is an important means of accomplishing that.

Parliamentarians should be very familiar with the sub judice convention. There has been enough talk about it.

In fact, it is described at length in the authoritative guide to the workings of the House of Commons, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which I hope everyone has read, as an “exercise of restraint on the part of the House in which restrictions are placed on the freedom of Members to make reference in debate to matters which are sub judice, that is, awaiting judicial decisions. It is also understood that matters before the courts are also prohibited as subjects of motions, petitions or questions in the House.”

This book goes on to note that this “restriction exists in order to protect an accused person or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry from any prejudicial effect of public discussion of the issue. The convention recognizes the courts, as opposed to the House, as the proper forum in which to decide individual cases.”

It is also worth noting that the convention “has been applied consistently” to “all matters relating to criminal cases”.

In our parliamentary system, speaking of a matter that is before a court of justice, particularly a court seized with a criminal matter and related proceedings, may risk prejudicing the outcome of a trial and may affect the protection of due process, including the presumption of innocence afforded to accused persons in our society.

Let me say this. Over the last few days, we have seen a rush to judgment and politicalization by certain opposition MPs. While I hasten to say that I offer no excuses for SNC-Lavalin, and indeed it is fully capable of defending itself, I find it highly troubling that some colleagues would readily condemn it for their own personal political gain.

When I meet lobbyists, which we have bandied about as almost a dirty word, it is highly informative of what goes on in Canadian society. I choose carefully who I meet. It is not a one-way discussion; it is a two-discussion. I ask them what they can do for the citizens of Canada.

As we who have been elected to this House know, our duty in this House is to be the representatives and voices of our constituents, not just the ones who voted for us but all the constituents in our ridings. That does not mean that we can ignore what businesses say to us, because they employ a lot of people in our ridings. In the centre of Montreal, they employ many people who are not necessarily capable of voting for someone like me, because they come in through the 14 metro stations in my riding. That does not mean that I will not stand up for those people, the employees, if there are circumstances that affect their families, whether or not they have chosen to vote for me.

My job is not to protect business but to protect the people in my riding: their charter values, their livelihoods, and first and foremost, their physical integrity and their right to have gainful jobs and to contribute to this economy. Therefore, when a company, whether large or small, comes into my riding, my principal focus is the employees and ensuring that good jobs for Canadians are maintained in my riding.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms constitutionally guarantees the right of a person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, according to the law, in a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. I am certain that no one in this chamber would want to undermine that fundamental constitutional right by discussing a matter that is within the rightful purview and jurisdiction of the court and is before it pending a decision.

In the case at hand, it is reasonable to ask this: After a proper accounting is made of white-collar crime and the actors are punished and fines are levied, what is left? It goes back to what I said earlier. The answer, more often than not, is employees who may see their families and livelihoods jeopardized by further prosecution. In this sense, and I will stress that I have no direct evidence of what has been discussed, the Prime Minister's Office would have been remiss not to seek advice from the then attorney general, and the then attorney general would have been remiss not to give that advice.

I want to take a moment as well to pay homage to the work done by the former minister of justice in advancing key elements of our platform. Whether it was the legalization of cannabis or assisted-dying legislation, they are elements that touch upon moral values and go beyond legislation. I want to pay tribute to the work she did in that role in advancing the values of Canadian society.

She has also helped me, on personal level, deal with issues of which I know very little. In that sense, I refer to indigenous issues, which are top of mind for this government. I want to thank her for her service in that respect.

This brings us back to the reason for the rule, which is to protect not only the constitutional rights of accused persons, but also the constitutional principles of judicial independence and separation of powers.

In the House, which respects these principles as well as constitutionalism and the rule of law, we need to do everything in our power to prevent interference, or the perception of interference, in due process, the broader principles of fundamental justice and the impartiality of the courts.

Let me discuss this concept in some detail. As I have said, by convention, members of Parliament do not comment on matters that are pending before the courts. This is known, as I said earlier, as the sub judice rule, which is just fancy Latin for matters under judicial consideration.

The rule is appropriately described in Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada: “Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record.”

Why do I mention this? It is because, so far, despite many media reports, what we have are unsubstantiated allegations. Indeed, we have had two high-profile resignations, but we do not know the substance of those allegations. I know many people will stand in the House and say that we should get to the bottom of this. What I have said in the last few minutes as an answer speaks for itself.

If anything, the motion today is premature, absolutely premature, with very few substantiated facts. The members opposite, even some reputed legal minds, in fact legal minds I respect quite profoundly, would hasten to waive solicitor-client privilege. We could have a long discussion as to whether it has already been waived.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

It has.

[Marc Miller]

I thank the member for Durham for pointing that out. We worked in the same firm, but not contemporaneously. He has suggested that it already has, and again, he is substituting his mind for other legal minds. I know, despite that, that he is a humble man.

Solicitor-client privilege is a basic tenet of our democracy, of common law courts more particularly. As applied to the relationship between the Prime Minister's Office and the Attorney General, it has a number of particular legal twists. However, the fundamental tenet remains the same. It allows the client, in this case the Governor in Council or the Prime Minster's Office, whatever we call it, to get full, complete counsel on matters that are of capital importance. The corresponding role of the lawyer is to give free and unfettered advice back.

Again, as many members have pointed out, it is a privilege that can be waived by the proverbial client. Whether it should be is an entirely different consideration, because we are talking about complex matters that, as we have seen in the last week, have been highly politicized and based on what we know to be, so far, unsubstantiated reports.

Members may take different positions on this motion, and indeed different positions may be taken within our caucus and with respect to other parties in the House, but there is a level of prematurity here that we cannot deny.

I have heard a number of arguments given here today. I am studying the motion, and indeed, my colleagues are studying the motion, in depth. We need to take a deep look at where we want to go with this. These are matters before the court, and as I mentioned, I am in no position to, nor should I necessarily have to, defend one of Canada's largest companies. It has wise counsel.

Yes, there may very well be jobs at risk, regardless of the province they lie in. I have no direct evidence that discussions occurred, but the very difficult discussions that may have occurred between the Prime Minister's Office and the former attorney general were most likely appropriate under the circumstances, and correspondingly, the former attorney general's advice had to be heeded. Attempting to open that process to a highly politicized inquiry through which members may very well, wittingly or unwittingly, compromise judicial positions in court, with potentially unintended consequences, is cavalier, particularly in the face of unsubstantiated evidence.

I would readily concede that we do not know enough. The issue is whether we are publicly entitled to know enough. The only things that prevent that are solicitor-client privilege, which is a basic tenet of a pluralistic democracy, and various levels of confidentiality that may or may not be asserted. This lies at the very core of what we are as a country and as a democracy, which is respect for the division of powers, respect for judicial process and respect for the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

I respectfully submit to the House that before implicating any particular company, or importantly, any person, it is important that we exercise the requisite prudence and refrain from discussing these matters, not only to protect the parties but because the trial could be affected by debate and conjecture in the House.

I ask all my colleagues in the House to join me in reflecting on the importance of maintaining respect for the sub judice convention and the broader constitutional principles that have been developed specifically to protect criminal matters and related proceedings.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations knows I hold him in high regard. In fact, I saw him on television last night in a photograph of several young men holding up the Prime Minister. One of those young men is now no longer holding up the Prime Minister, so I guess more of it falls on his shoulders. He knows how I have admired his work on indigenous issues, particularly his growing proficiency in the Mohawk language. It is very impressive, and part of reconciliation.

What I am going to ask him about is what I mildly heckled. The Prime Minister engaged several times in the media with his version of dialogue with the former attorney general, suggesting he left the decision in her hands with respect to prosecution, and suggesting that it should have been up to her to come to him about pressure from figures in his office. We have heard the Prime Minister commenting in a fair degree of detail on conversations they are now hiding behind solicitor-client privilege. When the principal client, the Prime Minister, leader of the government, engages in dialogue about those privileged discussions, in common law that waives the privilege.

The parliamentary secretary opened his remarks with the fact that that might exist. I would like him to comment on that. Not only has the Prime Minister waived solicitor-client privilege by engaging in the media with discussions about his conversations with the former attorney general, but he has also created a perverse situation where the member for Vancouver Granville loses her privilege to talk about the conversation from her point of view.

That is what concerns all members of the House. It is what concerns the member for Milton, as she said in her speech. The hon. member for Vancouver Granville deserves the ability to comment to the same degree on conversations the Prime Minister has commented on, but that several members now suggest is privileged.

My question is simple. Did the Prime Minister's comments to the media not waive solicitor-client privilege?

[Marc Miller]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret to this House that my friendship with the Prime Minister goes back quite some time. The member opposite opened the door; it is not my position to speak about that relationship. I will simply underline that one of the reasons I dropped quite a decent job to run to represent Canada was based on four decades of experience of the honesty and integrity of the person who is the current prime minister.

I will also say this about Gerald Butts, who has just resigned. His resignation is a loss for Canadians, and it is a loss for Canada. It is something we will have to reconstruct as a government in order to move on and pursue the work of someone who is so passionate in the defence of Canadians and of progressive, non-partisan politics in our country.

As much as people may object to that and think it is the contrary, that is absolutely not the case. Gerald Butts has nothing but Canada and Canadians at heart. He has sacrificed a tremendous amount to do that, and I hope he continues to do that over the next few years.

I am not going to talk about when and where privilege gets waived. It is a highly opportunistic argument from the member for Durham. In that regard, it is up to the former attorney general to take a position. She has retained wise counsel in that regard, and no doubt she will be speaking up and speaking truthfully, as she always has in the past, when she gets the opportunity to get proper counsel on that matter.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spent a lot of time talking about the solicitor-client privilege issue, which I concede and agree with him is a constitutionalized matter in our Constitution.

However, there is another constitutional convention. According to the late Marc Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal, it is the most important constitutional convention. He said, “Although the Attorney General is a cabinet minister, he or she acts independently of the cabinet in the exercise of the prosecution function.”

We have these two principles at stake, and the solicitor-client privilege to which he refers would appear to have nothing to do with whether or not the former attorney general was pressured to take a certain position, solicitor-client privilege being about the advice a lawyer gives to a client. It is a bit of a stretch, therefore, to understand whether it exists here or whether it has not been waived because of the Prime Minister's comments to the media.

In a contest between these two constitutional conventions, is the most important one not that Canadians be assured that our rule of law system exists and that there be no political interference with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion?

[Marc Miller]

Mr. Speaker, I will readily concede that what is missing here are the facts. It requires the House to speculate. Thus far, that speculation has been based on unsubstantiated claims of pressure, which may be entirely licit or illicit, and that an investigation should be launched. In my mind this is entirely premature.

I worked in the corporate field in a number of jurisdictions, with both larger and smaller companies than the one at issue. Clients need to have a comfortable area in which they can talk to their lawyer openly. They will go through strategy sessions, asking, “Can we do this? Can we do that?” If a client suggests that their lawyer should do something that the lawyer cannot do, that lawyer must speak up and report up. Lawyers need to have that confidence with their client to report it up. If a client orders them to do something, their lawyer must resign and refuse to do it.

Again, I am speculating, but if I were in that position I would expect the former attorney general to do precisely what it was her job to do. I have no doubt that she did it.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to continue on from my colleague's comments, right now we have the Ethics Commissioner's involvement. The Prime Minister has been most welcoming in terms of wanting to provide that insurance. We have been very open and transparent in saying that this is a fine thing to be happening. We also have a standing committee that is taking a look into the issue.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts, particularly with respect to the Ethics Commissioner, which is an independent body. Both in Canada and abroad, many of our parliamentary institutions, such as the Ethics Commissioner, have been recognized as being apolitical. It may therefore be one of the more appropriate venues to provide comfort to Canadians, as both my colleague and I believe that the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing wrong on this file.

[Marc Miller]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, there are many venues through which to get a proper ventilation of what is going on. His basic point was that we need someone independent, who is apolitical and has a judicial or quasi-judicial role, and who is able to look at the facts soberly and clearly to come to a conclusion. That will enable Canadians to get the certainty that a number of members opposite have attempted to politicize. Clearly, the Ethics Commissioner will exercise that role wisely, apolitically, and with a sober eye to the facts.

This is a process that perhaps, because the facts may stay confidential, will not be ventilated in the public sphere and perhaps even used to some people's political advantage. However, we trust the Ethics Commissioner's work, which we have seen a little of. We trust that he will come to a conclusion that, in my mind, will absolve the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing.

Again, this is not my decision to take. It is properly vested in the Ethics Commissioner, as well as any other bodies that may be seized of it. I certainly welcome the investigation and look forward to seeing its results.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this new chamber for the first time, question period notwithstanding, to speak to a very important topic. I will be sharing my time with the member for Essex.

Most of the speeches we have heard on this topic, or at least those from this side of the House, have stressed how important it is for us, as parliamentarians, to be transparent with and accountable to Canadians. This is the role of all parliamentarians, regardless of their political affiliation.

The opposition motion moved today by my colleague from Victoria calls on the Prime Minister to waive solicitor-client privilege for the former justice minister, who was demoted and changed files on January 14. It was surprising to see the justice minister move to veterans affairs, but it was even more surprising to see her issue a statement about this change in responsibilities. I found one sentence from this statement particularly interesting, and I will quote it. The former minister of justice and member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville said:

The role of the Attorney General of Canada carries with it unique responsibilities to uphold the rule of law and the administration of justice, and as such demands a measure of principled independence. It is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political interference and uphold the highest levels of public confidence.

It was very surprising to read this, because a minister who is moved to another portfolio rarely writes this kind of statement. Her statement was surprising because there was no context until recently. Many MPs, experts, journalists and Canadians wondered why the former attorney general felt the need to express that sentiment. Obviously, everything that has happened since then has created context for her statement. Solicitor-client privilege prevents her from speaking about the circumstances that led to her dissatisfaction and, shortly afterward, to her resignation from cabinet.

We do not have all the details or all the information, and that is why the solicitor-client privilege must be waived. We are hearing about the rule of law. I believe that every MP here in the House recognizes that Canada is a country that respects the rule of law. In this regard, waiving solicitor-client privilege does not undermine the rule of law in any way.

In the solicitor-client privilege relationship in this case, it is up to the client to give their lawyer permission to disclose information. The Prime Minister is free to give that permission. What we are calling for today is clarification on the troubling situations that have resulted in two weeks of confusion and chaos and yesterday's surprise resignation of the Prime Minister's principal secretary.

We deserve to hear the truth about what happened because, as I was saying, we have the sub judice rule. We live under the rule of law. Some journalists have pointed out that this rule of law, this way of doing things, is what distinguishes us from countries like Libya, where the rule of law is tenuous.

We need transparency and the appearance of justice. We have to ensure that there is no political interference in the judicial process. That is why we moved this motion to call on the Prime Minister to waive solicitor-client privilege and allow the former attorney general to tell her side of the story. The Prime Minister and a number of government MPs have given their side, but the former attorney general has not had the opportunity to respond.

This past weekend, even the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Minister of Public Services and Procurement said they needed to hear the former attorney general's side. We need to hear it. We moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to try to invite her and the Prime Minister's former principal secretary as witnesses.

That motion was voted down by the majority of members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which obviously has a Liberal majority. The Liberals proposed a resolution to call witnesses who do not really have anything to do with the situation and ask them to talk about the possible relationship.

We expect the same thing will happen this week when a motion is tabled in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to learn more about the suspended or deferred prosecution process. However, that is not the issue before us now. The issue before us now is whether there was political interference in the decisions that the former attorney general and minister of justice had to make.

The fact that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently unable to do its work fully justifies the second request set out in the opposition motion, namely to launch an independent public inquiry into what happened. It is clear that the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights does not want an independent public inquiry, since it refuses to call witnesses who could shed some light on this complicated situation. If the committee is unable to find out what happened, we need to find another way to do that, and that involves an independent public inquiry.

My colleague from Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs said we need to be careful with solicitor-client privilege. That relationship is sacred and must not be jeopardized. We must also be careful with matters before the courts. The sub judice rule forces us to keep quiet and ensure that, as parliamentarians, we do not interfere with matters before the courts.

Here is an example of how the Standing Committee on Finance used the sub judice rule. Members will recall that we did a study on connections between KPMG and alleged activities on the Isle of Man, activities that may have amounted to or could have been interpreted as tax fraud or as incitement to tax fraud.

We tried to investigate KPMG the same way American committees investigated KMPG. In a similar case in the United States, committees did not hesitate to use all the strength and power they had to ensure that KPMG executives went to jail in the United States.

There were no concerns regarding the sub judice convention. The legislature felt it had a duty to use its powers to get to the bottom of the situation. We did not do that, even though our parliamentary committees here in Canada have essentially the same powers as those in the U.S. Congress.

We refuse to give ourselves the authority to investigate because the sub judice convention is being interpreted too broadly and in such a way as to shut down any relevant questions if the government itself decides to use a court of law, like the Federal Court, or if KPMG decides to appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to try to make its Isle of Man scheme legal.

Quite frankly, the sub judice convention is being used far too broadly in the context of our Canadian Parliament and within our committees, and this is preventing us from doing our job.

That was the case at the Standing Committee on Finance. Based on what I witnessed last week at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and what I expect to see on Wednesday, the committee cannot play its full role, which is to seek the truth in situations dealing with how our country functions under the rule of law and how we apply the rule of law.

The bottom line is that we are in a situation where the government claims to have done nothing wrong, despite some considerable doubts raised by statements made by the former minister of justice. We on this side of the House have questions about some very serious allegations, and our questions deserve an answer, for the sake of transparency and respect for the rule of law.

That is why I am proud to support this motion to waive solicitor-client privilege and launch an independent public inquiry into the allegations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his comments.

I would like to ask him a question concerning his constituents and the importance of the economy in the province of Quebec and across Canada.

During today's debate, we have already discussed the economic consequences of a remediation agreement.

I have outlined that remediation agreements are actually becoming very much the norm throughout the world. They have been in place since the 1990s in the United States. They exist in France, Singapore, Japan and in the United Kingdom.

We have a remediation agreement that exists now, and that remediation agreement includes things such as specific aspects of culpability of the potential corporate offender: an admission of guilt, forfeiting of any benefit, paying a penalty, paying restitution, implementing a change of behaviour and co-operating with any further investigations.

Is that the type of mechanism that can assist in addressing corporate malfeasance but at the same time ensure that the workers in his riding and in his province, and indeed throughout this country, are not affected disproportionately by corporate malfeasance in a given case?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I can tell him what I have heard in my riding. My constituents want to get to the bottom of this troubling business. They want the government to be transparent and accountable. They also want to make sure people pay for the crimes they commit, which is not happening right now in some cases. Given what we are seeing with tax evaders, people feel that the government is going after the small fry and ordinary taxpayers while letting the big fish get away.

What my constituents want is fairness, transparency and accountability. That would ensure that we could find out the truth about situations like the one we are discussing today.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the NDP parliamentary leader and member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

The NDP parliamentary leader's comments were very interesting and pertinent. As he said so well, in recent days we were in our ridings and we found that our constituents were increasingly pressing for answers.

In the beginning, when the story broke, people had some questions. However, since late last week, Canadians have been asking for specific, clear answers.

I would like to hear the NDP leader's thoughts on the statement made last week by the Prime Minister. First, he said that the fact that the former attorney general was still in cabinet showed that everything was fine. Then, the next day, she resigned. At that point, the Prime Minister personally attacked the credibility of the former attorney general. Then he attacked former minister Scott Brison. That came out of nowhere.

Could he comment on that?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is troubling is not the situation itself, but all of the different versions we have been hearing since this whole thing began.

In two weeks, we have heard no fewer than five versions, including the fact that if the member for Central Nova had not stepped down, the former justice minister would still be on the job. This makes no sense.

At the end of the day, if the Prime Minister did nothing wrong, if there was not any undue influence, he could have said so. I think that he could trust in the good faith of the former justice minister to confirm this, since the two versions must be fairly similar.

A meeting in which a minister of justice asks for advice from her office is warranted. Having directives and pressure from the Prime Minister or his office is what makes the difference.

If there was indeed no undue influence, if there was simply a discussion between the two parties, then the versions should be consistent. However, we will never know, if the former justice minister does not have the permission to speak. This will require waiving the solicitor-client privilege.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise as the member for Essex on our NDP motion today. I want to thank the member for Victoria for his hard work.

The motion asks members of the House to call on the Prime Minister to waive solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general with respect to allegations of interference in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and to urge the government to launch a public inquiry into this scandal. This is important to repeat because so many people in Essex have asked me about what is really happening here. They deserve answers and the motion seeks to find them.

It has been quite a week in the wake of reports alleging the Prime Minister or senior staff in the PMO pressured the former attorney general to interfere with the decision of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to deny SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement for charges of corruption and fraud relating to bribes paid to officials in Gadhafi's Libya between 2001 and 2011. This saga has played out in national headlines, and the bombshells just kept coming this week as the story grew every day, becoming more bizarre and unbelievable.

Canadians now have every reason to believe the Prime Minister fired Canada's first indigenous justice minister for speaking truth to power because she would not shield alleged corporate criminals at SNC-Lavalin. This was followed by her quitting her current cabinet post and quickly seeking legal counsel. What has ensued is a story that is changing faster than my kids' when they get in trouble and are trying to get out of it.

The Liberal Party cannot keep its story straight. The Prime Minister has denied these allegations and pointed to the former justice minister's continued presence in cabinet as evidence that nothing happened, which begs the question of why she would resign and seek legal advice.

To Canadians, this is a clear case of the Liberals showing who really matters to them. It is not GM workers in Oshawa, Sears workers across our country or postal workers who were forced back to work by them. They compromised the independence of the justice system to bail out their corporate friends from serious criminal charges of fraud and corruption.

Liberals, like Conservatives before them, used an omnibus bill, a monster legislative tool, to jam things into a single vote. This is an erosion of our democracy, and New Democrats have been consistently critical of this blunt tool. I have never heard a government member cite the deferred prosecution agreement as a piece of the omnibus legislation, nor have I ever been supportive of these being used as they are undemocratic tools. Now we find out exactly why SNC-Lavalin had 50-plus meetings with the PMO and related ministers.

Continuing on the theme that there is nothing to see here, we move on from all the good corporate goodies that were buried in the Liberal omnibus bill to the discovery that SNC-Lavalin was rewarded for its endless lobbying efforts with the creation of a piece of legislation that would let it get off any charges without going to court and getting its due. Instead, it can ask the government just to write it a parking ticket and let it walk away.

I ask Canadians watching this at home if they are not tired of watching these two parties write rules for corporations while they are forced to play by the rules and be held accountable? This is what I am hearing from my constituents. They are tired. How many Canadians do we meet with who are looking for legislation to help their families and loved ones? Lyme disease patients, seniors and people who cannot afford their housing or medication would give their eye teeth to get one meeting with the Prime Minister to let him know how broken our systems are and how much Canadians are suffering.

However, they cannot get in to see the Prime Minister. They cannot get into that office, but SNC-Lavalin, a construction firm, can get endless meetings in order to change the rules so it can break the law without any consequences. Canadians are tired of having two sets of rules: one for corporations and the rich and another for everyday people.

That is not even the worst of it, or the reason we all watched this play out this week. We need to be clear that SNC-Lavalin received its get out of jail free card from the Liberals in the omnibus budget bill, but that was not enough. It had the free card, but it was itching to use it. It wasted no time lining up to be the first to use its shiny new legislation. It submitted to have its case put under deferred prosecution, and that is where the allegations begin, allegations of pressure from the PMO on the former attorney general and her team to accept its submission.

This is where it starts to get shady, in case Canadians did not think it was already shady. I will repeat that the AG alleges that she felt pressured to accept the deferred prosecution agreement and let SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal trial, and she did not want to. This is the root of why we are here today, why we need the truth and why we need to hear from the former justice minister.

There has been a lot of worry about what this investigation would mean for workers at SNC-Lavalin in Canada. I share that worry, how it might hurt them and their communities. In all of this sordid affair, it is once again working people who are stuck between a corrupt company that wants to skirt the rules and the worry over their jobs to keep their families thriving. This is unfair.

The story keeps changing day after day, at times blaming the previous justice minister after her resignation, implying that it could be because she did not speak French, or maybe because Mr. Brison resigned, all the while witnessing an ugly whisper campaign that is being waged on her personally. We saw this play out on social media. I hope this campaign did not come from people who were sitting with her on that side of the House. I hope they were not spreading this misinformation about her to discredit her from speaking up, as she should, on behalf of all Canadians.

Then we find ourselves at the justice committee, where the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley represented the New Democrats well. He brought reasonable amendments to the government motion to invite the former justice minister, Gerry Butts and Mathieu Bouchard to appear before them as witnesses. Those amendments were struck down by the Liberal members on the committee.

Those Liberal committee members are stonewalling, making a parliamentary committee unworkable. I echo the member for Victoria, as he heads into that committee today as vice-chair for our party. He is hopeful that today the committee will revisit this, that there will be a conversation about bringing folks who were involved in this directly to that committee. I do hope that happens. These individuals hold the truth. Unfortunately the Liberal committee members voted against these witnesses, trying to deflect onto the piece of legislation they changed and its validity. Instead they should be focusing on what was said by whom and when to the former attorney general.

Canadians expect their government to work for them, and that is what New Democrats are committed to doing. That is why we are calling for an independent public inquiry into the Prime Minister's SNC-Lavalin scandal to provide answers. We are also calling on the Prime Minister to waive solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general and let her speak her truth to power publicly.

The NDP has also called on the Ethics Commissioner to investigate, which we are thankful has been accepted. This will not be the first time the Ethics Commissioner investigates the Prime Minister; it is the fifth time. Even when he was found in breach of ethics, twice, there were limited tools the Ethics Commissioner had to hold the Prime Minister and the government to account. The government members who are getting up today, saying that it is good enough that the Ethics Commissioner is investigating, know this very well. They know there will be no consequences if it is indeed found that there is a breach of ethics. It is a long process. We need this to be cleared now.

If Liberals truly have nothing to hide, then this will be an easy vote. Supporting our motion today will signal to Canadians that Liberals will stand with New Democrats and the opposition members in wanting the truth to come to the light of day. The Liberals keep telling us how important an independent justice system is, but it all goes out the window when it is their friends in trouble.

The Attorney General cannot be pressured by the Prime Minister. This allegation is an erosion of trust in a pillar of Canadian democracy. The need for a public inquiry is clear. Canadians deserve a government they can trust. The Liberals have an opportunity here to end the speculation that is playing out in our headlines and support the truth being set free.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment and one question for my friend opposite, the member for Essex.

She talked about the transparency of the process, lamenting the fact that there was not enough transparency from her perspective. What I would put out there are five points for the purpose of this debate.

There was a one-year consultation process on remediation agreements. The remediation agreements were flagged in the budget. They were implemented in the budget implementation bill. That bill was then studied in three parliamentary committees, justice and finance in the House of Commons, and in the Senate. Then the matter was gazetted.

With respect to my friend opposite, I know she is concerned about trade and I know she is also concerned about fairness for workers. I would put this to her. Five members of the G7 with whom we trade have implemented remediation agreements. We have a mechanism to give prosecutors additional tools to use on how they proceed so they can hold corporate leaders responsible, including admissions of guilt, fines, penalties and forfeiture and not directly impact the livelihoods of the workers who the member and her party advocate for in the chamber. Is that a useful tool, one for harmonizing our relationship with our other trading partners and for ensuring the livelihoods of the workers in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada are not disproportionately impacted?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to have that conversation on another day. Today, the motion before us is about whether the Prime Minister will waive the privilege and whether there will be an independent inquiry. That is why we are today. We are not here to debate the merits of this piece that was brought in. Although, I did raise it in my speech because, once again, it was being shoved down into legislation where Canadians could not see it and it did not see the light of day for average Canadians.

If we head to Tim Hortons in Puce right now and we talk about these deferred abilities for corporations, those Canadians would have no idea about what was going on in legislation that was being rammed through by the government. However, one question they will all be asking in Tim Hortons in Puce today is this. When will the government have an independent inquiry into these allegations?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is striking that the Liberals today only want to talk about remediation agreements, when they did not want to talk about that at all in the past. They want to talk about it today only because they feel it is less politically damaging than the actual substance of the motion, which we need to be discussing.

I wonder if the member could emphasize again the importance of allowing the former attorney general to share her perspective on this policy issue and, more fundamental, what happened, what was said to whom and when about the possibility of SNC-Lavalin getting a special deal. I wonder if the member has comments on the fact that the government does not want to address that issue today and how important it is from the perspective of the public interest for us to hear what the former attorney general has to say and for the public to come to its own conclusions about this.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Today, we have from the Liberals discussions about remediation or discussions that are quite legal in nature, breaking down the attorney-client privilege. Neither of these things answer the fundamental question of why we cannot have an independent inquiry. That is the root of why we are here today. Therefore, I agree with the member that this is the most important piece.

The one person who can shed light on all of this is the former attorney general and justice minister. When she is given that ability to do so, the truth will come out. However, we have seen not only her stunning resignation, but the stunning resignation of the principal secretary, who is a longtime friend and strategist to the Liberal Party. Again, for people in my riding of Essex, where there is smoke there is fire. People do not resign from positions in political life, which has been their entire career, because there is nothing happening.

There is a simple solution. It is time to bring this to the light of day and for the Liberals to vote for our motion, along with the opposition, and let us get down to the bottom of what has really happened.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the member for Surrey Centre.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I was disappointed to see the former member for Vancouver Granville resign from cabinet. I was fortunate to have many conversations with her when she was the minister of justice about a variety of issues. I always appreciated her passion.

Yesterday, a man who was committed to the country and worked tirelessly to make Canada a better place for all its citizens resigned. Gerald Butts always had all the time in the world to listen to me when I had suggestions, comments or concerns. I will miss him in the Prime Minister's Office.

The truth is out there and no one seems to want to listen. The Prime Minister has already made it clear there was no wrongdoing. I am not going to repeat his statement today. What I will say, though, is that there was a time when people were taken at their word, and I take the Prime Minister at his word that neither he nor anyone in his office pressured or directed the former attorney general in this matter.

The opposition talks about this being a non-partisan issue, yet refuses to allow the processes already in place to take their course. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has launched an independent investigation into this matter. I, along with our government, welcome the opportunity to clear the air and for the commissioner to provide an independent assessment. As well, the justice committee is seized with this matter.

I would like to speak about something that has been troubling me for some time, about how politics has become so hyper-partisan. Civility and respect seem to be cast aside in the interest of seeing who can score the most political points. People have retreated into their corners and shout into the middle, not listening to each but rather screaming to see who can be the loudest. We type rather than talk. Our world is moving at lightning speed, social media amplifies negative messages and it has become a race to see who can be first rather than who can be the best. When I speak to people in Oakville North—Burlington and across the country, they want it to stop. They are becoming cynical about politics.

The member who sits opposite from me in the House, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, without fail, speaks with wisdom and civility and is able to set aside partisanship in order to thoughtfully and respectfully debate issues. We may not always agree on policy, but I would never turn down the opportunity to work with her.

I am blessed to do what I do, to represent the fine people who live in my riding and to take part in debates in this place.

Before he passed, my friend Arnold Chan gave a powerful speech in the House. He said:

It is the basic common civility we share with each other that is fundamental. It is thanking our Tim Hortons server. It is giving way to someone on the road. It is saying thanks. It is the small things we collectively do, from my perspective, that make a great society, and to me, that is ultimately what it means to be a Canadian. We are so privileged to live in this country, because we have these small acts of common decency and civility that make us what we are. I would ask members to carry on that tradition, because that is the foundation of what makes Canada great.

When we think about it, is that not what makes us proud to be Canadian? Arnold expressed these concerns in 2017, but I fear it has only become worse since then.

The residents in my riding are working hard to pay their bills, look after their family, make their community better and find some time to enjoy life. Our government is working hard to ensure that people do just that, to help them get ahead, see a brighter future for their children and ensure their parents can enjoy their golden years.

The Canada child benefit is a great example of this. When I speak to those who are receiving it, they tell me it has made their lives easier. In my riding, families have received $70 million in Canada child benefits since 2018. In the Halton region, that number is over $245 million. That money is not only helping families, it is boosting our local economy and businesses. Kristen, a single mom with a beautiful daughter, has told me what a difference this payment makes in her life.

Scotiabank just released a report that showed our government's Canada child benefit was providing $3,350 more to a family with a net income of $35,000 and $1,848 less to a family with a net income of $250,000, compared to the previous Conservative government's program. Our government is lifting children out of poverty and focusing on those who need it the most.

We have lowered taxes for the middle class. It was the first thing we did. The average family of four is $2,000 further ahead today than it was in 2015.

We invested in public transit, both local transit and GO trains, so Oakville and Burlington residents could get home faster and enjoy time with family, friends or attend their child's lacrosse game or music recital.

I know that Oakville North—Burlington residents are passionate about the environment. They treasure our green space and are outspoken advocates for taking action on climate change. In fact, they demand action on this issue. Our climate plan would put a price on pollution and put eight out of 10 families further ahead in 2019.

I meet with small business owners who thank me for the changes we have made to the small business tax rate, lowering it from 11% to 9%. I visited businesses like EarthFresh Farms and UPC, which are thriving because of our focus on innovation and clean technology.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have changed the conversation around gender equity since taking office, in my riding, across Canada and around the world. I am always deeply touched when a young girl tells me she appreciates what I am doing in Ottawa and that I am not what she expected in a politician.

I am inspired when I visit employers who are mentoring young women during the young women in leadership program I developed in my riding. I look at some of the incredible programs that are being developed in Halton like Camp Molly, which is being organized by Deputy Fire Chief Monique Belair of the Oakville Fire Department to encourage young women to look at firefighting as a career choice.

The first year I ran young women in leadership there was not one young woman who chose firefighting as her career. The second year we changed a few things and were able to send three young ladies there. In May, at Camp Molly, there will be dozens of young women from across Halton who will experience the variety of career options within the fire service, showing them that fire services is not just about putting wet on hot. I hope that my staff and I have played a small part in broadening horizons for young women and opening their eyes to the endless possibilities before them.

Our historic investment in the national housing strategy with $40 billion over 10 years ensures that groups like Habitat for Humanity—