Debates of Feb. 19th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Hochelaga is rising on a point of order.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the member whether she plans to get back to the motion at hand, or whether she plans to continue ranting about all sorts of other topics?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Normally, the question would not be directed at the Chair, but since it is on a point of order, I think it has to do with the relevance of what the member is saying.

The question was on relevance on the speech that is being given. I will leave it to the hon. member to come back to what we are debating today.

The hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that I am talking about the motion today because I am talking about what is important to the residents in my riding and what I am hearing in the Tim Hortons in Oakville North—Burlington. They are talking about things like the Canada summer jobs program where our government doubled the funding for this program, which provides students with valuable job skills. I speak to students who say they never thought they would get a job in their field, but they did because of this program, or employers who say that they would never have been able to expand their programming without Canada summer jobs.

We have invested in child care and new parental leave policies to make it easier for young families. Our government plans to invest $7.5 billion over 11 years to support and create more high-quality affordable child care spaces. Our programs are working. Unemployment is at a 40-year low and more people are finding work than ever before, with real wages rising at the fastest pace in nearly a decade. Canada has the fastest growth rate of all countries in the G7.

These are the issues that matter to Canadians. These are the issues that are important to my constituents in Oakville North—Burlington. I am proud of our record as a government and look forward to continuing to do the hard work to ensure that all Canadians can succeed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind hon. members that if there is a point of order, the member stands and is recognized. The point of order is taken, and the point is not shouting what they think should be happening across and hoping that they remain anonymous.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not so sure that is what people have been talking about at Tim Hortons since the weekend, but that is another issue.

Throughout her speech, the member for Oakville North—Burlington talked about partisanship. Can she think of anything more partisan than a group of Liberal MPs with a committee majority deciding not to call witnesses whose testimony is germane to the matter we are discussing today? Does that not strike her as kind of partisan?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the committee was going through the witness list this morning. I am not on that committee, so I cannot say for sure.

Committee selection is done in camera. It is always done that way in all committees. I will trust the committee, which does act independently. I know the chair of the committee and how passionate he is about ensuring that the committee behaves in an independent manner. I trust that it will do the work that it has been seized with.

[Michael Barrett, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was interesting that instead of talking about the issue at hand, which is a motion that the nation is seized with, that being corruption at the highest levels of the Prime Minister's Office and the government, the member opposite decided to talk about how we need to get partisanship out of politics and how great a job her government is doing compared with the previous government.

While I would like to take this time to talk about the phenomenal job that the Conservative government did under Stephen Harper, I will instead ask a very straightforward question of my colleague across the way.

[An hon. member]

Let's hear a little more about that.

[Michael Barrett]

I would absolutely love to, but what people are talking about in the Tim Hortons in my riding and across this country is the corruption, the corruption that led to the resignation of the Prime Minister's principal secretary and that led to the firing of the now former attorney general.

The justice committee had asked to hear from Gerald Butts and the fired attorney general. Does the member opposite think that this afternoon we should ask the Liberal-dominated committee to hear from those two key players in this Liberal scandal?

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

I first want to clarify the record, Mr. Speaker. The member for Vancouver Granville actually resigned. She was not fired.

I will also leave it up to the members of the justice committee to determine what witnesses they feel are best to appear before the committee. Quite honestly, there are unsubstantiated anonymous allegations that have been made at this point. I am going to leave it at that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her very kind words about my role in this place. I do try to be non-partisan and it is never anything but entirely productive. For me, it is a real privilege to work with the hon. member across the way. We have done some good things in committee on a number of amendments related to justice.

My question is from the bottom of my heart. I am not rushing to judgment, I just want the former attorney general, former minister of justice, to be relieved from solicitor-client privilege so that she can directly answer the questions. It would clear the air. Goodness knows there are critical issues that this Parliament should be discussing.

I know this issue is loaded with hyper-partisanship and I understand why some of the Liberal benches find it too much, but honestly, from where I sit, being as fair as I can be, the Prime Minister should relieve the former minister of justice and former attorney general of the constraints of solicitor-client privilege so that she can freely answer questions and clear this up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be honest. Solicitor-client privilege is a complicated issue. I am not a lawyer and I do not feel qualified to answer that question. I will leave that to the lawyers, and I know there are many, who can give a better response than I can.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest admiration for my colleague the MP for Vancouver Granville, who is an instrumental member of the Pacific caucus and who has been and continues to be a strong advocate for her riding.

I also have the utmost appreciation for former principal secretary Gerald Butts, who has always served this country with integrity and advocated for positive politics. I hope he will continue, and I expect him to continue, to serve Canadians in whatever endeavour he takes on.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to some of the matters raised by the member opposite's motion. There are already two processes under way that are investigating the allegations raised by the motion. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be holding hearings on this issue and the Ethics Commissioner will be conducting an investigation. I am confident that these two processes will be completed in a fair and thorough manner and will provide Canadians with the answers and the information they seek.

There is every reason to believe at this time that these two groups, one composed of Canadians' elected representatives from both other parties and one representing a non-partisan perspective, are up to the task of considering the questions that Canadians are asking. That said, it would be helpful to discuss the roles, responsibilities and powers of each of these two processes.

Let me speak about the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

With the exception of standing joint committees and certain standing committees, the Standing Orders set out a general mandate for all standing committees. They are empowered to study and report to the House on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization and operation of the departments assigned to them by the House. More specifically, they can review and report on: the statute law relating to the departments assigned to them; the program and policy objectives of those departments and the effectiveness of their implementation; the immediate medium and long-term expenditure plans of those departments and the effectiveness of the implementation thereof; and an analysis of the relative success of those departments in meeting their objectives.

In addition to this general mandate, other matters are routinely referred by the House to its standing committees, such as bills, estimates, order in council appointments, documents tabled in the House pursuant to statute, and specific matters that the House wishes to have studied. In each case the House chooses the most appropriate committee on the basis of its mandate.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has the power to review and report on the policies, programs and expenditure plans of the Department of Justice, which has the mandate to support the dual roles of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, the chief law officer of the Crown.

The committee also has the power to study the policies, programs and legislation of the following entities: the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Courts Administration Service, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

In particular, the committee may review proposed amendments to federal legislation relating to certain aspects of the Criminal Code, family law, human rights law and the administration of justice, notably with respect to the following statutes: the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act, Divorce Act, Civil Marriage Act, Canadian Human Rights Act, Judges Act, Courts Administration Service Act, and the Supreme Court Act.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights may also undertake studies on subjects related to its mandate, either as referred to it by the House of Commons or on its own initiative. For example, it recently conducted a study on juror mental health and prior to that it conducted a study on human trafficking in Canada.

In the course of a study, the committee holds public meetings, considers evidence from witnesses and reviews written submissions and other authoritative documents. In the case of its human trafficking study, the committee also travelled across Canada to hold private sessions with witnesses who were uncomfortable testifying in a public forum. This enabled it to hear from witnesses that it otherwise might not have been able to hear from but whose testimony was crucial to the study.

At the conclusion of a study, the committee usually reports its findings and makes recommendations. The committee may request a government response within 120 days.

As to the Ethics Commissioner, under the Conflict of Interest Act, a member of the Senate or House of Commons who has reasonable grounds to believe that a public office holder, which includes the Prime Minister, has contravened the act may, in writing, request that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner examine the matter.

In conducting this investigation, the commissioner has the power to summon witnesses and require them to give evidence orally and/or in writing, under oath or affirmation and produce any documents and things that the commissioner considers necessary. For the purpose of enforcing these powers, the commissioner has the same powers as a court of record in civil cases.

The subject of the complaint also has an opportunity to make submissions to the commissioner. The commissioner's investigation is required to be conducted in private. The commissioner is required to provide the Prime Minister with a report setting out the facts in question as well as the commissioner's analysis and conclusion in relation to the request made by a parliamentarian. The report is to be provided to the person who made the request, to the public office holder who is the subject of the request and to the public. The commissioner may not include in the report any information that he or she is required to keep confidential, unless the information is essential for the purposes of establishing the grounds for any conclusion in a report.

As I have explained, these two processes are already under way. Both will investigate the allegations raised by the motion moved by the member opposite, and I am confident that these two processes will be thoroughly and fairly conducted and will provide Canadians with the answers and information they seek. There is every reason to believe that these two groups are up to the task of considering the questions that are being asked.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a fascinating explanation of how committees work for people back home who may want to talk about what they are learning in high school.

It is amazing that through all that explanation of all the little things about committees and what doors they can go in and out of, the member overlooked the two key elements here.

One is that the Ethics Commissioner does not have the power to look into the allegation that the Prime Minister's Office and Gerald Butts, his right-hand man, attempted to strong-arm the Attorney General into deep-sixing a legal case. He does not have that authority.

As for the amazing reports of the justice committee and how it puts its reports together and how people sit around the table, the member did not mention the fact that it was the Liberals on the justice committee who made sure that any key persons who know whether crimes were committed in the Prime Minister's Office were not allowed to be brought forward as witnesses, so it does not have credibility.

Therefore, I am asking my hon. colleague to stop hiding. His Prime Minister is bleeding credibility. Why are the Liberals afraid of an independent inquiry by an independent judicial person who could get to the bottom of whether the Prime Minister of this country directed the Attorney General to interfere with one of the biggest corruption cases in Canadian history? It is a simple question.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have confidence and the government has confidence in the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner has the duty, has the role, has the powers and has the responsibility to investigate these questions. As to the committee, the Privy Council chief, Mr. Wernick, is also part of that investigation and is an independent bureaucrat who is not a political operative.

Therefore, all the appropriate bodies and people who are involved have been and will be investigated in this matter. We have full trust and confidence in the Ethics Commissioner to come out with an investigation and a report that will be satisfactory to Canadians and to the constituents in my riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that the Liberals want to avoid discussing the particulars of the issue at all costs. However, I know the member for Surrey Centre and I know that in the past he has been able to find his voice to criticize decisions of the cabinet that he disagrees with. I know he came out before Christmas and criticized the actions of the public safety minister in terms of a report and the language he used in that report. We have seen this member have the willingness to criticize the actions of the front bench, and I applaud him for his willingness to do that. Therefore, I wonder if in this case he will find his voice to do the same and recognize that, yes, all of us want to see the work being done by the various bodies that are doing investigations, including the Ethics Commission.

However, to allow that work to take place properly, the former attorney general has to be able to speak. She has to be able to tell her side of the story. The government must waive solicitor-client privilege and allow those investigations to be informed by what the former attorney general has to say.

The member for Surrey Centre has found his voice before. Will he find it again to recognize the problems with what the government is doing, and call for the former attorney general to be able to speak on this matter?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always ensured that my voice is heard and I have never been afraid to use my voice in the House or elsewhere.

Solicitor-client privilege is very treasured in our judicial system, and it is the responsibility of the Attorney General of this country to defend the interests of this country.

These matters are still before the courts and prosecution decisions still need to be made. With regard to giving away privileged information, I have never seen anyone in any court decision ever give away strategies or discussions to the opposing side prior to prosecution. It does not work that way, as I think the member opposite knows.

As to trust, we have two investigations. If we do not have trust in the highest ethics commissioner in this country and trust in our judicial committees, then in whom do we have trust? Only after those investigations conclude will we see whether this solicitor-client privilege should be waived. If the conclusion is that there will need to be a further investigation, that would occur after the two reports have been tabled.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend, the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

It is very revealing for me to listen to the Liberals here today. One after another, they want to tell us all about the inner and intricate workings of any committee in the House of Commons and want to debate sub judice rules and all sorts of protocols and doctrines rather than speak to the heart of what New Democrats have brought forward as a motion here today.

I thought my Liberal colleagues would have taken the motion seriously, because it deals with our very trust and confidence in government itself, never mind the day-to-day eroding of trust and faith in this particular government and its own credibility. Instead, Liberals have spent the entire day avoiding the elephant in the room, the very central questions that Canadians are asking about what exactly is going on in the Prime Minister's own office with this scandal. They refuse to believe that Canadians are somehow not going to be satisfied with the constantly evolving stories coming out of the Prime Minister's own mouth and the fact that every time they say there is nothing to see, another shoe drops, giving even more compelling reason for Canadians to suspect the allegations they first read about just over a week ago are of merit and may in fact be entirely true.

Let us walk ourselves back to exactly how we got here today, when New Democrats are moving a motion calling on the Prime Minister to waive his solicitor-client privilege, which has effectively silenced the former attorney general of Canada but has not silenced the Prime Minister. He has gone on day after day, talking about all their private conversations. He actually ends up contradicting his own version of events day after day. Meanwhile, his former attorney general cannot speak at all because the Prime Minister refuses to waive this privilege, maintaining that she is unable to speak without breaking that privilege.

We also asked for a public inquiry. Canadians, a surprising number of them, watched last week's emergency justice committee hearing as we sought to have the most fundamental elements of this story discussed and debated at committee and to call the most relevant witnesses. They watched a two-and-a-half-hour spectacle, as Liberals, claiming independence and innocence, stonewalled and refused every attempt to actually hear from people who were involved. They wanted to hear from witnesses who had no idea what actually went on between the Prime Minister's Office and the former attorney general. They only wanted to hear from those people, the current Attorney General and others, who had no clue what happened. However, when we asked for people such as Mr. Gerald Butts and the former attorney general and on down the list, the Liberals refused.

We asked them to also encourage the Prime Minister to waive solicitor-client privilege so the former attorney general could speak. The Liberals refused. At one point I said it would be really good for Canadians to hear from the former attorney general. One of the Liberal committee members said she agreed. I asked then why she had just voted against it; she said she had not, when 10 minutes before that, she had voted against that exact proposition.

I am not sure what world they are occupying, but it is a troubling one, because at the heart of this matter is the confidence Canadians must maintain, regardless of their political persuasion, in this institution and the ability of government to work on their behalf, not just on behalf of the wealthy and the well connected.

Dozens of times this very well-connected company met with the Prime Minister's Office, met with Gerald Butts, met with the Prime Minister's principal secretary in Quebec, pleading, asking, demanding for the law to be changed to allow a company that is convicted of fraud and bribery charges, as SNC-Lavalin has been, to continue to bid on federal government contracts.

The Liberals in fact buried that change in the law in a 550-page omnibus bill. Even Liberals on the finance committee said it was inappropriate. Even the chair of the finance committee said it was the wrong place to discuss it, and it was never discussed. The concerns we raised were dismissed, and the Liberals, one after another, voted for that change to allow companies to plead out—to admit guilt, take a fine, pay back the bribery charges, and then continue to bid on those lucrative contracts.

There are two sets of rules here. One is for average, ordinary Canadians who face obstruction of justice or bribery charges and face the full weight of the law. Another set of rules is for well-connected folks who can lobby the Prime Minister's chief adviser, lobby the chief architects and strategists of the government and lobby the Prime Minister himself in order to get the changes made.

After succeeding in getting those changes, the government needed one final step. It needed the public prosecution office to actually allow this company to plea out.

Listen to the Liberals as they talk about this, about jobs and how they need this plea deal for this company to protect jobs. Written into the law itself is that one cannot argue economic missed opportunities to get a plea deal. One cannot say that because there may be job losses, a company should be allowed to avoid the full weight and punishment of the law. One cannot apply a plea deal. Properly, the public prosecution office has refused to do that.

The allegations that appeared told us that. Someone from the Prime Minister's Office was applying pressure to the former attorney general of Canada to push for this plea. When she resisted, she may have been fired. It was inexplicable why eight months before an election, and just six months after a cabinet shuffle, the Prime Minister needed to shuffle her out of justice and out of serving as the attorney general. She was the first female indigenous attorney general and justice minister in Canadian history.

We all watched the swearing-in ceremony. The former attorney general was clearly not pleased. She was clearly upset with what the Prime Minister did.

When the Prime Minister eventually saw her leave his cabinet, did anyone notice that he did not have anything nice to say about her? Did anyone notice that in his public utterances, it took him more than a week to deny the sexist and racist smear campaign against her that was coming out of the Prime Minister's own office? It took him seven days to say how terrible the comments were that she was prickly and difficult to work with. As one Liberal member said anonymously, if she thought that being a woman and being indigenous protected her somehow, she was wrong. Think about that. A Liberal MP went, on background, to a national newspaper to say that she must have thought that because she was indigenous and a woman, it somehow protected her.

The Prime Minister, a so-called feminist, has said that there is no relationship more important to him than the one with indigenous peoples. It took him a week to publicly denounce those comments, comments that may have come out of his own office. One wonders what exactly is going on.

At the very heart of this is the independence of our courts to apply the law equally to all Canadians. We have a Liberal Party that stated that it was going to be different. The Liberals were going to be open by default. They were going to be transparent. However, when we sought that openness and transparency, what did the Liberals do? They voted against all our efforts and then said that the committee should go in camera, behind closed doors, to discuss sensitive things. They want to talk about these witnesses, but they do not want to talk about those witnesses. It is incoherent.

The good thing about telling the truth, I would offer the Prime Minister, is that it is easy to repeat, because it does not change. I noticed that with the Prime Minister, day by day the story was different: the allegations were entirely false; the evidence that nothing untoward happened was that his former attorney general was still in cabinet. The next day, where was she? She was out of cabinet, having resigned.

The Liberals know how bad this is. If they do not, shame on them. They stand up, one after another, and say that the Prime Minister does not need to waive solicitor-client privilege, that we do not need to hear from the former attorney general at the justice committee and that the Prime Minister's word is good enough for them. The Prime Minister's word has not been consistent at all in this scandal.

I will remind my Liberal colleagues, because many of them were not here, that back in 2013, there was an opposition day motion the Liberals moved in Parliament:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be instructed to examine the conduct of the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the repayment of Senator Mike Duffy’s expenses; that the Prime Minister be ordered to appear under oath as a witness before the Committee for a period of 3 hours, before December 10, 2013; and that the proceedings be televised.

That is what the Liberals thought in opposition when the whole Nigel Wright-Mike Duffy payoff was going on. They thought that a good person to hear from was the Prime Minister himself. Now they flip over to being in government and they say, “Oh my, the Prime Minister told us several versions. We believe them all. We are Liberals. We are somewhat morally flexible when it comes to the truth."

The Prime Minister said something on Monday that was different on Tuesday and changed again on Wednesday, but it all sounds right to the Liberals. Canadians are left wondering who these guys are. They are three years into governing and cannot find the truth with both hands.

The Liberals are looking around and wondering why no one believes them when the head of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has implicated himself in a scandal that goes right to the heart of our faith and belief not only that government but that our courts are independent and that all Canadians, regardless of their stature or connections, will experience a fair hearing and trial.

We see two sets of rules in place, one for well-connected and wealthy people and another for everyone else. Canadians deserve the answers. Canadians will eventually get the answers. It is only a question of when and how.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a rush to judgment. The NDP will never be found lacking in the way its members can ramp up political arguments to try to justify whatever it is they want to achieve.

We on the government benches, and I would hope most members of Parliament, would appreciate the independence of the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner is, in fact, involved in this and is looking at it. The Prime Minister himself has welcomed the involvement of the Ethics Commissioner. I believe what is being said. I believe that this government will continue to remain focused on what is important to Canada's middle class, which is developing our economy and building good, solid policy into the future.

The member opposite wants to exaggerate an issue, which is no doubt of a serious nature, and that is why the Ethics Commissioner is looking into it. Does the NDP have any confidence in the independence of the Ethics Commissioner? Surely to goodness he would recognize that it is an independent office that does not have the political partisanship we have witnessed here today.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for a bunch of innocent people, they sure have a way of acting guilty.

The Ethics Commissioner's investigation, as my friend, I hope, understands, does not deal with political interference. The centre of this story is about political interference.

We have total faith in the Ethics Commissioner. That is why my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and I wrote to him and asked him to investigate. Do members know what the Liberals said? They said, “There go the NDP looking for something where nothing exists.” Do members know who agreed that something exists? It was the Ethics Commissioner, who will investigate under section 9.

My friend knows full well that the allegations against the Prime Minister and his office are about political interference and the potential for obstruction of justice, neither of which the Ethics Commissioner can investigate. He knows that, but he is going to keep saying this. I love when I hear my Liberal friends say that they believe the version of the Prime Minister. This is my only question to them. Which version do they believe, or is it all of them?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley talked at length about what happened at committee this past week, and I have to agree with him. What happened was unbelievable. Members of the House were saying that a committee of the House of Commons was not the right place to adjudicate this, that the House of Commons was not the right place to deal with this. This is the place. The House and its committees are the places where this thing should be adjudicated.

In fact, committees have all the powers of a court. They have the power to compel evidence. They have the power to summon witnesses. In fact, I remember sitting on the opposite side when a committee of the House took Karlheinz Schreiber out of an Ontario jail, in handcuffs, to bring him up here to testify in front of a committee. Why? It was because the committee felt that the matters at hand were important enough that someone should be brought in front of the committee to explain what had happened in that affair. The same thing goes for this matter, which I would argue is much graver than that matter back in 2007, because the matter in front of us today is about the current Prime Minister in office and a former attorney general. It concerns the administration of justice and the rule of law in this country. Therefore, a committee of the House and the floor of the House are the right places to adjudicate.

I hope members on both sides vote in favour of the motion in front of us to ensure that we protect this institution and pass on to our children and grandchildren institutions that are capable of putting checks and balances on the Prime Minister's power and that ensure that the rule of law and our constitutional order are upheld.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question, comment and memory of what committees have the power to do, because governments have extraordinary power themselves. The entire existence of this place is to hold that power in check and be a counterbalance to that power.

I would remind my Liberal colleagues, those not sitting in cabinet, that they are not part of the government. Their job also is to hold government accountable. I have watched my Liberal colleagues on the justice committee put the blinkers on over and over and say that they see nothing untoward here. One Liberal member actually said that committees are not the place for investigations. What planet are they occupying? How can it possibly be true in their world and their view that this power should go unchecked in all regards and that whatever the Prime Minister says is the law without question?

We are here to question. We will keeping questioning until we get the answers Canadians deserve.

Haitians Without Status

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has at last halted deportations of Haitian citizens and refugees because of the violent crisis that has been raging for months in Haiti. That does not make up for the many years during which it treated Haitians without status as numbers.

The Bloc has been calling on the government to regularize their status for the past five years. Three months ago, as the crisis was escalating, we asked the government to suspend deportations. It refused. For the past three months, Ottawa has been deporting families to a country rocked by violence. On Thursday, a father and his 11-year-old daughter were arrested and deported in the midst of a full-blown crisis.

The government has finally woken up, but the Haitian community is wondering when deportations will resume. The least the government can do is issue a moratorium for as long as the situation in Haiti remains unsafe.