Debates of Feb. 19th, 2019

Indigenous Affairs

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, my department and officials will look into the matter immediately. Wherever we can be of assistance, we will be. We always look for a community-led solution wherever we can.

The Environment

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport met with his provincial and territorial counterparts in January to discuss the future of vehicle electrification.

Can the minister tell us how our Liberal government plans to fight climate change?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Steveston—Richmond East for his excellent question.

We recognize the importance of climate change and the need to encourage the purchase and adoption of zero-emission vehicles. Despite Tory negligence, we are proposing concrete measures. While the Conservatives continue to deny climate change, as we still have not seen their plan for the environment, we are taking concrete action to ensure that our children and grandchildren have a healthy environment.

Justice

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when men could tell women, “Sh, honey, nothing to see here. I'll speak for you.” By refusing to allow the former justice minister to speak on allegations of using his office to influence the outcome of a massive criminal corporate corruption case, and speaking for her, the Prime Minister is saying that time has not passed.

Will the Prime Minister allow her to freely speak, instead of telling Canadians day after day that yet another woman experienced things differently than he did?

[David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked me for advice on the question of solicitor-client privilege. I am studying the issue and will provide my legal advice in due course. It would be inappropriate for me to comment any further.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everyone wants the white-collar criminals who were running SNC-Lavalin to be held accountable and brought to justice. That is unanimous.

However, what we in the Bloc Québécois do not want is to lose another head office and thousands of jobs in Quebec. When I put it like that, it sounds simple enough. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper in this matter, desperately trying to blame someone, anyone, for his fiasco.

Can he guarantee that the workers at SNC-Lavalin will not be the ones to suffer because of the many mistakes he has made in this matter?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government has done its work properly. We follow the rules and obey the law. We stand up for the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. We will always respect the law and the commissioner's work, and we will always work hard for all Canadians.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the number of mistakes that keep piling up in the management of the SNC-Lavalin crisis is unbelievable. What an utter disaster. Compared to this, Trans Mountain almost seems well managed.

While the Prime Minister digs himself into a deeper hole, the jobs of thousands of workers in Quebec are in jeopardy.

Will the government take action within the parameters of the law to protect SNC-Lavalin's head office in Montreal and the thousands of jobs connected with it, or will I continue to make the Prime Minister yawn?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. In our parliamentary system, we can represent the interests of workers, retirees, suppliers and any Canadian company while complying with the ethics and legal rules surrounding these discussions.

We will always stand up for workers, we will always stand up for the rule of law in Canada, and we will always follow the ethics rules surrounding discussions.

Regional Economic Development

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade.

It was recently announced that the long-awaited Arctic and northern policy framework may finally be ready for release in June. Past actions by the government affecting indigenous people, like the Indigenous Languages Act and the draft indigenous child welfare act, have been more showpiece than substance, more buzzwords than actual impact.

Will the minister assure the House that this new policy framework will actually have the teeth to effect meaningful change?

[Yvonne Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, the question of my colleague from Nunavut is very important to many Arctic and northern people in our country.

We know and understand that if we are going to succeed in the north and Arctic regions of Canada, people have to be the architects of their own vision and be able to move forward. As the Government of Canada, we are working in partnership with the territories, provinces and indigenous governments to do just that. We are co-developing a policy that will lead to a strong economic and tremendous growth in the Arctic and northern regions.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, the government must do everything in its power and within the bounds of the law, as set out in subsection 715.31 of the Criminal Code, to reduce the negative consequences of the reprehensible acts of certain SNC-Lavalin executives on individuals, be they employees, clients, retired employees or others, who did not engage in the reprehensible acts, while holding responsible those who did engage in said reprehensible acts, in order to preserve thousands of jobs in Quebec and Canada and to ensure that the company's head office remains in Montreal.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find consent for the following motion: That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Timmins—James Bay, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 20, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

No.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak to this matter, which I consider it to be very important, both as a member of Parliament and also because of my background as an environmental enforcer.

I take very seriously that when we are dealing with the enforcement of a federal or provincial law, whether it is the Criminal Code or regulatory statute, we have clear procedures that are open and transparent in how we apply those statutes. Many across the country are deeply disturbed right now that there is no clarity on what is going on with this new unique provision.

I am pleased to stand in support of the motion by my colleague from Victoria, calling on the Prime Minister to waive the solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general with respect to the allegations of interference in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and to urge the government to launch a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act.

Very serious questions are being raised by Canadians about recent decisions and actions by the government. Any intervention by any elected member of this place or the Prime Minister's Office is a serious matter involving a matter before a prosecutor. They are concerned about the amendments to the Criminal Code to create alternative processes to respond to white collar crimes with the result of avoiding a criminal prosecution and the direct result to take away the bar to further federal contracts. They are concerned about the tabling of these measures within an omnibus budget bill.

Canadians are also concerned about the limited review only to the finance committee and not to the justice committee. They are concerned about possible interference in the exercise of discretion by the Attorney General in the decision to prosecute or utilize the new deferred prosecution agreement. They are concerned about whether that interference resulted in the resignation of a cabinet minister, the former minister of justice and attorney general.

Finally, they are concerned about the denial by Liberal members of Parliament to allow thorough consideration of these matters before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Through yet another omnibus budget bill, the government chose to amend the Criminal Code of Canada. As many have said in this place, this is despite its stated position while in opposition to oppose omnibus budget bills and changes to law and policy unrelated to economic measures made through budget bills. These Criminal Code amendments, these significant reforms, were made through an omnibus budget bill tabled by the finance minister, not the justice minister.

I wish to concentrate my remarks on the second aspect of the motion, which is the call for a public inquiry.

The process of the application of a deferred prosecution agreement mechanism in the case of criminal charges brought against the company SNC-Lavalin and any involvement of government parties outside of the Attorney General and the public prosecutor merit open and transparent review.

The government's defence of the use of the budget bill to reform criminal law procedures is a pretty clear indicator of the fact it was of the belief that economic advantage could be gained and prevail over rule of law and justice. In the case currently at hand, the charges are brought under a law that actually prohibits any consideration of economic benefits. Some elected officials, particularly at the provincial level, and others are saying that we should not be convicting this company because there may be a loss of jobs, yet the law itself forbids that to be considered at all in the decision by the Attorney General or public prosecutor.

The intended effect of this provision is to enable justice officials to treat a specified list of economic crimes, such as obstructing justice, money laundering, tax evasion, forgery, bribery of officers, fraud, including frauds on the government, through an alternative legal process that avoids criminal charges or convictions. As well, it is on condition of admission of a violation of the law and specified undertakings being given by the person potentially charged to take remediation measures and self-reporting by the parties at fault. It has been suggested in the media that these are exactly the circumstances that have not occurred in this case. Therefore, questions are being raised as to why consideration is being given to this deferred prosecution agreement, when the criteria have not even met the criteria the government has chosen to put in law.

These DPAs have been used in the United Kingdom and the United States, but in quite different ways.

As mentioned earlier, while the law establishing the DPAs prescribes conditions, it does not include a number of matters that were actually recommended by Canadians during the consultation period before the matter came before the House. A condition that has not been included, as recommended by some, was that the decision be in the interest of justice as opposed to the public interest. This is an issue being raised in environmental impact assessments of major projects in that no matter what the criteria are, in the end, the government can just say that it is a matter of national significance or a matter of public interest, so therefore it is going to do it. The suggestion was that the decision be in the interest of justice, as we are dealing with the Criminal Code.

A question raised was whether it should be a condition that would actually serve as a deterrent, yet that is not in the conditions in the DPA. Another condition suggested was whether it would genuinely promote compliance, but this was not an included condition. I find this very odd, as a former law enforcer. Those are the obvious mechanisms we look to in framing prohibitions and framing our enforcement compliance process.

It is noteworthy that the law specifically prohibits consideration of national economic interests when the offence comes under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, yet in this case, that is precisely the statute the company is being prosecuted under.

I found it very interesting, and we found the same thing with Bill C-69, that the government entertained a period of consultation, in particular with business but also with some judicial officials and some NGOs, before it tabled the bill in the House to enact this provision on enforcement, yet when the bill came up for debate in the House, the government, in its wisdom, chose to add this significant amendment to our main criminal justice statute, the Criminal Code of Canada, at the tail end of an omnibus budget bill.

The Liberal government said that it would not follow what the Conservatives did before. Never would it include provisions that were not economically related. Of course, the bill was tabled by the finance minister, not by the former justice minister.

I want to share with the House what the finance minister said in the House in defence of the mechanism to opt out of being prosecuted:

Mr. Chair, we have put forward a budget, and of course in the budget there are things about how we can make our economy work well. That is the function of this budget. What we have said is that we believe that our approach to deferred prosecution agreements will enable us to pursue an approach that is functioning and doing well in other economies, one that will result in more effective continuation of business success by companies once they have paid their dues to society.

In one case, and the case before us now, one federal statute actually prohibits consideration of the economic impact on the Canadian economy or the economy of a foreign national, yet that is exactly the rationale the finance minister gave for bringing forward this provision. Apparently that was the rationale given, allegedly, to the former attorney general and the public prosecutor. It is very interesting.

The Liberal government, in its wisdom, even though it has brought forward a lot of amendments to the Criminal Code, and in one case actually in an omnibus Criminal Code amendment bill, chose not to bring this significant measure to ensure compliance under the Criminal Code. It decided to do it in a budget bill.

When the matter was referred to committee for review, that aspect of this omnibus budget bill was put before the finance committee. When we look at the proceedings of the finance committee, we see that many members raised concerns that it was not the place for the consideration of an amendment to the Criminal Code. It was the justice committee. The finance committee was not used to reviewing these laws and members said that the bill should be referred to the justice committee. Eventually, the justice committee did call for aspects to be looked at, but then the full review was cut back, because certain Liberal members did not want to consider it.

Why the government chose to bring forward this mechanism the way it did is completely puzzling. It is important for the public to find out exactly how the government is planning to apply this mechanism. We have heard concern after concern about the way this mechanism is opting out of the need for a prosecution and conviction for a serious criminal offence.

Why did the government go this way, and how is it actually applying it in practice? I think it is very important that we have an open and public inquiry so that there is openness and transparency in how the government of the day is intending to apply this mechanism under the Criminal Code.

[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 two comments and a question.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona lamented the lack of transparency in the context of this bill. I just want to make sure that the record reflects that one year of consultations took place in respect of this very issue of remediation agreements. First, the matter was flagged in the budget. Second, the matter was presented in the budget bill. Third, it was studied by no fewer than three parliamentary committees: the finance committee, which she alluded to; the justice committee, on November 7; and the Senate committee. Fourth, it was gazetted.

In terms of an observation, remediation agreements are not an invention of this Parliament. They exist among five members of the G7 now, France, Japan, the United States, the U.K. and Canada, as well as in two other international jurisdictions.

The point I want to raise with the hon. member is the issue of the ethics investigation, which was actually requested by the party opposite that is moving this motion, the party that member represents. It sought that ethics investigation because some of the powers of the ethics investigator include the power to command evidence orally, in writing or under oath; the power to produce documents and have them produce anything the commissioner considers necessary; and the ability to enforce those powers in such a manner that the commissioner has the same powers as a court of record.

Are those the reasons the Ethics Commissioner was solicited by the NDP? Now, in this House, does the member for Edmonton Strathcona question the independence of that ethics investigator?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that I do not intend to give a doctoral thesis in response to what was supposedly a question. I want to give a brief response so that other people can ask me questions.

What I will speak to is the deeply troubling response that the government allowed for the review of this major and significant reform to the Criminal Code of Canada and that there was ample opportunity for the review of that provision at the finance committee and during debate on this omnibus budget bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Absolutely, this is the way the government operates. It likes to go out and consult, and in particular, even in proceedings, it says that it mostly consulted with business. The idea of the DPA came from business to begin with. That is why the government initiated it.

Why did the government not allow adequate time in this place for the elected officials to actually discuss this matter, and why was it not tabled as an amendment to the Criminal Code rather than being in the budget bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister or the PMO put pressure on the former attorney general in respect of the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and if the former attorney general refused to buckle under that pressure and refused to issue a directive to the director of public prosecutions and refused to gazette that directive, and if then the Prime Minister used his Crown prerogative to move the former attorney general out of her position and into another position, I believe that is obstruction of justice and a violation of the administration of justice and the rule of law. I do not believe that the Crown prerogative extends to giving the Prime Minister the right to shuffle any attorney general out of that position to put in place a more compliant attorney general to get what he wants in respect of a criminal prosecution.

My question for the member for Edmonton Strathcona is this. Does she agree with that assessment?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this is a concern about whether there was an obstruction of justice. As we all should know, it is an obstruction of justice if any elected person in this place tries to become engaged in or involved in a decision to prosecute or not prosecute an offence. In this case, we have a whole new mechanism, where the attorney general has the authority to say yea or nay.

In my mind, as a lawyer and as a person who worked in the field of enforcement, it sounds to me like the matters that have been proceeding are completely inappropriate. That is why we need the air cleared. The Liberals do not appear to want to bring the proper witnesses before the committee, and that is why there is this call for an independent judicial inquiry at this stage. I think it is important.

In our committee right now, we are studying how Canada can better help the world in becoming more observant of democracy and human rights, yet here we are in this place talking about significant harm, potentially, to the rule of law in our own country. We need the air cleared on this matter.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to try moving a motion again. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Timmins—James Bay, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 20, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.