Debates of Feb. 21st, 2019

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, to speak truth to power, a citizen cannot ask anything more from an elected official, yet when the former attorney general attempted to speak with her cabinet colleagues about political interference in a justice case, the Prime Minister left her sitting outside his office for two hours while he dithered about the optics of letting her into his domain. In that meeting she spoke truth to power, and he came out and said he was disappointed in her.

Canadians are disappointed in him because she is ready to speak her truth to his power. What is he so afraid of?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Witnesses will appear. Members from both sides will be able to ask questions. Witnesses will answer those questions.

I understand that the former attorney general has also been asked to appear at committee. Members from both sides will be able to ask questions. The former attorney general will be able to answer them. I am confident she will.

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

Mr. Speaker, then the Prime Minister should lift the privilege. The poor Liberals are without Gerry Butts to write their lines for them.

Yesterday the former justice minister stood in the House not once, but twice, and told her colleagues and every member of the House that she is being silenced in her ability by the Prime Minister. His treatment of her is not just spiteful, not just pusillanimous; this is about the exercise of power and protecting his friends and his insiders. One woman with integrity is standing in his path. What is he afraid of? He should let her speak her truth and her power to him.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said a number of times in the House and before the committee earlier today, the question of privilege, in the words of the former attorney general, is complex and multi-layered. We are doing our best. The committee is doing its work. We are doing our best to study that question to allow the former attorney general to speak, but we have not yet resolved the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in Krieger, stated, “It is a constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to initiate, continue or terminate prosecutions.” In the face of that, what in the world were the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council doing talking to the attorney general to overturn the decision of the public prosecutor?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I keep saying it, but I am not sure if it is registering with the members opposite. Conservatives have members from their party present at the justice committee as well. The justice committee is doing really important work. Members have been working together to ensure that they can get a list of witnesses to appear so that members can ask tough questions and get these answers. We see that work happening today, and we see it as important work.

Today, when asked at the justice committee if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was revealed that at the September 17 meeting, the former attorney general unequivocally stated that she would not overturn the decision of the director of public prosecutions, and yet following that, on December 5, the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, and then on December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council himself, urged the minister to change her mind. If that is not pressure, then what is?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council also today at the justice committee confirmed, “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the minister of justice to take.”

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been exactly two weeks since The Globe and Mail revealed this new Liberal scandal. In the past two weeks, what have we seen? We have seen this government get into a comedy of errors, a minister slam the door on cabinet, and the Prime Minister's principal secretary step down.

Today, another layer was added to this Liberal scandal. We found out that the former attorney general told cabinet that she was pressured inappropriately. That is known as obstruction of justice.

Why is the government tolerating that?

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

Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, members from both sides worked together to have witnesses appear. That started today. We can see members from both sides asking questions and witnesses answering those questions.

I think that the member across the way should have faith in the committee process. It was our government that increased resources to committees. On this side of the House, we respect and will continue to respect the work of committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to have confidence in their institutions, but the problem is that the Liberal government is attacking our institutions by interfering in a matter before the courts. That is not right.

According to today's Globe and Mail, the former attorney general says she was subjected to improper pressure. That is obstruction of justice.

How can the government tolerate that? It is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one thing the member opposite said, namely that it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly what we on this side of the House believe. That is why we respect the independence of the judicial system. That is why we respect the work of committees, and they are doing their work.

We also respect the office of the commissioner, which is doing its job, and we will continue to respect it because we know that Canadians must have confidence in their institutions.

Poverty

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' poverty reduction bill does not go far enough and does not do enough. I am not the only one saying so. We are hearing this from a thousand organizations and individuals from across the country. They are calling on the government to show leadership and to revise its bill so we can achieve the objectives.

The fight against poverty is not a public relations exercise.

When will the minister listen to them and finally bring forward concrete new measures to make a real difference in the fight against poverty?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to clearly state that, from day one, our government has stressed the importance of giving everyone a real and fair chance to succeed in Canada.

That is why, in July 2016, we implemented the Canada child benefit, which lifts 300,000 children and 200,000 parents out of poverty every month. By April 2019, 650,000 people will have been lifted out of poverty thanks to the measures we have implemented.

International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nine months since Trump imposed the destructive tariffs on steel and aluminum, which have forced companies to close shop and workers to lose their jobs.

Liberals keep trying to assure Canadians that they have a plan, but the tariffs are still there. This is the same old story: “Do not worry, we are working on it, and we care about jobs.” After months of witness testimony at the trade committee, we now know that their plan is a failure, a failure to protect communities and jobs, a failure to remove the tariffs.

How much more do Canadians need to lose before this Prime Minister will act?

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the illegal U.S. tariffs, we have imposed Canada's strongest trade actions ever. Over 40 American groups, representing dozens of U.S. industries, have called for the removal of the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, citing the impact of our retaliatory actions.

Recently, a senior Republican said that our tariffs are having such an impact that the U.S. must lift its steel tariffs before Congress looks at the new NAFTA deal. Our program is working.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I encourage the hon. member for Abbotsford not to interrupt when someone else has the floor.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, our country is strengthened by its diversity, and members of all communities in Canada must feel safe and be safe. We know that we are not immune to hate-motivated crimes. Communities across the country, including my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, have witnessed these cowardly acts.

Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tell the House what he is doing to help communities at risk of hate-motivated crime improve their security infrastructure?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, acts of hate are intended to drive wedges of fear and division. Such acts can be a jarring reminder that the inclusive and tolerant Canada we want is a precious and delicate work in progress that we dare not take for granted.

Canadians must be free to practise their faith and culture without fear. To that end, we have doubled federal funding for the security infrastructure program to help pay for security upgrades for communities at risk. We have significantly broadened access to the program. More new projects will be announced this spring.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the decision to go to trial had already been communicated on September 4. The Prime Minister held a meeting with the former attorney general on September 17. At that meeting, the former attorney general refused to stop the trial.

I have a simple question, and I do not need a lesson on the non-answers we got from the justice minister at the justice committee. Why did the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the Clerk of the Privy Council continue to put pressure on the former attorney general after the September 17 meeting?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member can refer to it as he pleases, but the fact remains that today, at the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the minister of justice to take.”

We on this side respect the work of committees. We know that members are asking tough questions. They wanted to have witnesses appear. They have worked together to have those witnesses appear. We will not undermine the work they are doing—

[Some hon. member]

No, they have not.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

—like that member is now choosing to do.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these are just Liberal talking points.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I am asking the hon. member and all members to respect one another.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix.