Debates of Feb. 21st, 2019

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried to stop criminal proceedings. The former attorney general said no.

My question is simple. Why did the Prime Minister, the PMO and the Clerk of the Privy Council continue to interfere in the case after the September 17 meeting? Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear. It is obvious that the Conservatives do not have much respect for our institutions. On this side of the House, we respect the work of committees. We respect the independence of our judiciary. We will continue to work with them.

That is exactly why we increased resources for committees so that they can do their important work. We respect our institutions, and we know it is important for Canadians to have confidence in their institutions, too.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the former attorney general told cabinet this week, according to The Globe and Mail, that she faced inappropriate pressure to interfere with the trial into the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin.

Subsection 139(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence, punishable by up to two years in prison, to obstruct the course of justice in a judicial proceeding. Has any member of the cabinet who bore witness to the former attorney general's remarks this week passed them along to the RCMP for investigation?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us review what we heard at the justice committee this morning. When asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the attorney general, the Attorney General confirmed, “Those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.” When asked about conversations with cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General answered, “Absolutely.”

We always have and we always will, on this side of the aisle, respect our institutions.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now she is quoting a politician about an incident he just admitted he did not witness. Why not get back to the people who did witness her?

The former attorney general told cabinet this week, according to The Globe and Mail, that she faced inappropriate pressure to interfere with the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin. If that happened, it may have violated sections of the Criminal Code. Did anyone in the cabinet refer her allegation to the RCMP for investigation?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I responded two days ago, we have no knowledge of any such activity.

Pensions

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a coalition of organizations representing Canada's retirees was on the Hill yesterday to urge the Liberal government to protect workers' pensions in case of corporate insolvency. It also called on the government to create a national pension insurance plan and to change federal insolvency legislation to give workers' pensions priority status. The NDP unequivocally supports these initiatives and has been asking the minister over and over to ensure pension security.

Will the Liberals finally listen to Canadian workers and retirees and protect their pensions, yes or no?

[Filomena Tassi, Minister of Seniors, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his passion and work on this file. Pension security is very important to our government. We made a commitment in the 2018 budget, as well as in my mandate letter, to consult with Canadians, and that is exactly what we have done.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have submitted contributions to this consultation process. Our government wants an evidence-based solution to this issue. To do that, we are going to take a look at what has been submitted and come up with an evidence-based solution. We do not want a Band-Aid solution with unintended consequences. We want the right solution, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Sport

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Sport Canada's policy to prevent harassment and abuse in sport has been ineffective. Each week brings new headlines detailing old or new abuses that have come to light. Athletes and sports organizations are calling on this minister to establish an independent body able to investigate abuse and harassment. Instead of listening, she announced yet another code of conduct.

Will this minister stop stalling and establish an independent investigative body for abuse allegations in all sports?

[Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science and Sport, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am heartbroken for all the athletes who have suffered. Let me be clear. There is zero tolerance for abuse, discrimination or harassment of any kind in sport. That is why last June, we introduced strong measures to end abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport. Last week, for the first time in our country's history, a declaration was signed by all sport ministers from coast to coast to coast. The Red Deer declaration will drive a systemic culture shift to prevent abuse, discrimination and harassment in sport.

Justice

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister met with the former attorney general on September 17. We also now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council was present at that meeting and that there was discussion of a matter before the court.

Here is a simple question that may one day be asked in court: Does the Prime Minister still challenge the former attorney general's belief that this was an attempt to improperly influence her?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. Just last week the director of public prosecutions confirmed that prosecutors in every place “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Earlier today, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that “there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.”

Today, at the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that “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.”

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to know what happened in committee this morning. Here is my question.

On September 4, the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that its case was going to trial. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council that she would not overrule her director's decision. That should have been the end of it.

Why did the Clerk of the Privy Council, the PMO and even the Prime Minister himself hound the Attorney General of Canada to change her decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the facts.

The director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada confirmed that prosecutors, in every case, exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the PPSC. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the Minister of Justice to make.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is now very clear that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted. We know now that he met with the former attorney general after the independent prosecutor decided to proceed with the trial. We also know that the former attorney general told the Prime Minister and his office that she would not intervene. It should have ended there, but it did not.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why on earth he and his government would embark on an unsolicited, coordinated and sustained effort to change her position? How is this not political interference?

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians should have confidence in their institutions. We know that Liberal members have confidence in the independence of the judicial system and the work that the committees are doing. We have confidence in the officers of Parliament. We know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is investigating this matter.

We also know that the justice committee is looking into this matter. Members from both sides have been working very hard to call in witnesses. They are asking challenging questions. They are receiving answers. I think we should let them do their important work. We have confidence in committees.

Indigenous Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Government of Canada tabled Canada's first indigenous languages bill. This is a historic step in rebuilding Canada's relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples as we continue the dialogue on reconciliation.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism please explain to the House how this bill would help indigenous peoples defend their language rights and ensure that indigenous languages are transmitted to future generations?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for his amazing work.

Our language represents who we are. It is how we tell our stories to our children. Most indigenous languages are in danger and many have been lost. We need to act and we need to act now, hand in hand with indigenous peoples.

I hope all parties will join indigenous peoples and pass this bill, which recognizes indigenous languages as a fundamental right. This is a clear response to calls to action 13, 14 and 15. Furthermore, this bill provides for stable, long-term funding.

Let us do this together.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the independent director of public prosecutions made a decision to proceed to trial on a case of corporate criminal corruption. Then the former attorney general decided to let the decision stand. Then the Prime Minister, his cabinet and Michael Wernick tried to get her to change her mind. She did not. Then she was fired.

Does the Prime Minister understand that neither he nor Michael Wernick gets to define what constitutes inappropriate pressure?

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

Mr. Speaker, justice committee members have asked for witnesses to appear. They are appearing. I have confidence in members on both sides to ask tough questions. They will receive the answers they are looking for.

Just last week, the director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.

Veterans Affairs

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned from this morning's PBO report that the Liberals misled veterans with their new pension for life, which is actually less generous for the most seriously injured veterans. Worse, throughout this whole SNC-Lavalin scandal, veterans are losing out because the Prime Minister has yet to appoint a veterans affairs minister. The revolving door of Liberal and Conservative ministers is disrespectful, with eight ministers in nine years. It is heartbreaking to see veterans sacrifice their lives while consecutive governments will not properly invest in services that veterans deserve.

Why are the Liberals leaving veterans out in the cold?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here very proud to be the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Our government is committed to ensuring that our veterans receive the benefits and support they deserve. The needs of Canada's veterans have changed significantly over the past hundred years, when the Pension Act was introduced, and our support needs to change as well.

Thanks to our government's $10-billion additional investment, all veterans today, including the most vulnerable, are better off than they were under the previous Harper government.

Infrastructure

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian highways play a key role in moving our economy forward. In fact, they are vital to rural and remote communities specifically. Good condition of these roads allows Canadians and goods to move more efficiently across the country and help our economy continue to grow. This is particularly crucial in my home province of Manitoba, as trade is an important part of our diversified economy.

Could the Minister of Rural Economic Development update the House on what investments are being made for the highway network of Manitoba?

[Marc Serré, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley for his question and for his hard work.

Our government understands that modern, safe and efficient highways play a crucial role in the economy of Canada. That is why we have announced over $140 million for eight highways to help Manitoba businesses improve competitiveness and improve commutes for Canadians. This is an important investment, and the kind of investment that will continue to make Canada prosper.

Justice

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the interactions today, I have one simple question for the justice minister, and I would like the Attorney General to offer a legal opinion on behalf of Canadians.

Can cabinet confidentiality be used to cover up criminal actions?