Debates of Feb. 21st, 2019

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, as I explained at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the question of solicitor-client privilege is complex. We want to be transparent. That is why we are working hard to get an answer so the former minister can have her say.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the director of public prosecutions decided to move forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin. Two weeks later, the Prime Minister met with the then attorney general to discuss this file. The next day, the multinational's lobbyists met with the Minister of Finance and the Clerk of the Privy Council. On December 5, 2018, Gerald Butts met with the then attorney general to do exactly the same thing as the Prime Minister.

What was the purpose of these discussions, if not to try to change the then attorney general's mind?

Does this not clearly show that there are some rules for regular people and other rules for the Liberal Party's friends?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company. The NDP leader met with representatives of the company. Today, the Conservative deputy leader herself said that she did not want to give the impression that she thinks there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin.

On this side of the House, we respect the independence of the committee and the judicial system. We see the committee doing its work.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the ongoing saga of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Canadians are watching the government melt down in front of their very eyes.

According to yet another bombshell report from The Globe and Mail, the former attorney general told the cabinet this week that she was improperly pressured to get SNC-Lavalin a sweetheart plea deal in its corruption case.

These Liberals promised transparency, but all we see is cover-up. They promised to work for all Canadians, but it is the wealthy and well connected who always get what they want.

With obstruction of justice allegations directed at the Prime Minister's own office, how can Liberals actually stand up and stand in the way of a proper inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it is this government that increased resources for committees, to enable committees to do their important work.

The member was asking to have witnesses appear. Members from both sides got together to ensure that witnesses could appear. We see today that those meetings are taking place in public. We can see that members are asking questions. We can see that witnesses are answering questions. I believe we should respect their work.

We respect the independence of the judicial system. We will continue to respect officers of Parliament. That is what we do on this side. The member can choose what he chooses to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is she talking about? The Liberals claim this whole thing is about protecting jobs, but where were they for Sears workers? Where were they for Aveos, for Rona and for GM workers?

If the Liberals actually cared about working people, maybe they could start jailing their corporate friends when they break the law. Instead, the Liberals are too busy getting them sweetheart deals. Liberals claim to care about the rule of law, but instead, in their world there is one set of laws for the wealthy and well connected and there is another set for everybody else.

Just yesterday, the Prime Minister voted against an inquiry while his former attorney general properly abstained. Does the Prime Minister not get conflict of interest, or does he not care?

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

Mr. Speaker, that member knows better than most that we have an Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That office is doing its work. We respect its independence. We think we should let that office do its work.

The member talks about Canadians. He talks about the importance of employees. Let us talk about this government's record. We have made strategic investments in Canadians, bringing in 800,000 jobs.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

They find it funny—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I am having trouble hearing the answer. We have to hear the questions and the answers. People do not always like either one, or both sometimes. We have to hear them nevertheless.

The hon. government House leader has the floor for 10 more seconds.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they find it funny that 300,000 plus children have been lifted out of poverty through the Canada child benefit. The Conservatives chose to tax that benefit. We believe that families with children, who need the most, should get the most. We will keep fighting for Canadians.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we know and what is undisputed is that subsequent to the September 4 decision that was delivered to SNC-Lavalin, there were numerous meetings between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general, and even between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the former attorney general.

We have also heard on numerous occasions, through media reports, that the former attorney general felt pressured. We are hearing from the Prime Minister that his description is that it was not pressure but vigorous discussion. Again, we seem to have it that the Prime Minister sees things one way and the former attorney general sees them a different way.

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

Mr. Speaker, we see the justice committee doing its work. We see it bringing forward witnesses and having these conversations. I believe that the committee should be able to do its work independently. Members from all parties are present for that work. We are the party that increased resources to committees so that they could do this work. Members from both sides asked for witnesses to appear. They were able to work together to bring forward a list of witnesses. Let us let the committee members do their work.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here is the simple question we have been asking all day yesterday and today, and to which we still have not received an answer. Who called for the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general on September 17? Who asked for that meeting?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can definitely state that there is obviously a different approach with this Prime Minister and this government than was the case under the previous government. We have conversations all the time. When it comes to the lives of Canadians and the important decisions we need to take, it is important that we take a whole-of-government approach and that every minister represents them. We work with members on both sides, because the voices of their constituents need to be heard.

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

Talking to each other, communicating, is important. It is appropriate.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether the discussion was appropriate. The question is, in the wake of the decision made on September 4 and the meeting at the Prime Minister's Office or with the Prime Minister on September 17, who asked for that meeting?

Was it the Prime Minister, or was it the former attorney general? It is not complicated.

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

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee is doing its work. It has called its witnesses.

Today we saw many questions being asked, and we heard many answers.

It is important for us to point out that the Conservatives keep talking out of both sides of their mouths. In French, they say they have no intention of hurting the SNC-Lavalin employees, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said. However, in English, it is quite a different story. The members, like the member for Carleton, want to shut down that company, and they are not even trying to hide it.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know whether, with the ultimate goal of protecting jobs, the Prime Minister or anyone from his office put any pressure on Canada's justice system.

It is not complicated.

On September 17, a meeting took place between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general of Canada.

We want to know who asked for that meeting.

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

Mr. Speaker, members from both sides of the House sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They are asking these questions and getting answers. Everyone can listen to these discussions.

Today, when asked whether it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and his officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General said that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, Canada's top prosecutor decided that SNC-Lavalin's case would go to trial. On September 17, in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council, the former attorney general indicated that she would not intervene to try to change the top prosecutor's decision.

What followed was an unsolicited and coordinated effort by the Prime Minister and his minions to influence an ongoing legal process, and when the then attorney general did not co-operate, he fired her.

In what world does this interference not constitute a clear attempt to obstruct justice?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, on this side of the aisle, the government respects the independence of the work that committees do. We respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We respect the independence of the judicial system. Today, we see that the justice committee is hearing from witnesses. Members are asking tough questions, and they are receiving answers.

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”. I think the member on the other side is projecting from his experience under the previous government.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed today that months after the former attorney general had made it clear she would not interfere in an ongoing court proceeding involving SNC-Lavalin, the Prime Minister refused to accept that decision and continued to pressure the former attorney general to change her mind.

The director of public prosecutions had made a decision. The former attorney general had made a decision. Why did the Prime Minister then make the decision to try to obstruct justice in an ongoing legal proceeding?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to believe that if he raises his voice, all of a sudden there is more validity to what he is saying. The record has stated, as I have said and will continue to say, that the justice committee is doing the work. The member can raise his voice louder if he wants to, but the justice committee has asked for witnesses to appear. Members have asked questions. Witnesses are answering questions.

It was last week that 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”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, order. I would ask the hon. opposition House leader to come to order.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.