Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2019

Justice

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

Madam Speaker, that is not evidence. That is the member's speculation. That is the member drawing his own conclusions and this is exactly why Canadians are finding it challenging.

Canadians should have confidence in their institutions and that is why we will not undermine the work of committees. We will not undermine the work of officers of Parliament. We respect the independent judicial system because Canadians should have and can have confidence in the independent bodies. Canadians should know that members of Parliament are asking tough questions to witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those questions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that heckling is not permitted and to wait their turn to be called in order to speak.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be pursuing criminal charges. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister that she would not intervene to influence the decision of the director of public prosecutions. That should have been the end of it, but it was not.

We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister tried to interfere on several occasions to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process.

How can it be argued that their actions do not constitute obstruction of justice and are not a crime?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. They have called in witnesses, and the witnesses arrived yesterday. I believe the committee meetings will continue next week.

Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service has confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently. The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there is no direct communication in any—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

Madam Speaker, as long as we are looking at the facts, let me also remind the House that section 139 of the Criminal Code states that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. The law is clear, and it is unacceptable that the Clerk of the Privy Council tried to get the former attorney general to intervene in the judicial process.

When will they realize that their actions are an obstruction of justice and a crime?

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

Madam Speaker, again, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the clerk also confirmed that the Prime Minister clearly said at every opportunity that the decision was the justice minister's to make.

It has to be said that the Conservatives keep speaking out of both sides of their mouths. In French they claim they have no intention of jeopardizing jobs at SNC-Lavalin, as that hon. member said, but in English, the hon. member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down this company and was not afraid to say so.

Their constant doublespeak has to stop.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the former attorney general was fired, she emphasized the need for an independent judicial system. Why?

When the Prime Minister's chief adviser Gerry Butts resigned, he highlighted the former attorney general. Why?

When the former attorney general stood in the House this week, she asked to be allowed to speak her truth. Why?

Why will the Prime Minister not let her speak her truth and let Canadians get to the bottom of all this?

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

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member full well knows, matters of solicitor-client privilege are exceptionally complex, particularly in this sort of case. We are working to try to find a way such that the former attorney general can in fact speak. We are doing our level best to do that.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, there were 50 meetings between executives of a company at the highest levels of the Liberal government, and an engineering company meeting on what? Justice issues. That is time the Prime Minister could have spent finding real solutions to our housing crisis, fighting to make medication more inexpensive for Canadians and helping the people in the country who are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.

When the Liberal government has rich friends knocking at the door, boy does it find time to meet them. However, when Canadians need help, they are told to wait. Why will Liberals not just come clean and tell us who they are really working for?

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians can have confidence that the government will always fight for Canadians. Canadians can have confidence in their institutions.

I find it fascinating that the member seems to forget that the company actually met with his leader, the leader of the NDP. No differently, the company met with the leader of the Conservatives.

What I also find fascinating, as he provides his commentary, is that yesterday he was on a panel, with other members of the committee, and he was saying, “Why don't you have confidence in the members of the justice committee?” We do. Let them do their work.

Social Development

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, families, young people and seniors are struggling to pay their bills. They have to contend with the high cost of housing, health care and day care. They are wondering why the Prime Minister is not working hard to make life easier for them instead of bending backwards to give the rich a free ride.

When rich executives ask for help, the Liberals jump to attention; when ordinary Canadians need help, they are told to wait.

Why are there two sets of rules, one for the rich and another for the rest of us?

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

Madam Speaker, there are indeed two sets of rules: one that increased taxes for the richest 1% in 2016, which the NDP opposed, and another that lowered taxes for the middle class. There is also the rule about not sending cheques to millionaire parents who do not need the money and enhancing the Canada child benefit for nine in 10 families, which was implemented in July 2016. Unfortunately, the NDP also did not support this “rule” to help middle-class families.

Employment

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government truly cared about protecting workers and jobs, why was it not there for Sears, Rona and Davie shipyard workers? Where was the government?

The Liberals' track record speaks for itself. They help rich corporate executives, and the workers have to fend for themselves. The Liberal government has two sets of rules: one set for the wealthy and one set for everyone else.

Why do the Liberals not stand up for our workers who have been left behind, instead of helping their buddies skirt the law?

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, the government believes that Canadians who have lived quiet, dedicated lives deserve peace of mind in retirement. I would like to point out that our government has created more than 800,000 jobs through the platform it has implemented over the past three years. Canada's unemployment rate is among the lowest in decades, and our government continues to help create good jobs for Canadians, for families, so that they can feel secure and safe.

Justice

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

Madam Speaker, on September 4, the director of public prosecution refused to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. On September 17, the attorney general said that she would not reverse that decision. During the next several months, a concerted effort was made by the Prime Minister and his senior officials to make her change her mind.

The Criminal Code is clear: “Every one who wilfully attempts, in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence”. With everything we now know, how is this not obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister?

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

Madam Speaker, let us look at the record.

Just last week, the director of public prosecution service confirmed that prosecutors in every case “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

Yesterday, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. 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 the decision was for the minister of justice to take.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, well, let us look at the record.

Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code says, “Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence”. The Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that he, the Prime Minister's staff and the Prime Minister himself all attempted to influence the outcome of the SNC trial. That is a criminal offence. When will the Liberals admit that?

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

Madam Speaker, I will quote once again. 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.”

Yesterday, when asked at 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 those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.

I encourage members opposite to stop speculating. The justice committee is doing its work. It is bringing forward witnesses. It is working hard. Let us let it do its work.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal saga continues.

Here are the facts. On September 4, the office of the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be moving forward with the case. On September 17, the former attorney general told the Prime Minister she would not interfere in the criminal trial. Yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council admitted that the Prime Minister tried to interfere in the process several times. That is a crime.

When will the Liberals admit it?

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

Madam Speaker, once again, I encourage all members and all Canadians to really listen to what the witnesses who appeared before the committee said, but we need to look at the facts.

The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in this and every other case, prosecutors 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 DPP.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians want to know. The Prime Minister has problems with his exes. His ex-attorney general wants to tell “her” truth. His ex-senior adviser does not want to talk. Pressure exerted by the PMO on the ex-attorney general violates section 139 of the Criminal Code.

When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice? This is a crime. This is a scandal.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important that Canadians have confidence in their institutions. That is exactly why members from both sides who sit on the justice committee worked together to call witnesses. They came to committee, the members were able to ask them questions and they answered them. We have confidence in the members' work on the justice committee. I think they must do their work.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code states that any attempt to obstruct a judicial proceeding is a crime.

On September 4, SNC-Lavalin learned that its criminal trial would go forward. On September 17, the former AG told the PM that she would not interfere in that trial. Now we have learned that three months later, the PM's principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council continued to have discussions with her about interfering.

Is it ignorance or arrogance that keeps the Liberals from realizing just how much this looks like obstruction of justice?