Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2019

Justice

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I have stated for the record, and I will do it again, that 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 a decision for the minister of justice to take.

We take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. We will always defend and uphold the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.

This matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee. We will work with them. We think they should get to do their work independently of the chamber.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, section 139(2) of the Criminal Code states, “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-Lavalin 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, we have said that we on this side of the aisle, the Liberal Party, support the work of the committee. We support the independence of committees. That is exactly why as a government, we have increased the resources of committees because they need to do that important work. The matter is being looked at by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the justice committee.

When it comes to officers of Parliament, we respect their independence and we believe they should do the important work. We respect the independence of the judicial system.

A clear difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party is that we will not undermine our institutions, like those members choose to continue doing.

Indigenous Affairs

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, people in Pelican Narrows are suffering from a lack of affordable and accessible housing. The community has 266 new housing requests but only the funding to complete three, and that does not include the requests for home renovations.

While the Liberals brag about their housing strategy, people in Pelican Narrows are still waiting for a place to call home. They cannot and should not wait any longer.

Will the Liberals stop waiting and immediately invest in housing for the people of Pelican Narrows?

[Dan Vandal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, our government recognizes the unacceptable gaps in housing on reserve and in indigenous communities.

After decades of neglect and underfunding by the Conservative government, our government is taking action. For first nations housing on reserve alone, we have committed more than $1 billion, with more than 15,000 housing units being built and renovated.

We have also rolled out distinctions-based housing for indigenous communities: $600 million for first nations, $500 million for Métis and $400 million for Inuit.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals do not seem to understand that reconciliation means housing is a human right. This week they announced funding that represented less than 2% of their national housing strategy to tackle the homelessness crisis of indigenous people in urban centres.

Experts have been clear: We need way more than that to address this urgent housing crisis and to solve the fundamental causes of homelessness in urban areas. One in 15 indigenous peoples living in cities is homeless.

When will the Liberal government step up with a real plan to address this crisis?

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

Madam Speaker, the very difficult circumstances many Canadians, and certainly many indigenous Canadians, find themselves in when it comes to finding an affordable place to call home is something of great concern to this government and has been since the very start of our mandate. That is why in budget 2016, for the first time in 17 years, we increased the budget to fight homelessness in Canada and doubled it.

That is not the end of the story. Just a few months ago, we announced the first ever national housing strategy, which is going to change the way in which indigenous Canadians across all of Canada will be able to access a safe and affordable place to call home.

Justice

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

Madam Speaker, according to the Criminal Code, everyone who “wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice” in a judicial proceeding is guilty of a crime. We now know that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's top adviser attempted to force the former attorney general to interfere in the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin after she told the Prime Minister she would not. The Prime Minister is complicit in these actions. When will the Liberals admit their crime?

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

Madam Speaker, he is one of the newer members on that side, and already he is speculating, just like the rest of them.

The member should be encouraged to let the justice committee do its important work. The justice committee has members from both sides on it. They are working together to bring witnesses to that committee. Witnesses are appearing. Members are asking tough questions, and they are getting answers. We on this side have confidence in the work committees do in this place, and we will continue to do that, but we should let the record show that 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 interference.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code is clear that everyone who “attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence”.

The public prosecutor informed SNC-Lavalin that it would be proceeding with a criminal trial. The former attorney general said she would not interfere. We know that the PMO, the Clerk of the Privy Council and even the Prime Minister attempted, on several occasions, to get the former attorney general to interfere in the trial. Is that not obstruction of justice?

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

Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians are noticing that the Conservatives continue asking the exact same question, and when I am providing the answer, they start yelling so they can never hear the answer, and then they continue getting up and asking the same question, so I will answer it again, and maybe they will listen.

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 the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Once again, the Conservatives do not listen. They continue speaking when I have the floor.

[Richard Martel, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC]

Madam Speaker, on September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin was informed that the trial would proceed. On September 17, 2018, the former attorney general decided not to interfere in this matter, but we know that government actors attempted to intervene.

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 is guilty of an indictable offence.

When will the Liberals realize that this is obstruction of justice?

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

Madam Speaker, now we are being asked the same question in French. We are proud to be a bilingual country.

Let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service 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 Prime Minister's Office and the DPP. 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 take.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Liberals are very uncomfortable with this very inconvenient truth.

Let me repeat that subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code says that everyone who “wilfully attempts in any manner...to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence”.

We know that the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and Gerry Butts wilfully attempted to have the former Attorney General interfere in the trial. That is a criminal offence. Will the justice minister admit that this constitutes a crime?

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

Madam Speaker, the member was here under 10 years of Stephen Harper when they undermined the work of committees. What is clear is that the Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but their approach to democracy remains exactly the same, and Canadians are noticing.

We on this side have increased resources to committees, because we respect our institutions. Canadians should have confidence in their institutions, and that is what we will continue to do.

When it comes to officers of Parliament, this side will always respect their work. When it comes to the independent judicial system, we will encourage it to do its work. When it comes to the work of committees, like the justice committee, they are doing their work. Let us let them do their work.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Once again, I remind members not to chat or heckle while someone else has the floor. I am sure they want to hear the answers.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, for 20 years, many countries have tried to amend an international treaty to stop developed countries from shipping garbage to developing nations, but Canada has refused to agree. The Liberal government talks about increasing recycling, but it is clear that it is not taking responsibility for where our garbage ends up. One hundred and three containers of Canadian trash have been rotting in the Philippines for four years. These containers are full of, not recycling, but diapers, food waste and discarded electronics.

When will the minister end this international embarrassment and prevent Canada from shipping its garbage to developing countries?

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, our country is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue and is aware of the court decision ordering the importer to ship the material back to Canada. Currently, a joint technical working group is being established, consisting of officials from both countries, to examine the full spectrum of issues related to the removal of the waste.

In 2016, we actually amended our own regulations on hazardous waste shipments to prevent this kind of event from happening again. We are committed to working collaboratively to ensure that the material is processed in a more environmentally sustainable way.

International Trade

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

Madam Speaker, for eight months, Trump has been holding businesses hostage by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum exports. Meanwhile, Russia asked for lower tariffs and got them. We are wondering what the Liberals are doing on this file.

In my riding, SNOC, Tuba and Norbec are being hard hit by the Liberals' NAFTA 2.0.

It is having an impact on local businesses, workers and their families.

What do the Liberals have to say to those people?

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

Madam Speaker, the illegal and unjustified U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum must be lifted. U.S. lawmakers have asked Ambassador Lighthizer to lift those tariffs. This weekend, the minister raised the issue with members of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, who confirmed that our counter-measures are having an impact. Our plan is working. Recently, Republican Kevin Brady indicated that the tariffs would have to be lifted before Congress considers the new NAFTA.

Carbon Pricing

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, a recent article in The Globe and Mail made it clear that Canadian economists are virtually unanimous in the view that a price on pollution reduces greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost to the economy. They also went on to identify another fact: “Under the federal policy that begins this spring, roughly 80 per cent of households will receive rebates that actually exceed the amount they will pay”.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment please clarify why Conservative politicians, not just these Conservative politicians but others as well, are misrepresenting academic research and vastly overstating the costs for average Canadians?