House of Commons Hansard #386 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was snc-lavalin.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by Canadians from the ridings of St. Catharines, Niagara Centre and Bay of Quinte. They call on the House of Commons to respect the rights of law-abiding firearms owners and reject the Prime Minister's plan to waste taxpayer's money studying a ban on guns that are already banned.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition from residents from across Ontario. They are saying to this place that despite being victimized many times over in imposed conflict strategies of war, women bear a lot of the impacts and yet they have great potential for providing support in building peace and security.
Canada's feminist international assistance policy recognizes the critical role of grassroots women. Canada's national action plan includes the role of women. Only 5% of international funds right now are dedicated to peace and security or allocated to equality between men and women.
The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to fund and implement its feminist international assistance policy, focusing support on grassroots organizations through diverse, predictable responsive funding mechanisms to allow the long-term role in civil society, in particular of women, and to increase the financial aid to other countries to 0.7% GNI.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, Falun Gong is a spiritual practice that consists of the principles of truth, compassion and forbearance, which is practised by millions of people around the world. Canadian citizen, Ms. Qian Sun, age 51, was illegally kidnapped in China on February 19, 2017, and has been illegally detained in Beijing's first detention centre for practising Falun Gong. Therefore, the petitioners request that the Canadian government condemn the illegal arrest of a Canadian citizen for practising Falun Gong and call for her immediate and unconditional release.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, although I hope this issue will be addressed in the budget to be presented on March 19, I will rise in the House for as long as necessary to remind members that the people of Trois-Rivières have been waiting for 25 years. I will also remind members that the millions of dollars in studies sitting on the minister's desk all indicate that the government should stop studying and take action.
This is what the people of Trois-Rivières who signed this petition want, for a number of reasons. For example, it would help combat climate change, help stimulate economic development in the regions, and allow for travel between the regions.
We want action as soon as possible.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in support of Bill S-240 on organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill will be considered at the foreign affairs committee tomorrow morning.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the chamber.
I will move specifically to a couple of quotes, because I think they are really important in terms of the context of what has been taking place over the last few weeks.
I would ultimately argue that what we have before us is in fact an opposition that has become united. It is not the first time that the NDP and the Conservatives have decided to join forces to see what they can do. This is not necessarily about a policy issue per se, but rather about pointing fingers and character assassination, particularly focusing attention on the Prime Minister. This is something we have witnessed on a number of occasions when the NDP and the Conservative Party have come together.
We treat all issues with the utmost importance, and I am hoping that I will be able to provide a little clarity on this. What we see on the other side is that any issue becomes a major issue, especially if members opposite can smear the government to attempt to make it look bad and take attention away from what the government is actually doing.
If we were to take a look at what the government is doing and accomplishing, we would find that no matter what the region of the country, there is a sense of hope, a sense that there is a stronger, more willing national government that is making a difference with respect to increasing the strength of our economy and better serving Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it and those who are working hard in our communities. I take a great sense of pride in what we have been able to accomplish.
Over the last while, we have not heard opposition members talking about policy issues related to Canada's economy or its social programming. This is because we are doing a fairly decent job and are having a very real impact on the lives of Canadians in every region of our country.
Let us move to the motion that has been brought forward today by the Conservative Party. Once again, I would suggest that Conservatives want, as much as possible, to make personal attacks against personalities within the government.
The Conservatives say that we do not have a responsibility to communicate with ministers, and in this particular case with the Attorney General. I take exception to that.
I have listened to the debate on this issue for a number of days. I have heard many questions and answers. I am very much concerned. Obviously, there is a bit of a different standard coming from the Conservative Party. In fairness to the New Democrats, they have never been in government, so we are not able to pass judgment over what they would have been doing in government.
However, I can tell members that considerable lobbying took place when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister. There is no way that Conservative members can convince me that the Prime Minister's Office at the time did not have discussions and meetings with numerous cabinet ministers. I would suggest that we all have a responsibility to communicate what we believe are important issues to our constituents, and indeed to all Canadians.
That is one thing that I think we are missing out on. An interesting question was asked today by the Bloc, which expressed concerns with respect to the employees of SNC. We have not heard that argument. In fact, to a certain degree, the member for Timmins—James Bay, who sits in the front benches of the NDP Party, in essence said on the issue of SNC employees, “Who Cares?” To him, if SNC goes broke and no longer exists, others will pick up the slack for it. That is the type of mentality that at least some members within the New Democratic Party have on this very important issue.
There is a broader issue at hand here. Yes, there are things that occurred with SNC, and we as a government are very much concerned about the corruption allegations that have taken place in Libya. We understand and believe that there needs to be a sense of accountability. However, we also need to be aware of the 9,000-plus people who are employed by them here in Canada. There is a worldwide recognition for the company which has 40,000-plus jobs.
This is not something new. One would think, if one listened to the unholy alliance between the NDP and the Conservatives, that it is only the Liberals who are being lobbied by SNC. That is not true. Both the Conservative leader himself and the New Democratic leader, Jagmeet Singh, have had representations made by and been lobbied by SNC. Many members of the opposition benches have met and been lobbied by SNC equally, as have government or Liberal members of the caucus. That is nothing new. We are lobbied all the time. That is why we have independent mechanisms put in place to ensure there is a sense of transparency and accountability when it comes to lobbying.
The Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing wrong. I do not care how many times the Conservatives tell the members of the media and their constituents something different and try to spread what I believe is misinformation. Just because the opposition members, the unholy alliance between the NDP and the Conservatives, have said that the Prime Minister has done something wrong does not mean that it is true. That is what I believe is the case here.
That brings me to a couple of quotes. Unlike the opposition members, we recognize the value of our standing committees and the fine work they do, as well as the Ethics Commissioner and his independence.
The other day Mr. Wernick appeared before the standing committee and made a presentation. Before I comment on that, allow me to share this with those Canadians who might be participating and following this debate in any way.
Mr. Wernick was a top civil servant working under Stephen Harper. I believe he possibly worked at the Department of Indian Affairs as a deputy minister. I do not know all of the details. What I do know is that he is an incredible, well-recognized, apolitical, independent civil servant who has been working at the high end, not only under this government but also under the Conservative government. It is really important for us to recognize that.
When Mr. Wernick came to committee, this is what he said specifically about the allegations we are hearing from the Conservatives and the NDP unholy alliance. He stated, “It is my conclusion and my assertion, based on all the information I have, that there was no inappropriate pressure on the Minister of Justice in this matter.” This is not someone who is partisan saying this, but Canada's top civil servant, someone who has made incredible contributions over different administrations to ensuring that we have the world-class civil service we have today. He stated, “based on all the information I have, that there was no inappropriate pressure on the Minister of Justice in this matter.”
I thought that another interesting quote from the same committee meeting was when Mr. Wernick said it was “entirely her call to make”, referring to the former Minister of Justice. She was the decider. I believe the Prime Minister has been consistent with respect to that from day one.
From day one, I believe that the Prime Minister has been very transparent and accountable on this issue. The Conservatives and the NDP, in an unholy alliance, believe that they can score some political points based on an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail. That article was referenced at the committee. They continue to push.
What is interesting is that the NDP, on the one hand, said that they believe that the Ethics Commissioner should be involved. They were the ones who encouraged the Ethics Commissioner to be involved, yet if we listen to what they are saying today, they say that the Ethics Commissioner is not going to be able to do the job. Now they say that they want more to be done. They want a public inquiry on the issue. Where was that confidence when they initially said that we should have the Ethics Commissioner engaged?
The Conservatives and the NDP are talking about standing committees. I can tell colleagues that as a government, this Prime Minister in particular has made a solemn commitment to our standing committees.
I was there when the Conservatives and Stephen Harper took ownership of all the standing committees. I was at PROC when the parliamentary secretary would be there dictating what would take place that day at committee. I was there when Stephen Harper would not allow any amendments, outside of government amendments, to pass.
We have seen a Prime Minister who has marginalized the role of parliamentary secretaries on standing committees. We have seen a Prime Minister who has committed additional funds to our standing committees. We have seen a Prime Minister and a Liberal caucus, on all those points, support independent standing committees. When I say that, I am referring to opposition amendments that have passed. Many opposition members have had the opportunity to pass amendments at standing committees.
If we contrast Stephen Harper with our current Prime Minister, they are like night and day in terms of transparency and accountability when it comes to Canada's standing committees.
Now we have a standing committee that is actually looking into this issue. The former attorney general is going to be appearing. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that it was one of the Liberal members who put in the formal request for the former attorney general to come before the committee.
At the end of the day, the Conservatives and the New Democrats are coming together to say how badly we need to make the standing committees more independent, when the record of the Conservative Party was abysmal at best. We finally have a government that is committed to openness, transparency and accountability at our standing committees and inside this chamber.
The opposition believes that the standing committee is still not enough, even though, in many ways, such as financially and in terms of independence, we have supported it. It is where our chief civil servant was able to give a presentation.
When I listened to question period today and the interpretations of what took place at the standing committee, they were cherry-picking. I cannot blame them for cherry-picking, I guess, because I too am cherry-picking. I am cherry-picking what I believe Mr. Wernick made very clear to every committee member. Every member of this House is aware of exactly what it is Mr. Wernick indicated.
As I said earlier, Mr. Wernick said that the Prime Minister told the former attorney general that the decision to intervene in the case was hers alone, and the Prime Minister indicated that it was entirely her call to make, that she was the decider.
As Mr. Wernick indicated, “It is my conclusion and my assertion, based on all the information I have, that there was no inappropriate pressure on the Minister of Justice in this matter.”
Since I have had the opportunity, as others have had the opportunity, to formulate opinions on the matter at hand, I feel very confident that there was not any inappropriate pressure. Hearing it from the top civil servant means a great deal to me. It reassures me. I hope it reassures Canadians.
It will not stop the opposition. I was in opposition for over 20 years. I can appreciate the potential of a good story. If a good story is there, and members think they have something to push to the nth degree, they should go nuts. However, maybe they should provide a little more than what they have actually provided to date.
Let us look at the questions the opposition members have been asking day in and day out. They are not providing anything new to the story, from what I can see, that ultimately justifies the type of discussions we are having here today. I do not say that lightly.
When I go back home every weekend, I like to get a sense of what is important to the constituents I represent. It is issues like jobs, health care and our environment people are genuinely concerned about. Those are the issues we should be talking about.
The Minister of Finance has announced that we have a federal budget coming up. I have some thoughts on what I would like to see in the budget. These are the types of issues that are affecting everyday Canadians in all our regions.
It really makes me wonder about the commitment of the opposition. The bottom line is that it is hard to tell the difference between the Leader of the Opposition, who many would call Stephen Harper with a smile, and Stephen Harper.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
He could be behind the curtain, possibly.
I would argue that we should listen to how the Leader of the Opposition started his speech. He is referring to SNC-Lavalin and the issue of corruption and the rich, the powerful and the mighty, and so forth. He is trying to make it look as if SNC-Lavalin is meeting and conspiring with the government.
Members of cabinet, members of the Liberal caucus and members on this side did, in fact, meet with SNC-Lavalin, but so did the Leader of the Opposition. So did the Leader of the New Democratic Party and so did many others on the opposition benches. What disappoints me is that the opposition members do not seem to care about some of the potential victims, the thousands of employees who are working for SNC-Lavalin.
There is an opportunity, or there was an opportunity, and I do not know if that opportunity has passed. Canada, like the U.S. and the United Kingdom, has the opportunity to ensure that there is corporate responsibility and accountability while protecting our workers. I sure wish the opposition parties would do their job in looking after those jobs, too.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to address all the factual inaccuracies in the member's prolonged statement. He talked about the alliance between the opposition parties. We are just trying to get at the truth, which is the job we have been sent here to do on behalf of our constituents.
I will remind the member, because he was elected in 2010, that there was an unholy alliance of the Liberals and the NDP with the separatists to try to depose a duly elected Canadian government. The office of the director of public prosecutions was made independent in 2006 by Stephen Harper. He created a lobbying commissioner and an Ethics Commissioner. The reason we know that so many things have been going wrong is because of all the things done on ethics and accountability by the previous Conservative government. I never heard the member thank Stephen Harper for doing all those things.
On September 4, the director of public prosecutions made a decision to deny SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. That decision was then confirmed on October 9. What we know so far is that at every single step, the former attorney general denied the Prime Minister's pressure. She said repeatedly to the Prime Minister's Office and to the Prime Minister directly and to the Clerk of the Privy Council that this company would not enjoy a DPA. I will mention, as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, that the DPA was attached at the back end of an omnibus federal budget bill.
How many times did the former attorney general have to say no to the pressure she felt in having to provide the company with a special deal, with a special agreement, so it could get off the hook? How many times did the Prime Minister's Office need to meet with the former attorney general on this particular issue?
We are not saying that cabinet members cannot talk to each other. We are saying that they cannot tell the AG what to do. In criminal prosecutions, the AG and the AG alone makes that determination. Why does he feel that the Prime Minister's Office was in the right?
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not tell the AG what to do. That is the simple reality. What are members going to say next time? Are they going to ask whether the Prime Minister talked to this minister or tell another minister to do something specific? I understand the difference when it is the AG, but the bottom line is that there is a responsibility for the Prime Minister, and he has fulfilled his responsibility.
The members opposite seem to feel that jobs in SNC-Lavalin do not matter. A Conservative member tried to say that SNC-Lavalin jobs are not all that important or are more important to this government than jobs in Calgary. I have news for the Conservatives. It does not matter where the jobs are, this government does care about jobs. We also want to ensure that there is a high level of accountability for corporations that behave inappropriately. That can be done with the legislation currently in place, legislation the U.S. and the United Kingdom have.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way believes that if he takes something that is not true and yells really loud about it, it sometimes will somehow become truthful. We have seen him time and again in this place wander around an issue without directly speaking to it.
He speaks about jobs. Some Liberals have claimed that white-collar crimes are victimless crimes, but they are not. Those very same SNC-Lavalin employees' jobs are at risk right now, because Liberals have soft-on-white-collar crime policies and SNC-Lavalin executives who committed bribery and corruption crimes are skipping any kind of sentencing at all. It is all the employees themselves who are somehow now culpable because Liberals will not enact this.
I will read a quote that is interesting:
It's really frustrating to see the level of mistrust and disgust that Canadians are having towards Parliament, towards the prime minister right now. It's time the prime minister showed some leadership and actually came clean on everything he knew, and the only way we're going to be able to do that, unfortunately, is if everybody testifies under oath.
Who said that? It was the current Prime Minister about the former prime minister during the Nigel Wright-Mike Duffy affair. He said correctly that Canadians lose faith in our institutions when they watch the Prime Minister not answer fully and faithfully the questions that are put to him.
We have asked the Prime Minister time and time again to waive solicitor-client privilege. We have asked the Prime Minister to come forward. We have asked Liberals at committee who resist every step of the way.
If Liberals really cared about jobs, why has the Prime Minister not visited Oshawa yet? If Liberals really cared about jobs, what about the Sears pensioners? What about the Aveos workers? They claim that this is what it is about, when really what it is about is entitlement and access to the Liberal government. The wealthy and well-connected have total access.
If we need to change the law for SNC-Lavalin to get it a plea deal, what about changing the law for pay equity? What about changing the law for pensioners? What about changing the law for all those Canadians who do not have the access that a wealthy and well-connected company like SNC-Lavalin has?
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the remediation agreement regime that was passed in the House is actually in place in other countries. This is not foreign to the western world. In fact, if New Democrats truly cared about jobs and the potential impact on thousands of people, who happen to be in Montreal in this particular situation, they would be changing their line of attack. They would not have the member for Timmins—James Bay asking who cares if SNC-Lavalin's actions are found to be criminal, because the jobs will just go somewhere else. That is the mentality of the New Democratic Party.
We can still ensure there is justice and accountability when a corporation does something inappropriate. This government does not support the criminal activities of corporations. That is why there is the potential for remediation agreements. That is why the U.S.A. has them and that is why the United Kingdom has them and that is why Canada has them now. However, it does not mean that we forget about some of the potential victims, those being the workers and many others.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, when my colleague started his speech, he talked a bit about the fact that the opposition is always trying to drum up scandals, time and time again. Nothing demonstrates that more than the fact that every single time an opposition motion comes before the House, it is another attempt to attack or smear the government or a particular member of Parliament on this side of the House. It just demonstrates that the opposition has nothing really to attack, other than attacking individuals, smearing people and creating scandals where they simply do not exist.
I am wondering if the member, who spends a lot of time in this House, can talk a bit about how he sees the motions, generally speaking, put forward by the other side of the House.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there are many other issues we should be debating, I would ultimately argue. We just had this debate a few days ago, yet it is back because the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the New Democrats does not want to talk about what is happening in our economy. Those members do not want to talk about the progressive social policies that this administration is putting through.
When we talk about jobs, over 800,000 jobs have been created by working with Canadians in all regions of our country. When we talk about supporting families, the Canada child benefit provided millions of dollars, with $9 million going into my own riding every month in Winnipeg North, and what about helping out the poorest of all seniors with the GIS increases? As well, let us talk about Canada's infrastructure.
There is so much that this government has been able to do in three and a half years. It might take another mandate for us to be able to complete all the goals and aspirations we have.
We recognize that yes, this is a political year, and the opposition knows full well that we have done a relatively good job. As opposed to talking about those real issues, it wants to focus on negative politics.
Someone told me yesterday that the Conservatives are the Republicans of the north. It is all about character assassination. They are more interested in trying to make politics look like a bad thing, but politics is a wonderful thing. We can really make a difference. This government demonstrates that day in, day out.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Michael Barrett Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carleton.
I am pleased to rise in the House on the opposition day motion. We are calling on the Prime Minister to appear before the justice committee and testify under oath to his alleged direct involvement in the coordinated and sustained efforts to influence the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
Last week Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council, appeared before the justice committee to testify to his involvement in and knowledge of the shocking allegations of political interference coming out of the PMO. Mr. Wernick's testimony came as a spot of light in the clouded secrecy and sidestepping that we have seen from the government to date, confirming what many Canadians had suspected: that the PMO undertook a sustained and coordinated campaign to interfere with the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
According to Mr. Wernick's testimony, the Prime Minister and his department continued to pressure the former attorney general even after she told the Prime Minister that she would not overrule the decision to allow SNC's case to proceed to trial.
He stated:
The question that I think you're going to have to come to a view with, as will the Ethics Commissioner, is inappropriate pressure.
He went on:
There's pressure to get it right on every decision: to approve, to not approve, to act, to not act. I am quite sure the minister felt pressure to get it right. Part of my conversation with her on December 19 was conveying context that there were a lot of people worried about what would happen—the consequences not for her, the consequences for the workers and the communities and the suppliers.
These inappropriate actions are clear attempts to force the hand of the former attorney general and pressure her into interfering with SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. That said, the criminality of the actions of the Prime Minister and his office must be recognized.
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. It is clear that this is exactly what has happened here—that the Prime Minister's Office has made a wilful attempt at obstructing justice.
Coming on the heels of the Liberals' voting down of a motion calling for a public inquiry and an investigation undertaken by the justice committee into the PMO's interference with SNC-Lavalin, and even going so far as to vote down a motion calling on all witnesses who testified before the justice committee to be sworn in under oath, these new revelations make it imperative that the Prime Minister appear before the justice committee and testify under oath about his actions. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, then he should be more than willing to appear before the justice committee. Anything less than that is a sure admission of guilt.
The chronology of events surrounding SNC-Lavalin's criminal prosecution is important, and so I would like to take a closer look at the timeline.
On February 19, 2015, the RCMP laid charges of fraud and corruption against SNC-Lavalin in relation to the company's dealings in post-Gadhafi Libya. When the Prime Minister took office, SNC-Lavalin began an aggressive lobbying campaign to implement measures to lessen the impact of its past actions. This lobbying campaign included numerous meetings with both political and bureaucratic staff at the highest levels. Let us keep in mind that SNC-Lavalin has been a historical supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada. Its Liberal insider executives led a campaign of illegal donations to the Liberals, ranging over $100,000.
On June 21, 2018, legislation to implement a deferred prosecution agreement was snuck into the tail end of a massive budget bill and received royal assent.
On September 4, the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin that she had no desire to pursue the negotiation of a deferred prosecution agreement. On September 17, the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, met with the former attorney general to discuss the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
On December 5, Gerald Butts, then the principal secretary to the Prime Minister, met with the former attorney general at the Château Laurier to discuss the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
On December 18, former principal secretary to the Prime Minister Gerald Butts and chief of staff to the Prime Minister Katie Telford spoke with Jessica Prince, then chief of staff to the now former attorney general. In the chain of command at the PMO, Jessica Prince answers to Katie Telford, who then answers to the Prime Minister. This conversation was highlighted by Mr. Wernick as one that may have been interpreted as political pressure.
On December 19, following a lunch with the Prime Minister and Gerald Butts, Mr. Wernick placed a call to the former attorney general in which he, in his own words:
I conveyed to her that a lot of her colleagues and the Prime Minister were quite anxious about what they were hearing and reading in the business press....
On January 14, 2019, the member for Vancouver Granville was fired as Attorney General.
As members can see, for the last year the Prime Minister has been playing the long game. He has been plotting and scheming and organizing a concerted effort to help his friends at SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal trial.
The government has come out with several reasons as to why the former attorney general was fired, but the story seems to change from day to day to day. Was she fired because she could not speak French? Was it Scott Brison's fault because he resigned? Was it Stephen Harper's fault? Was the former attorney general fired because she chose to speak truth to power and reject the Prime Minister's attempts to force her hand? Canadians deserve the truth.
To date, the Prime Minister has been stifling the former attorney general and skirting simple questions around his interference with the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, citing both cabinet privilege and solicitor-client privilege with the former attorney general.
That manoeuvre will not cut it anymore, as Mr. Wernick's testimony has shown that the former attorney general did not act as a solicitor to the Prime Minister, saying:
The matter was never discussed at cabinet, never. So she was not giving advice to cabinet. She was not advising the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister must let the former attorney general speak truth freely to Canadians.
In the justice committee, I asked the current Attorney General if the legal opinion he was supposed to be preparing on solicitor-client privilege would be prepared in advance of the former attorney general's appearance before the justice committee. I was not surprised when I was met with an unclear non-answer, in which the Attorney General said that his answer to my question was covered by solicitor-client privilege.
There we have it. We have all the makings of a cover-up. A large corporation with the clock ticking launches a full court press lobbying campaign, getting the Prime Minister, his top advisers and top government officials on board. Then a former attorney general who respected the rule of law would not cave to pressure from the PMO. Then a convenient cabinet shuffle saw the former attorney general fired and replaced with a Montreal MP from right next door to SNC-Lavalin, someone who was willing to support the government's disregard for the rule of law.
Even if SNC-Lavalin is convicted, the Prime Minister has set out to make another escape route for his friends by considering making changes to ethical procurement rules that stipulate how long a company can be banned from bidding on federal contracts. The Liberals might make many shuffles to get an Attorney General who is willing to play ball with this Prime Minister.
I am calling on all members of this House to rise, do away with the juvenile laughter, look Canadians in the eye and tell them the truth. They need to call for the Prime Minister to appear before the justice committee to testify under oath about his alleged direct involvement in the coordinated and sustained efforts to influence the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Arif Virani Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his contribution to today's debate, and also again welcome him to the justice committee. I will, however, point out a couple of clarifications and ask him a question.
The clarification is in respect of the rhetoric that was used by the member opposite about obstruction of justice triggering penal liability. For Canadians who are watching this debate, there is a very good reason why politicians are not the ones who direct law enforcement officials to make decisions about whom to arrest and whom to charge. That is simply because those decisions are based on evidence. They are not based on partisan considerations.
Let us review the evidence that we have before us. We have evidence from the Prime Minister that there was never any direction to the former attorney general. We have that evidence being confirmed at the actual committee that the member opposite attended, where the Clerk of the Privy Council said, “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.”
This is at least the third, if not the fourth time I have heard members of his party refer to exactly what transpired in January as a firing or as a demotion. When an individual, including a cabinet minister, has the opportunity to serve brave men and women who have nobly and courageously fought for this country, overseas and on this continent, how can that possibly be construed as a firing or as a demotion?
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC
Mr. Speaker, speaking as a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, in terms of the duty that the Government of Canada owes to its veterans, it is much more worthy of our veterans to be given a minister responsible for the file, and that the file is not shuffled off to someone who would not do the Prime Minister's bidding. It is not then just slammed into another ministry because the government is so fraught with panic and the curtains are burning and they cannot deal with the mess that they have created. It is incumbent on the government to do better by veterans. For my brothers and sisters who serve in the Canadian Forces and served abroad and at home, I would ask the government and I call on the government to appoint a veteran to deal with this file, because at this rate, it looks like it is giving it no prominence and no significance whatsoever.
I would also call on the government to respect the independence of the committee and not dictate to its members who can and who cannot appear. Earlier, one of the speakers from the government side recognized the strong work of a Liberal member from the committee for having the former attorney general come. The opposition members made the same motion and it was defeated, before they received new instructions from the PMO on who was allowed to appear at committee.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, obviously people recall things. We had Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the other day. We have had many people call for the former attorney general to come and be able to speak her truth.
Given the large role that the Prime Minister's Office has played in this affair, it is absolutely right that we should ask the Prime Minister to come to committee so he can also share this. If members opposite are convinced that nothing untoward happened, there should be absolutely no problem in extending that invitation to the Prime Minister so that members can have enough.
Does this member absolutely believe that it is fundamental to have the Prime Minister on record in part of the justice committee so that we can get to the bottom of this?
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative, and I would expect it is for all members of the House. I am disappointed to hear that they think that it is an unholy alliance of members who would want the Prime Minister to testify under oath. If he has nothing to hide, he has no reason why he cannot appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and account for his actions. It would be in his best interests to cauterize the bleeding at this point.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to discuss an extremely important issue about the independence of our judicial system, about whether or not we have one system of justice for the people and another for the powerful, about whether or not we have in this country a new golden rule where those with the gold make the rules. To ascertain whether we have devolved to that level, we need answers to serious questions.
Let me begin by laying out the timeline of events that led us to this debate today.
On September 4, 2018, SNC-Lavalin learned that the director of public prosecutions would not offer that company a so-called deferred prosecution agreement to avoid trial and prosecution for allegations of over $100 million of bribery and fraud. At that moment, the decision was made. Almost two weeks later, on September 17, 2018, the former attorney general was called to a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council.
At that meeting, the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council indicated their desire that such an agreement be offered to the company, in other words, that there be a deal allowing SNC-Lavalin to avoid trial and prosecution for these alleged crimes. On that day, the clerk and the Prime Minister learned that the former attorney general had decided not to offer such a deal to that company. The course of justice was set in place and that is important because subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal act to obstruct or defeat the course of justice.
We have significant evidence that members of the government attempted to do just that. For one, after the Prime Minister learned that his former attorney general would not offer such a deal and with full knowledge that the director of public prosecutions was not willing to offer such a deal either, he sent the Clerk of Privy Council, the Prime Minister's deputy minister, the most senior member of Canada's public service, to call the former attorney general and express his desire to see such an agreement occur.
Then on December 5, the most senior staffer in the government reached out over a time period at a bar in downtown Ottawa in direct discussions with the former attorney general and indicated his desire for there to be a deal. Gerald Butts is not just any political staffer. According to the Prime Minister, he and his words are the Prime Minister's own words. The Prime Minister told the entire Liberal caucus that anything that comes from Gerald Butts comes from him. In other words, the former attorney general would have known, sitting in that bar at a famous Ottawa hotel, that whatever Gerald Butts said, the Prime Minister was saying.
Of course, the Prime Minister is called “prime” for a reason. He is the top minister. He chooses the entire cabinet. In other words, the reporting relationship is from the Attorney General up to the Prime Minister. In other words, when he repeatedly, in person, through his top public servant and later his top political staffer, indicates his will on a matter, then, by definition, the person receiving that information is under pressure to do it.
That term “pressure” is very clear, because the Attorney General is to operate as the top Canadian law officer for the Crown. While she or he is allowed to consult with members of cabinet, those members are not allowed to impose pressure under doctrines of law that are established over many decades and have been inculcated into jurisprudence. I speak of course of the Shawcross doctrine. Simply put, any Attorney General that is pressured into an action on a judicial matter, particularly a prosecution, will have experienced inappropriate interference by the government.
If a boss says to an employee he wants something done and the employee says no, and then the boss sends his top assistant and the employee says no again, and then he sends his top official and the employee says no a third time, and a month later he punts the employee from his job, would that employee really believe he has not experienced any pressure? Just think about it. The boss says an employee's job depends on doing this but there is no pressure and that the employee can make up his own mind.
The Clerk of the Privy Council had some interesting language about the term “pressure” when he testified. He admitted that the former attorney general “felt pressure”. Those were his words. She felt "pressure to get it right”. Those were also his words. What did “get it right” mean?
According to the Prime Minister, in a meeting with the former attorney general in September, and according to a phone call from the Clerk of the Privy Council not long after, and according to Gerald Butts on December 5, getting it right meant signing a deal. In other words, she was pressured to sign a deal. That pressure had the effect of attempting to defeat, pervert or obstruct the course of justice that had already been established on September 4, when the top prosecutor refused a deal, and September 17, when the former attorney general confirmed to the Prime Minister that she was not going to provide a deal either.
Here we are. Subsection 139(2) of the Criminal Code is very clear that it is an offence to alter the course of justice.
We have significant evidence that the Prime Minister's Office under his personal direction attempted to do just that. If not, then the Prime Minister would have no compunction whatsoever about personally appearing under oath before the justice committee. When he was the leader of the third party in opposition, he specifically called on then prime minister Stephen Harper to testify under oath in another matter. The principle that prime ministers can never be asked to testify was apparently not known to the present Prime Minister, at least until now.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, then he will come forward and answer questions under oath so that everyday Canadians can find out precisely what went on here and so that we can restore a sense of confidence that everyone follows the same rules. No matter how rich one is, no matter how much money or how many lobbyists one can summon for political assistance, no one is above the law.
Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's has made it sound that what is going on is very nefarious. He uses a lot of dramatic pauses, including in his online videos, to make it seem like something nefarious is ongoing.
He talked about the Shawcross doctrine, which other members have talked about, but they have left out another part.
I would like to quote Sir Hartley Shawcross, ask the hon. member what thoughts would be on this. He said:
I think the true doctrine is that it is the duty of an Attorney-General, in deciding whether or not to authorize the prosecution, to acquaint himself with all the relevant facts, including, for instance, the effect which the prosecution, successful or unsuccessful as the case may be, would have upon public morale and order, and with any other considerations affecting public policy.
My question is this. Why is the hon. member leaving that out that part of it when he is trying to slander other members of Parliament, suggesting that there is criminal activity afoot?
