Debates of Feb. 25th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that no members on this side who met with SNC could promise SNC that they would get the former attorney general to change her mind, so not worry about reporting it to shareholders.

If the member wants to talk about public interests, the day on which SNC-Lavalin announced it would not get a deferred prosecution agreement, its shares fell 15%. Between September 4 and October 10, I wonder who sold and who did not sell. I wonder who bought and who did not buy.

This is an issue that goes beyond the flapping around of the member on the opposite side. This is a serious matter, it involves serious players, serious people and the Prime Minister owes us an explanation.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Milton for her work with my NDP colleague, the member for Victoria, to try to get to the bottom of this and to get to the truth.

We now know that pressure was applied. The former attorney general would not budge, despite the tremendous pressure that was placed upon her by multiple people and multiple sources.

As a female parliamentarian, it has been impossible not to take note of the sexist undertones that have existed throughout this entire sordid affair. The smear campaign against the former attorney general, with racist and sexist undertones that played out on social media really took us aback. We heard the Clerk of the Privy Council address that, although he went beyond where his comments should have gone. He certainty made note of the fact that we had a social media. I was witness to Liberal trolls pushing this message, discrediting the first indigenous woman cabinet minister and attorney general of our country.

This concerns me. There were cartoons of her being bound, gagged and chained. As a female parliamentarian, I would like to ask the member for Milton to comment on the sexism we have been witnessing throughout this very sordid affair.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Essex for her incredibly truthful comments because that is exactly what happened.

What I found interesting was, even though it took him six days to apologize, the Prime Minister apologized for everybody else except himself. The Prime Minister was the one who actually questioned her integrity when he said that he did not know why she resigned and that if she thought something was happening, that it was her responsibility to do something about it. He was shifting the blame.

He never apologized for that. He did not apologize for saying that she was incompetent by alluding to the fact that she did not get her job done. He also did not apologize for alluding to the fact that she was emotional with respect to the matter. These things cut to the quick of female parliamentarians when they want to put forth their issues, when they want to put forth their points of view and not be burdened by what we look like or how we speak or whether we have done something in a fashion that they think is the way to go.

As well, I believe that was a deliberate attempt to ensure the former attorney general thought twice about coming forward and saying anything. What ended up happening? We have ourselves a problem: two high profile resignations and a mess with the securities in the country.

[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 am pleased to rise today to speak to some of the matters raised in the motion of the member opposite. I want to commence my statements by two comments, which are simply to underscore the important contributions that have been made to government and the Government of Canada by two very distinct Canadians.

First, the member for Vancouver Granville has served as a minister and attorney general as well as the minister of Veterans Affairs, and has made terrific and incredible contributions. I would reiterate my personal alarm about the comments that were made about the member for Vancouver Granville and the attacks that were made about her and her character.

Second, are the contributions made by the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister, his belief in public service and dedicating his work to the cause of all Canadians.

We know two processes are already under way to investigate the alleged allegations referenced in the motion. First, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began hearing witnesses on this issue on Thursday, February 21, in response to a motion that was initiated. Second, the Ethics Commissioner is conducting an investigation, as we speak. That was also initiated by members of the opposition.

There is every reason to believe that these two mechanisms, one composed of Canada's elected representatives and one representing a non-partisan perspective, are up to the task of considering the very questions that are being asked by Canadians and by the members on the other side of the aisle.

With that in mind, it would be beneficial to begin by discussing the rules, responsibilities and powers of the justice committee in its review of this matter in addition to what the committee has already heard and what witnesses it will hear from.

As with other large deliberative assemblies, the House of Commons has taken advantage of the greater flexibility available in committees to carry out functions that can be better performed in smaller groups, including the examination of witnesses and detailed consideration of legislation, estimates and technical matters. Committee work provides detailed information to parliamentarians on issues of concern to the electorate and, as we well know, often provokes important public debate.

In addition, because committees interact directly with the public, they provide an immediate and visible conduit between elected representatives and Canadians. Committees are extensions of the House, created by either standing or special orders, and are limited in their powers by the authority delegated to them. For House of Commons committees, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs establishes a list of members of the various standing committees at the start of each session and during the course of a session, if necessary. This list takes effect once it is approved by the House. As stipulated in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, most standing committees have 10 members. Party representation on committees reflects the party standings in the House.

Committees can gather the information necessary for their studies in a number of ways, including by hearing testimony during meetings, accepting briefs and written opinions, requesting the production of documents, organizing round tables and visiting locations. Most often, committees gather information on a particular subject by hearing from witnesses and consulting briefs. With the exception of standing joint committees and certain standing committees, the Standing Orders set out a general mandate for all standing committees. They are empowered to study and report to the House on all matters relating to the mandate, organization, management and operation of the departments assigned to them by the House.

More specifically, they can review and report on the statute law relating to the departments assigned to them; the program and policy objectives of those departments and the effectiveness of their implementation thereof; the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans of those departments and the effectiveness of the implementation thereof; and an analysis of the relative success of those departments in meeting their objectives.

In addition to this general mandate, other matters are routinely referred by the House to its standing committees, such as bills, estimates, order in council appointments, documents tabled in the House pursuant to statute, and specific matters which the House wishes to have studied.

In each case, the House chooses the most appropriate committee on the basis of its mandate.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has the power to review and report on the policies, programs, and expenditure plans of the Department of Justice.

As hon. members know, the department has the mandate to support the dual roles of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, the chief law officer of the Crown. The committee also has the power to study the policies, programs and legislation of the following entities: the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Courts Administration Service, the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

In particular, the committee may review proposed amendments to federal legislation relating to certain aspects of the criminal law, family law, human rights law, and the administration of justice, notably with respect to the following statutes: the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Divorce Act, the Civil Marriage Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Judges Act, the Courts Administration Service Act and the Supreme Court Act.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights may also undertake studies on subjects related to its mandate, either as referred to it by the House of Commons or on its own initiative. For example, they recently conducted a study on juror mental health, and prior to that, they conducted a study on human trafficking in Canada.

In the course of a study, the committee holds public meetings, considers evidence from witnesses, and reviews written submissions and other authoritative documents. In the case of their human trafficking study, they also travelled across Canada to hold private sessions with witnesses who were uncomfortable testifying in a public forum. This enabled them to hear from witnesses that they otherwise might not have been able to hear from but whose testimony was crucial to their study.

At the conclusion of a study, the committee usually reports its findings and makes recommendations. The committee may request a government response within 120 days.

As we know, the committee met on Thursday, February 21, and heard from the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada, Madame Nathalie Drouin, as well as the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Michael Wernick. All of these witnesses provided helpful information at committee to assist it, and Canadians generally, to understand the scenario addressed in the member's motion we are debating today, in addition to the roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General of Canada.

For example, when asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter in question with the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General, in his testimony, confirmed, “Those kinds of conversations would be appropriate”. Mr. Wernick, as Clerk of the Privy Council, reiterated this view in his own testimony later the same day.

When asked about conversations with cabinet colleagues in his role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and whether they were appropriate, the Attorney General of Canada answered, “Absolutely”.

As the Prime Minister has indicated, he is seeking the counsel of the Attorney General of Canada regarding the issue of solicitor-client privilege. The Attorney General has assured Canadians that he is seized with the urgency of this matter and is seeking the best approach to provide transparency to Canadians and fairness to the former attorney general in a way that does not compromise solicitor-client or litigation privilege.

To that end, solicitor-client privilege is an exceedingly important part of Canada's legal system and should only be waived in the appropriate circumstances.

It is a protection that allows lawyers across this country, many of whom find seats in this very chamber, to engage on the toughest issues known in law and provide their clients with candid and comprehensive advice. This includes the current Attorney General of Canada who is the government's lawyer. The Attorney General must be allowed to provide that advice to the Prime Minister and would be unable to do so in a candid and comprehensive manner if solicitor-client privilege were waived.

As the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, has stated, the issue of solicitor-client privilege is complex and layered. That is why the current Attorney General is studying carefully the very best approach to provide transparency to Canadians and fairness to the former attorney general in a way that does not compromise solicitor-client privilege or litigation privilege, which is important to underscore as there are currently not one but two pending litigation matters involving SNC-Lavalin before Canadian courts.

Madame Nathalie Drouin, the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general of Canada, helpfully explained in her testimony before the committee last week that “The Attorney General is supported by the DPP, the director of public prosecutions. Please note that the DPP is also a deputy attorney general of Canada. The DPP is responsible for initiating and conducting federal criminal prosecutions on behalf of the Crown.”

During his important testimony before the committee last week, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Michael Wernick, whom I previously referenced, indicated that on February 12 the director of public prosecutions issued the following statement, which can be found on the director's website: “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

The testimony of Mr. Michael Wernick was especially helpful in light of his decades of service as a senior public servant under both Conservative and Liberal governments. As the Prime Minister has stated, this, “leaves him well positioned to understand what our institutions are grounded in and make sure we are doing the right things as a government” and “He is someone we need to heed very carefully when he chooses to express himself publicly”.

Mr. Wernick went on at that committee. I will reiterate it for the purposes of the record of today's debate. He stated, “If you boil it down for Canadians as to what is going on here with the facts that we have and all of the facts that I know from my participation in meetings and conversations, we are discussing lawful advocacy”.

Again, I am quoting Mr. Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council of Canada, the most senior civil servant in this country. He went on to say that his view “very firmly” was that the conversations with the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada “were entirely appropriate, lawful, legal.”

We know that after the justice committee's in-camera meeting of February 19 of this year, the committee members announced that they will be calling the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, the member for Vancouver Granville, as well as several academics to appear before the committee and give testimony. Those hearings are expected to take place this very week. The committee may well then decide to hear from more witnesses, as is its jurisdiction and its purview.

Under the Liberal government, committees are masters of their own agenda. Committees of this House do exemplary work. Everyone in this chamber recognizes that because everyone in this chamber, save for cabinet members, participates in that committee work. We are confident that the committee meetings will continue to be thoroughly and fairly conducted and will provide Canadians with the answers and information that they seek.

In the remaining portion of my time, I want to address the Ethics Commissioner's investigation. I turn briefly now to the study that will be conducted by the Ethics Commissioner.

Under the Conflict of Interest Act, a member of the Senate or House of Commons who has reasonable grounds to believe that a public officer holder, which includes the Prime Minister, has contravened the act may in writing request that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner examine the matter.

In conducting this kind of investigation, the commissioner has many powers. First is the power to summon witnesses and require them, first, “to give evidence—orally or in writing—on oath” or “on affirmation”, and second, “to produce any documents and things that the Commissioner considers necessary.”

For the purposes of enforcing these powers, the commissioner has the same powers as a court of record in civil cases. The subject of the complaint also has the opportunity to make submissions to the commissioner.

The commissioner is required to provide the Prime Minister with a report setting out the facts in question, as well as the commissioner's analysis and conclusions in relation to the request made by a parliamentarian. The report is to be provided to the person who made the request, the public office holder who is the subject of the request, and the public.

The commissioner may not include in the report any information that he or she is required to keep confidential, unless the information is essential for the purposes of establishing the grounds for any conclusion in a report.

As I have explained, these two processes are already under way. Both are investigating the allegations raised by the motion that is before us today. I am entirely confident that these two processes will be thoroughly and fairly conducted and will provide Canadians with the answers and information they seek. There is every reason to believe that these two groups are up to the task of considering the questions that are being asked.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am very pleased to congratulate the hon. parliamentary secretary for the quality of his French and all the effort he puts in. I really appreciate it.

I am sure that the parliamentary secretary wants to get the whole truth, as do we. For this to happen, the key figures in the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal must be able to testify.

The member will agree that the Liberals initially refused to allow the former attorney general to testify. The Liberals finally reconsidered in response to public pressure, and it is very likely that the former attorney general will appear tomorrow.

On Thursday, the committee heard from Canada's top public servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council. His testimony shed a new light on the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal. We learned that the minute the director of public prosecutions informed SNC-Lavalin of her decision on September 4, SNC-Lavalin started lobbying the government.

The Prime Minister and the former attorney general met on September 17, and the Prime Minister's principal secretary and the former attorney general met on December 5. On December 19, Canada's top public servant called the former attorney general directly. These three events were an attempt to exert pressure regarding the Liberal SNC-Lavalin scandal.

After the former attorney general was pressured by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's principal secretary and the top-ranking public servant, probably the three most powerful people in the Canadian government, would the best way to get to the bottom of this story not be for the Prime Minister himself to appear before a parliamentary committee to clearly explain to Canadians what happened?

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his compliments on my French. It is very important to acknowledge our country's official bilingualism.

As part of this debate, he first mentioned that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made the important decision to hear from a number of people, including the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.

Second, he talked about the testimony Mr. Wernick gave before the committee a few days ago. Mr. Wernick gave the same answer as the current Attorney General, namely that the conversations were appropriate. The clerk indicated that those kinds of conversations take place between ministers on a daily basis and said that not only are they appropriate, but that the Prime Minister clearly said it was up to the justice minister to make that decision.

That is the kind of testimony the committee has heard. The members on this side of the House believe that we need to let the committee conduct its own investigation.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary spoke about the importance of two processes that are under way: the first, the justice committee; and the second, the review inquiry by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

At the justice committee, he talked about how that committee is “master of its own agenda”, but of course the Liberals have a majority on that committee. Canadians need to know that when we tried to get more witnesses to attend, including Gerry Butts, Mr. Bouchard and Jessica Prince, they voted that down, saying that we should wait and see what the former attorney general has to say.

As to what she can say, the new Attorney General came and said that solicitor-client privilege is very complex, and the member just said today that we are still studying that, etc. It is hard for us to understand that, since the clerk himself, after 30-some years of experience, said in an answer to me that he had concluded that solicitor-client privilege did not even apply in these circumstances.

It is very murky as to how the justice committee is going to get to the bottom of this. As for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we know very well that the complaint is about section 9, where a decision of another person to improperly further another person's private interests is at stake.

This may not even apply in these circumstances at all based on past practice.

Would the hon. parliamentary secretary not agree that we need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this?

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions to today's debate, his contributions generally in this chamber, as well as his significant contributions at the justice committee.

In terms of responding to the point just raised, first of all, it is absolutely correct that there is a majority of government members at that committee, as there is at the majority of committees in this chamber. That is set, as I mentioned in my opening statement, pursuant to the rules of the chamber, which is that the representation in committees reflects representation in the chamber.

What I would indicate to the member opposite, and he would know this very well, as I mentioned earlier that there are many lawyers in this chamber, is that Mr. Wernick gave a response in committee. That response speaks for itself. However, the former attorney general has said it is “layered” and complex when you assess issues of privilege and confidence.

There is not just one issue at stake; there are actually four issues. The first is solicitor-client privilege, and we have heard the member opposite and Mr. Wernick in that regard. The second is the duty that any lawyer owes to their client. The third is the issue of cabinet confidence. The fourth is the issue of litigation privilege, and, as I mentioned earlier, there are two ongoing court cases. All four of those components need to be assessed, evaluated and analyzed before a robust and accurate understanding can be made in terms of what applies here and what can be disclosed to the public.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing from members in this House that committees are independent. That is simply not true. At every committee of this House, whip's staff are in attendance to make sure that members are in compliance.

We also have a situation where, on February 13, Liberal members of the justice committee openly admitted that an office of a member of the government, the House leader, openly coordinated with the Liberal members on the appearance of witnesses in front of the committee.

Clearly, committees of this House are under the thumb of the government. That is why we need an order of this House to ensure that the committee hears from the Prime Minister. I would remind members of this House that, in my view, it is a violation of parliamentary privilege, a violation of members' rights, for any member of the government, of the cabinet, to even communicate with a member of the committee about the business of the committee.

I would quote from page 265 of the 24th edition of Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, where it says, “the chairman of a select committee...had exceeded the bounds of propriety in participating in a conversation with a government whip about matters within that committee's remit..”.

We are far from that independence of a committee in this place. That is why we need this order of the House to be adopted, to ensure that the committee does its work and holds the government accountable and gets to the bottom of this mess. It is clear to members of this House and to me that the committee is under the control of the majority, under the control of the government House leader's office and the whip's office.

That is why I encourage Liberal members who are not part of the government to support this motion. I encourage six or seven of them to join with us to support this motion to ensure that the Prime Minister is brought in front of committee to get to the bottom of this matter.

[Arif Virani]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few responses to the intervention by the member opposite. First of all, the statement he is referring to, which arose from the earliest iteration of the justice committee hearings during the constituency week, was clarified by the member for Edmonton Centre in French later on during those very same hearings. I urge the member opposite to consult that part of Hansard.

I will confess that I have a tremendous amount of respect for the member opposite and his contributions in this chamber. However, I find it a little particular, and perhaps even a bit rich, for that comment to be coming from that member, because the track record of the previous government was to completely manhandle and manipulate committees, using parliamentary secretaries such as me for that purpose. In fact, that is precisely why we campaigned on a platform to change the role of parliamentary secretaries and why they are much more constrained in their behaviour.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Arif Virani]

If evidence is needed on the part of the other side as to the liberties of individual government members to vote as they see fit, we can look to the actual results of the vote on the motion previously presented by the New Democratic Party, in which there were some dissenting government voices heard.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that while someone is speaking, shouting across the floor to them does not make it easy to hear them. I would like to hear what is going on. I am sure others in the room would like to hear that as well.

As a reminder, if you are shouting at someone and holding your hand up to your mouth, the Speaker knows it is you who is speaking.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion before us to compel the Prime Minister of Canada to appear before the justice committee to answer questions in this affair, which has grown and changed over the last couple of weeks in quite dramatic ways.

I would like to begin by indicating what I would like to say in my remarks by way of outline. I would like to provide a bit of history about how we arrived here and the changing narrative of the government side. I would then like to talk about the role of the independent Attorney General and how precious that is in our democracy. I would like to try to then refute the argument that somehow everything is fine because the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is going to have carriage of this. Lastly, I would like to talk about the issue of deferred prosecution agreements or remediation agreements, which have been put into the Criminal Code quite recently, only coming into force in September of last year and which are at the centre of this issue.

With that in mind, I would like to talk about the sequence of events that has led us here.

A Globe and Mail story reported that there apparently had been pressure put on the former attorney general in respect of a criminal prosecution. The Prime Minister's immediate response, and there were many, was that he did not direct her to do a particular thing.

That wording is important, because I think it is common ground between the government and the opposition that directing an independent attorney general to do something with a criminal matter is wrong. It is in fact unconstitutional, violating one of the key constitutional conventions of our democracy, and that is that we have the right to an independent, not political, decision-maker when a person is going to be subject to criminal charges.

The Prime Minister started by saying that he did not direct her to do certain things. However, that was never the story in the first place. The story was that she was pressured to do certain things, and I will come back to that.

Then, of course, the clerk appeared last week to say that there was vigorous debate, but there was simply lawful advocacy, no inappropriate pressure. I will develop why this matters in a moment.

There is a convention, a decision, called the Shawcross principle, which was generated in 1951 by a labour attorney general in the United Kingdom. It talks about the line that cannot be crossed. That is now a part of Canadian law and is referred to as the Shawcross principle. That line is that it is absolutely appropriate, and in fact sometimes very desirable, to have an attorney general discuss matters with his or her cabinet colleagues, but the final decision has to be his or her decision alone. The question before us is whether or not there was pressure that crossed that line, which, of course, comes to what happened.

On September 4, an independent person called the director of public prosecutions communicated to a company called SNC-Lavalin that there would not be a deferred prosecution agreement, that she was going to proceed in her decision with a prosecution of this matter in criminal court. Thereafter, it appears that the former attorney general, who has the ability under the statute to reverse that, to give a direction to that person, decided not to budge. I do not think the law even applies here, as I will describe in a moment. However, even if the law did apply in these circumstances, it is not my judgment that there ought to be a deferred prosecution agreement in these circumstances. It is her decision and her decision alone.

Then what happened was that on September 17, this issue came up in cabinet with the Prime Minister. We have heard testimony to confirm that. On December 5, the Prime Minister's powerful chief of staff, Gerry Butts, confirmed that there was a meeting at the Chateau Laurier where this issue was discussed again.

We must remember that the decision of the independent director of public prosecutions had already been made and it was not to be changed, as said by the attorney general.

On December 18, there was a meeting between Katie Telford and Gerry Butts, of the Prime Minister's Office, and the chief of staff to the former attorney general on this topic.

On December 19, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the most powerful public servant in the country, Mr. Wernick, told us at committee that he needed to “check in” with her to give her context in a phone call. Then there was Christmas, as usual, in December, and then there was a cabinet shuffle. Mr. Brison decided that he would leave, as we all know. There were only a couple of people affected by that cabinet shuffle, one of whom was the former attorney general, who was removed from that position and, as everyone knows, shortly thereafter resigned from cabinet.

The issue is whether there was inappropriate pressure upon the former attorney general. If there was, there are those who would argue that there was an obstruction of justice. When there is interference, reasonably perceived by an objective person, with the administration of justice, that is obstruction. It is a serious criminal charge, and we need to get to the bottom of it.

The question then becomes, was there inappropriate pressure? Was that line I talked about crossed? Let us examine it for a moment. First, it would appear to a reasonable person that the former attorney general did feel that this pressure existed. Imagine how many times this issue came up after the final decision was made. Imagine how many different people, both in the bureaucracy at the highest level and in the Prime Minister's Office at the highest level, tried to speak to her about this issue. “What part of 'no' don't you understand?”, I hear her say. I was not there.

The Clerk of the Privy Council felt that he could advise us that, in fact, there was no inappropriate pressure. With the greatest of respect to an honourable senior public servant of great experience and service to Canada, how does he know? Was he at every one of those meetings? There were 50 meetings with people from SNC-Lavalin. There were 18 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office alone. He was not there, nor was he there when meetings with the former attorney general were taking place, out of earshot, at the Chateau Laurier or who knows where. With great respect, first, he does not know, and second, he is not the former attorney general and cannot tell us what she felt and inferred from that conduct.

Let us look at the objective standard of whether this line was crossed. There were so many different people and so many different conversations and so much relentless advocacy to change a position. What about the consequences for not doing so? She is gone. The government does not like to hear the word “fired”, so I will say that she was removed from that role. I guess there were consequences, some would infer, from that undue pressure. I would, but I want to hear from her.

That takes us to the justice committee. The parliamentary secretary made much of the fact that this independent master of its own procedure at committee is going to get to the bottom of this. Excuse me, but we tried to do so. We tried to get other people than simply the former attorney general to come to committee, and we were swatted down like flies. They said that maybe after they heard from her, they might allow us to hear from the other people, the only other people who can tell the other side of the story. One would think they would want that if they felt there was nothing going on here, but they do not seem to want that.

Maybe there is another theory. Maybe the straw that broke the camel's back in the mind of our former attorney general was that the government continued to have a yawning gap between the rhetoric and the reality of indigenous law reform. It is no secret that the former attorney general was pushing hard on that. She made a number of speeches that seemed to suggest that she was unhappy with that. Frankly, maybe this clumsy effort to pressure her in this matter and then to have her removed was the straw that broke the camel's back. I simply do not know.

We heard this morning from the hon. parliamentary secretary, and from the Prime Minister on many occasions and from the Clerk of the Privy Council at committee, that we should not worry. They are going to have an inquiry by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and that is going to be good enough. With all due respect, it will not be good enough, because it is almost certain that there will not be anything found to be wrong in these circumstances, not because of the facts but because of the wording of section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act, under which the commissioner has said he will do an investigation.

Mr. Dion, the investigator, said that he has “reason to believe that a possible contravention of section 9 [of the act] may have occurred”. Section 9 prohibits a public office holder from seeking to influence a decision by another person so as to improperly further another person's private interest, which is what he said he is going to look at. However, here is the punchline: All the other cases that have ever been decided by former commissioner Mary Dawson and others have said that there is nothing in the act to suggest that political interests are to be included in the concept of private interests. If it is money, okay, but if it is other things, no. Therefore, there is very little likelihood that it will lead Canadians any closer to the truth, which we must have in these circumstances. Frankly, it is not about the Prime Minister and interests. It is about whether there was interference with the independent role of the former attorney general.

What about these deferred prosecution agreements, which was what was at stake here? I have to say that there is a great deal of griping as to whether these agreements would even be applicable in these circumstances. I have mentioned that they have not been used, because they are brand new. They were put into an omnibus budget bill, which kind of sounds like the Harper government. At the end of a big budget bill, we had a couple of sections thrown in.

I was on the justice committee. We had a half hour or an afternoon on this particular section, and I can assure members that the words “SNC-Lavalin” were never mentioned. We had no idea that this was what was at issue. These things were described as important changes to deal with white collar crime.

Deferred prosecution agreements do have a role to play in our system, but they may not be applicable here, because there are certain conditions set out in the Criminal Code before they can apply. For example, one has to voluntarily disclose wrongdoing, admit corporate responsibility, make reparations to people, and so forth. Maybe there was just no way this square peg could fit into that round hole. It may just be that there was no way these even applied.

What would we expect an attorney general to do? “I would love to help you, but in fact, the law doesn't allow it”. The punchline here is that under the corrupt foreign practices legislation Canada has, if the defence says that it is going to be harmful to our national economic interest, it is not applicable. The whole lobby by SNC-Lavalin, this gigantic 50-times-they-met-people lobby, was to try to tell us about the national economic interest. Therefore, for a number of reasons, people are wondering whether the former attorney general was being asked to do something that was simply not possible or was, in fact, illegal.

What were they trying to do if that was the case? Were they trying to get something done that was illegal, or were they trying to get the law changed so we could fix it? Today we read in the The Globe and Mail something that may be the answer. If one is found guilty of bribery or fraud abroad, one cannot do business with the Government of Canada for 10 years. However, do not worry, it appears that help is on the way. We are going to change that and say that we may give some discretion to some public servant to kind of change that 10 years to maybe six months, a slap on the wrist or something. If we cannot do it one way, if we cannot pressure an Attorney General to perhaps change things, then we will find another way to fix it.

This is serious. Transparency International reported in its 2018 report that Canada is lagging its fellow OECD countries on this issue. We are not doing the job. We have “regressed”, to use the word it put in its 2018 report. Therefore, it is serious. At the OECD and other places, the Prime Minister and Canada have talked about how we are right behind efforts to get at international white collar crime, bribery abroad and the like and that we were with them all the way. Well, maybe this was just another broken promise, and maybe that is what the former attorney general was thinking when she resigned.

The Liberals promised modest deficits when they ran, but they broke that promise. In my part of the world, they promised to redo the process that gave us this dreadful project that is going to do serious harm to southern resident killer whales and the indigenous way of life on the coast. They promised to “redo” that. He came to my riding and said that. I was there. However, he did not do that.

The Liberals promised to change the electoral system. My colleagues will remember that. I think it was several hundred times we heard the promise that the last election would be the last one under the first-past-the-post system. Of course, the Liberals changed their minds on that as well.

However, the promise I think Canadians have the right to care about the most, the one that was probably the most important, if one were to stand back from it, in a democracy, and the one that certainly got my attention, was the commitment to openness and accountability. I was completely in favour of that. I did a lot of work in the earlier part of my life on freedom of information. I believed the Liberals. I wanted to believe the government.

“It is time to shine more light on government”, it said in the Liberal 2015 campaign program.

“Openness and transparency will be our constant companions”, the Prime Minister said.

I would like to have a little openness and transparency at the justice committee. I would like to have an opportunity to hear from the protagonists in this important debate, the people in the Prime Minister's Office and the former attorney general.

I can tell members that I am not very optimistic, because Mr. Wernick, who has been 37 years in the public service, concluded, in an answer to a question I posed, that solicitor-client privilege does not apply here. It is not about litigation privilege. Solicitor-client privilege is about when a lawyer gives advice to a client and has to go to the grave with any secrets he or she hears in advising that client. Lots of lawyers say that it is simply not applicable in these circumstances, because we are not talking about advice. We are talking about whether a person was browbeaten in the exercise of her authority as the former attorney general. That is the issue here.

With regard to litigation privilege, there are two lawsuits. One is a case in Montreal, I believe, which has to do with fraud and bribery. It has nothing to do with what is going on here, nothing, not a thing. It does not talk about litigation and public privilege and the Attorney General. The second case is what most lawyers who do administrative law would call a Hail Mary pass. Believe it or not, SNC-Lavalin is seeking a judicial review of the prosecutorial discretion of the independent director of public prosecutions because she made a mistake in how she exercised her discretion. If ever there was a Hail Mary pass, it is that one. Those are the two cases the government wants to hide behind on the basis of litigation and public privilege.

Let us just review this. First, Mr. Wernick says that there is no such thing in these circumstances. I agree with him. Second, we have no advice to the government in the circumstances at all. That is not at issue. Third, the government refers to litigation privilege in two cases that have literally nothing to do with this. I am very proud of our justice committee chair, who concluded that any effort to use the sub judice rule in that regard would not likely be of any merit. I do not see that as an issue at all.

I know that we can get caught up in the weeds here. I know that we can get right into the specifics while Canadians wonder what the big deal is. This is not climate. This is not the housing crisis. This is not the opioid crisis. However, this is our democracy. This is about whether we live in a banana republic or not. Do we live in a country where we respect the rule of law and the independence of the Attorney General, or do we not? Are we prepared to take a risk and not thoroughly investigate whether there was improper interference, at the highest level, with the role of an Attorney General of Canada? I am not saying that there was. I do not know. I was not there. However, the Liberals would use their majority in the justice committee to not allow us to find that out, to hide behind solicitor-client privilege. The Attorney General could not tell us what it was or what was so complicated. He could not tell us who could waive it. Read the testimony.

Canadians deserve answers. We need to get to the bottom of this. It is important for democracy. It is important for the House of Commons. It is important for Canada.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, as we heard, sits at committee and does some really good work. He has also sat at the veterans committee. I have always appreciated his feedback. However, I believe he has to admit that it is the responsibility of the members of Parliament and of the people of Canada to share with the minister or the Attorney General or the Prime Minister some of the concerns and issues we have. I hope he does not think we should not share that information. It is part of democracy. As the Attorney General and Mr. Wernick indicated, there was proper discussion. They clearly underlined that as well.

How many people in the NDP caucus spoke to the former attorney general in the last year? The Conservatives said that they had spoken to her at various times as part of the job of sharing information. Did any of the NDP speak to the former attorney general in the last year, and if not, why not? Again, we need to share that information.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the first point made by the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was that ministers of the Crown could share information and discuss it with others. As I said in my remarks, I not only think it is right, but that it is necessary for an attorney general to speak with his or her cabinet colleagues and others about the issues before that attorney general. In fact, Lord Simon in England said that one would be a fool not to in many circumstances, and I agree.

However, the role of a cabinet member minister of justice is very distinct from the role of an attorney general. In places like England, he or she would not even sit in the cabinet because of the concerns we see today. Therefore, proper discussion is fine.

The member pointed out that the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Wernick, said that there was proper discussion. First, he was not at all of those meetings, and he could not have been as there have been so many, with the former attorney general, and he acknowledged that. Second, he is not the arbiter of whether there was proper discussion or whether the line I referred to was crossed. Third, looking at the facts as we know them, an objective, reasonable person would say that with all this pressure coming from so many different people it looks like there was improper pressure.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria raised some excellent points. He noted a few things are important.

I would argue nothing is more important than the constitutional order that governs the country. Tax policy comes and goes, climate change policy gets changed government to government, programs come and go, but what endures and has endured in the country for at least 150 years is our constitutional order. The matter in front of the House today concerns some very grave allegations between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general.

I want to add a point to the excellent points made by the member for Victoria, which is about the Shawcross doctrine. The Shawcross doctrine, which is the constitutional convention adopted by all attorneys general of the country, makes it clear that it is appropriate for an attorney general to consult, to solicit advice from her cabinet colleagues, but not the other way around. In other words, under that doctrine, it is improper for the Prime Minister or any member of the cabinet to approach an attorney general in respect of a criminal prosecution, unprompted, and ask that attorney general do something or even provide advice. The doctrine makes it clear that it is an attorney general's right to consult and solicit opinions from fellow cabinet colleagues, but not the other way around.

As the former attorney general of the Province of Ontario, Michael Bryant, has said, it is improper for a cabinet colleague, including the Prime Minister or his staff, to approach an attorney general unprompted to talk about a criminal prosecution. If the House and its committees cannot call the Prime Minister to a committee to give a full account of what actually happened, it demonstrates to Canadians that this institution and its committees are not up to the task of holding checks and balances on prime ministerial power.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect and admire the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills' constant efforts to improve and reform this institution and so many other institutions. Therefore, I take very seriously the points he makes about the Constitution.

As he talked about respect for the constitutional order, it allows me to quote a sentence from the late Mark Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who was an expert in these matters and one of Canada's leading criminal lawyers ever. He wrote this in the Queen's Law Journal:

The most important of these constitutional conventions is that although the Attorney General is a cabinet minister, he or she acts independently of the cabinet in the exercise of the prosecution function.

That was the most important one he thought, which is really important.

The Supreme Court also said in 2002 that we had to respect the fact that an attorney general was “fully independent from the political pressures of the government.”

Was that line crossed here? It does not appear to me that the Liberals are that anxious to find out. If it is simply partisan politics before an election period, I guess we can understand that they would throw back at us that somehow we are just trying to make political hay out of this, that there is nothing here and to drive on. They might be right that there is nothing here. However, they will not let us find out if they hide behind solicitor-client privilege, will not waive it if it does indeed exist, and will not let us hear from the people who need to come and advise Canadians as to what happened.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Victoria, for his well-reasoned arguments in his support for this motion.

When the former attorney general was moved out of her cabinet post, I was very struck by the letter she released to Canadians, in which mentioned speaking “truth to power” and ensuring our justice system was free from political interference. Then of course came her resignation the day after the Prime Minister stated that her continued presence in cabinet spoke for itself.

Last week, we heard her unprecedented point of order during a vote, in which she clearly explained that she was abstaining and that she hoped to be able to speak her truth one day. She has also retained the services of a previous Supreme Court justice. Are these the actions of a woman who has nothing to say? I would argue they are not.

Let us combine this with The Globe and Mail story. The Globe and Mail does not run a front-page story with sources unless it has verified them. Then we have the constantly changing narrative. The government is always changing tactics in response to new information, the steady drip that is coming out.

When my hon. colleague looks at the government's actions and words over the last two weeks, does he think these are the actions of a government that truly has nothing to hide?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his reminder that on two or three occasions, the former attorney general has used the expression “speaking truth to power” and has asked to do so. As he said, she has also retained a former Supreme Court justice as her counsel to give her advice.

It sure seems to me that she has something to tell us. It sure seems to me that she wants to speak her truth. However, I am very sad to say I have yet to believe the government wants to hear that story.

Canadians have a right to hear her for all of those constitutionally vital reasons I described earlier. I hope the government will get beyond its talking points and its political imperatives here, think about the big picture and why it is reasonable that people want to know whether there was improper interference in the exercise of her independent prosecutorial responsibilities. Yes or no?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

I rise in strong support of our Conservative opposition motion to call on the Prime Minister to appear before the justice committee, under oath, so he can answer questions about his involvement in the interference of the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

As each day passes, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the Prime Minister is up to his eyeballs in this sordid affair. With each day, it seems there is a new version of events from the Prime Minister.

When The Globe and Mail article was first published, the Prime Minister hoped he could wash his hands clean of the entire matter by issuing a blanket denial. When that was not going to cut it, the Prime Minister gave a carefully crafted legal response, which stated that the decision was the former attorney general's and the former attorney general's alone. Then he said that the fact the former attorney general was still in cabinet spoke for itself. Well, the former attorney general immediately resigned from cabinet following that statement. So much for that explanation.

The Prime Minister then stated that there was no pressure exerted on the former attorney general, until last Thursday, when the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, appeared before our committee and admitted that, in fact, there was pressure. Wernick said that we should not worry, because there was no inappropriate pressure, as if there is a distinction between appropriate pressure and inappropriate pressure. The fact is that any pressure exerted on the former attorney general is entirely inappropriate.

In that regard, I would like to make reference to the late Justice Rosenberg and his dissertation on the independence of the office of Attorney General, wherein he summarizes the Shawcross doctrine. Justice Rosenberg stated, “responsibility for the decision is that of the Attorney General alone; the government is not to put pressure on him or her.” Period, no pressure.

What we are also learning, as a result of the testimony of Mr. Wernick, is that the Prime Minister's version of events, his explanation about what happened, is simply untrue. The Prime Minister said that it was the attorney general's decision alone and that there was no pressure.

In fact, it turns out that the former attorney general did make a decision, and she unambiguously communicated that decision to the Prime Minister on September 17. Her decision was that she would not overturn the decision of the direction of public prosecutions not to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.

One would expect that upon this decision being conveyed to the Prime Minister, that Prime Minister, out of respect for the former attorney general, out of respect for the independence of the office of Attorney General and the sanctity of that independence, would have left it at that and accepted the decision. However, that is not what happened.

What happened following September 17, when the former attorney general announced to the Prime Minister her decision, was a concerted campaign, orchestrated and coordinated by the Prime Minister, through his surrogates, to change the former attorney general's mind. In that regard, it is important we go through some of the important timelines.

We know that on December 5, the former attorney general met with Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's principal secretary and top political adviser, to discuss—guess what? It was SNC-Lavalin. On September 17, the decision had been made. Nearly three months later, the Prime Minister's top political adviser is talking to the former attorney general about that decision. When the former attorney general did not appear to bow to Mr. Butts, we learn that Mr. Butts and Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, hauled the former attorney general's chief of staff before them to discuss yet again the SNC-Lavalin matter and the matter of a deferred prosecution agreement.

Then to make it ever so clear that they were not satisfied with the decision of the former attorney general not to intervene, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Wernick, on December 19, met with the Prime Minister. Following that meeting, he saw fit to pick up the phone and, as he put it, “check in on the SNC-Lavalin file” with the former attorney general. He further stated, “I conveyed to her that a lot of her colleagues and the Prime Minister were quite anxious about what they were hearing and reading”.

He said “quite anxious”. I thought a decision had already been made. The Prime Minister says it is her decision and her decision alone, that there was no pressure, yet what we learned is that following that decision, there were meetings involving the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, his principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council. The Prime Minister can say with a straight face that the decision was hers and hers alone to make and that there was no pressure; it is an insult to Canadians that the Prime Minister would have the audacity to say that in the face of that chronology.

However, it gets worse from the public interest standpoint. As soon as the Clerk of the Privy Council expressed the anxiousness of the Prime Minister, the former attorney general went on vacation. It was Christmastime and the new year. I think she was in Bali, and before she could make it back to Ottawa, she had a call from the Prime Minister to come back to Ottawa. When she came back, she found out that she was going to be fired as the Attorney General, and she was. At the first opportunity, the Prime Minister fired her.

He said it was her decision and her decision alone to make. What we are learning is that there was only one decision that the Prime Minister would accept, which was to overrule the director of public prosecutions. The only decision the Prime Minister was prepared to accept was to interfere in an independent criminal prosecution, and until that decision was made, the Prime Minister did not care to what lengths he would go or the lengths that he would instruct his officials to go in interfering with the independence of the office of the Attorney General, and that is a very, very serious matter. That is highly problematic.

Quite frankly, it is time for the Prime Minister to come clean. It is time for the Prime Minister to be transparent. It is time for the Prime Minister to provide the answers that Canadians deserve. That is precisely what our motion seeks to do. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, then he should come before a committee, be put under oath—with the consequence, by the way, of perjury—and let the sunshine come in.

That is what we need: sunshine. We know that this is a Prime Minister who talks about sunshine as the best disinfectant. Let him answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at an overview of the entire issue, one of the things that comes across my mind is that we had some good representation at the last justice committee. I suspect the member opposite was there. There was a fairly clear indication from Mr. Wernick that it would appear that there was no undue influence or pressure. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts in regard to the standing committee and the scope that it has.

We have had other Conservative members and New Democrats calling into question just how important the standing committee really is, somewhat marginalizing its importance, and that is unfortunate. The member himself understands the importance of standing committees, so I wonder if he could talk about the standing committee and at the same time about the Ethics Commissioner and if he truly believes that it is impartial and apolitical.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, with the greatest respect to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, he must have missed my speech, because the evidence relayed by Mr. Wernick very clearly supported and provided additional facts and information about the lengths to which the Prime Minister went to interfere in the prosecution and to interfere with the independence of the Attorney General.

With respect to the justice committee, I respect all members of that committee. I have served with them on the committee for the last three and a half years, and that is why I have been so disappointed that its members have done the bidding of the Prime Minister's Office as part of this broader cover-up. I say that simply because they have repeatedly blocked efforts to call relevant witnesses, including Gerald Butts, including Mathieu Bouchard and, I presume, soon including the Prime Minister.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is puzzling me and why it merits an open review not just before the committee but likely an inquiry, is the confusion apparently held by the Liberals that there is no difference between having a discussion with the Minister of Justice and having a discussion with the Attorney General. Very clearly, they are distinct roles.

When the Minister of Justice was proposing changing the criminal law to introduce these DPA provisions to allow for deferred prosecution agreements or when the government was considering a foreign public officials act, ratified 1999, was the time to talk to the justice minister about whether it should specifically exclude consideration to economic matters, which those laws do.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to that matter. We are in a situation here in which a number of parties, including the Prime Minister, the Clerk of the Privy Council and members of the PMO continued to approach the former attorney general to speak about an ongoing prosecution, when a decision had already been made to bring forward a prosecution under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, 1999, which forbids consideration of economic matters. All that has been revealed to us thus far, until they testify, is their concern about the impact on the economy.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days it has been quite interesting to hear the Prime Minister talking about how it is all about jobs. Mr. Wernick said something similar. I take that as an admission of guilt on the part of the Prime Minister. It was entirely improper because, as the hon. member points out, it is expressly prohibited, pursuant to paragraph 715.32(3) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the issue of the independence of the office of the Attorney General, that could not have been made more clear than by the Supreme Court in Krieger at paragraph 3, wherein the court states:

It is a constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to initiate, continue or terminate prosecutions.

That is the heart of what is at issue.