Debates of Feb. 25th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I served on justice committee in the last Parliament and learned quite a bit about how our system fits in, so I was quite interested in what the member had to say.

I am also fascinated that he chose the Shawcross principle and conveyed it also with the sub judice aspect, simply because he is arguing that there needs to be a strong differentiation to ensure that people have equality under the law.

That is absolutely true. However, the Prime Minister and his staff and, I would even gather, the Privy Council clerk decided, unsolicited, to try to change the mind of the former attorney general. The member is absolutely right that the Shawcross principle allows for the AG to consult, which means to ask for input, but it does not work the other way around, whereby they could suddenly say they want to talk to her and want to influence the situation.

Is the member concerned about keeping the protections of the equality of law and the rule of law by separating the legislative and the executive branches from the judicial branch? My concern is that the Prime Minister and his staff have interfered with that process and now are undermining the rule of law.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the problem with the question and the statement that the member made is that he is assuming that pressure was applied. What I was discussing and what I put on the table and what I talked about in my speech is that it is completely legitimate for the discussions to take place, provided that the end result, the decision at the end of the day, is made by the Attorney General.

That member has absolutely no proof to suggest otherwise, other than the trumped-up conspiracy theories that the Conservatives love to put on the table these days because they understand, and to a certain degree they are not entirely wrong, that they can influence public opinion through trumping up fear and scandal where they just simply do not exist.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that there is plenty of opportunity to ask questions and make comments but to please wait until I ask for questions and comments to say anything unless the member has been recognized by the Chair.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to follow up on the comments made by my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. He asked a clear question, and you stood up and talked about the sub judice rule and the importance of the separation of Parliament and the judicial branch. However, you are also standing up here defending—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to please ask her questions through the Chair and not to individual members.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is defending the executive branch in its failure to exhibit that same respect for the process. That is the question here.

I would like to ask him to stand up and suggest that it is okay for the executive branch to interfere in the judicial process when he so clearly articulated how it was not okay for Parliament.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reason my speech and what I had to say were germane to the discussion is that the Conservatives would like to exploit something that the average person does not understand, and that is what the relationship should be between the Attorney General, cabinet and those who are helping to advise cabinet.

If those members stopped heckling for a second and listened to my answer, the member who asked the last question would realize that I have already answered it. The fact is that the relationship exists and that appropriate discussions can take place, but at the end of the day the decision comes down to the Attorney General. That is exactly what has happened in this case, despite the fact that the Conservatives would like people to believe otherwise.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, just by way of clarification, specifically what Mr. Wernick said at the committee hearing is that we are discussing “lawful advocacy”, and that all of the conversations were “appropriate, lawful and legal”.

I want to ask my colleague about remediation agreements. Certain things are covered by confidentiality and privilege, but remediation agreements and the law are clear. The purpose of remediation agreements is to avoid negative consequences on people like employees, customers and pensioners. Remediation agreements talk about the fact that in order to participate in one, responsibility has to be admitted, any benefit received must be forfeited, a penalty must be paid, and there must be agreement to co-operate with further investigations.

In light of the fact that five members of the G7—Japan, France, Britain, the United States and now Canada—have remediation agreements, is this the type of provision that the member's constituents in Kingston and constituents around the country would like to see in terms of harmonizing our rules with the rules among other members of the international order, including our specific G7 trading allies?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is critical that we harmonize the rules and procedures we have with our major trading partners and all partners of the G7. This is how we are going to continue to develop the global economic relationships that will be beneficial for everyone.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would think that if the member actually took the time to talk to his constituents, he would realize they have concerns.

It is interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice now wants to talk about deferred prosecution agreements. If that is the case, why did the justice committee not study them? It is because the proposal was buried in an omnibus bill. Finance committee members did not even know that it was slipped in until it came up.

I will go back to a quote. “It is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political interference and uphold the highest levels of public confidence.” The Prime Minister said to Canadians that the best disinfectant is sunlight. We have asked the Prime Minister, as well as others, to present his view of the events so that we can get to the bottom of this because, again, to quote the former attorney general, we must “uphold the highest levels of public confidence.”

What does the member have to hide with respect to having the Prime Minister share exactly what went on?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, as has been mentioned many times in the House, the Prime Minister has indicated that he is seeking legal counsel from the Attorney General regarding his ability to waive the privilege that currently exists.

As I indicated in my speech, it is absolutely imperative that we ensure that people are properly protected so that what is discussed in the public does not impact a particular court case.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to allow the member to answer the question. If he has another question, he can always get up and ask it.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I extend my apologies to the member opposite. He has really engaged me in his speech today, which I hope is gratifying for both of us.

In his previous answer, the member said that he believes that people need to be “protected” and that the Prime Minister is weighing whether he can lift solicitor-client privilege. This is important for us to know. Is the member opposite suggesting that the Prime Minister is not being clear with Canadians and that somehow he is using client-solicitor privilege as a means to prevent the truth from coming out?

As I said earlier, the former AG said in a statement after the shuffle that the confidence of Canadians, at the highest levels, is of utmost importance to her. Does the member believe that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly what the Conservatives do. They take what was said and try to spin it.

The member opposite knows full well that when I said “protected”, I was talking about those going before the courts who have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. He knew exactly what I was talking about, but instead he tried to spin it in a way that made it sound as though I was trying to say something that simply was not the case.

The Prime Minister has indicated that he is currently seeking advice from the Attorney General as to whether he can waive solicitor-client privilege.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, I would just like to inform the House that Wednesday, February 27, 2019, shall be an allotted day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to note I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I am glad to have the opportunity to rise to debate this really important motion today, which is calling for the Prime Minister to go before the justice committee and provide some clarity as to what is actually going on.

What I think we need to do is to first cast back to pre-2006. There was something happening at that time that was very important. The Gomery inquiry was happening with respect to the sponsorship scandal, which was about broad corruption, illegal activities and the funnelling of precious taxpayer dollars to suit the Liberal Party's purposes. It was a really significant issue. Canadians were very concerned about what was going on and in actual fact it put the Liberals into the penalty box for the next 10 years, because Canadians saw what the Liberal government was doing with respect to its ethics and inability to protect taxpayer dollars.

Then the Conservatives took over in 2006 and recognized that there were some significant issues that needed to be addressed. We brought forward the Federal Accountability Act and also set up the office of the director of public prosecutions to try to keep that separation that was so important and to deal with some of the many flaws we had seen regarding large amounts of dollars going from taxpayers to the benefit solely of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Then 2015 came along and we had a Prime Minister who talked about sunny ways, about transparency and about doing things differently, and Canadians listened and gave him a majority mandate. I think what they were given was a veneer and a good talk. However, what we have found over the last three and half years is that was all it was. I have used this example before and I will use it again. If we take a health care example, what we have is a Prime Minister who might have a good bedside manner but is absolutely not the person we would want performing our diagnosis, surgery or behaving in any way we would expect from our leadership.

We are three years in and we have broken promises. We have a deficit that the Liberals promised we would not have. They promised electoral reform, yet look at what happened with that. Then we had a series of ethical violations. There was the Aga Khan issue, where I believe the Prime Minister was found guilty of four violations when he accepted a trip. Does this sound like the Liberals from 10 years prior? It sure sounds like those Liberals to me. We had the handing out by the prior fisheries minister of a lucrative surf clam contract to friends and insiders. Also, we had the Minister of Finance, who managed to forget the villa in France that he owned. Not many of us would forget a villa in France, but he happened to.

What we have seen is not only a series of broken promises but also a number of ethical violations. To me that is a huge betrayal of the trust that Canadians put in the Liberal government in 2015 when it made so many promises to be different and to be better.

This brings us to where we are today, which is really quite a sordid saga that we have in front of us. Many of us were surprised when the former attorney general was unceremoniously shuffled into the veterans affairs portfolio. Certainly, anyone watching that ceremony that day could tell that she was not particularly pleased with what was happening.

This is a government that had promised never to introduce omnibus budget bills. However, for my portfolio, there was an addition to reserve policy that I asked the indigenous affairs committee to look at. The Liberals refused. They voted us down, did not allow us to look at that and it was shoved into a budget bill.

There was also the deferred prosecution agreement clause, which now in retrospect is one of the first dots that we need to connect. We will have a number of dots to connect in order to provide a very clear story.

We have a prosecution agreement. We know a company was working very hard to have that deferred prosecution agreement made into law. Things were going along quite well according to the plan. The plan all along was to allow the deferred prosecution agreement. The Liberals can say what they want with respect to other countries, but clearly it was put there for a purpose.

Then we heard in September that the independent public prosecution office was not going to play ball with the Prime Minister's plan.

The government talks about the importance of sub judice. We heard in a prior speech how critical it was to separate the judicial branch and the legislative branch. We also have an executive branch and there should be a similar separation, but the Liberals are not talking about that today. They so far have not shown they have any respect for the critical importance of the separation of the executive branch with the judicial branch.

We talked about the budget bill. We had the decision by the public prosecution. Now we have what is now a well-documented outreach. This is not the Attorney General of Canada asking for advice or support; this is outreach by the most powerful in the country. Gerald Butts of the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council just happened to do outreach to the former attorney general to suggest she needed more context around her decision.

It is absolutely shameful that they would ever suggest that was not pressure. They were the head of the Privy Council and Mr. Butts. The Prime Minister said that when Mr. Butts spoke, it came from the Prime Minister. Do not let anyone ever say that is not pressure when they happened to be giving context, asking if she would rethink her decision when she had already made it.

One of the articles I read this weekend was perfect. It said “How many times does our attorney general have to say no?” The company is still lobbying and it wants a different decision. The Clerk of the Privy Council suggested that this was appropriate pressure. That is not appropriate pressure and I think no one out there believes it was appropriate pressure.

We need the ability not only to hear from the former attorney general, we need to hear from the Prime Minister, because we have potentially not only a breach of interference from the executive branch to the judicial branch. I am not sure that we do not have something criminal going on here and we need to get to the bottom of it.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to this debate today, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola actually had his facts wrong when he talked about the lack of scrutiny and discussion about remediation agreements. It was studied at the justice committee on November 7. It was studied at the finance committee, at the Senate committee and that all occurred after year-long consultations.

Today, the member has said that we do not have any respect for the separation between the judicial and the executive branch. I find that kind of commentary quite rich coming from a member of that level of experience, given the track record of the previous government when the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, threw Beverley McLaughlin under the bus for daring to comment on the qualifications of a potential Supreme Court appointee.

In respect to the separation and the accountability mechanisms, there is one. It is called the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It has undertaken a study and has indicated clearly on the record that the witness list is not closed. Why is the position of the opposite benches such that they are unwilling to let the justice committee continue to do its important work in shedding some light on this issue?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the justice committee was first considering this issue, there was a long list of witnesses presented by both the official opposition and the NDP for consideration. The Liberals are simply using their majority to cherry-pick which witnesses they want to attend committee.

The member asked why we would not let the justice committee do its work, and absolutely it is going to do its work. However, I think it is also important, when an issue is as important as what we have before us today, that we hear the will of Parliament, or at least to hear the opposition, and hopefully a few brave backbenchers, who will do the right thing and recognize it is important for the Prime Minister to come to committee to share his truth as he understands it.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a serious matter. Parliament is not often presented with a motion in which the sitting Prime Minister is being called to testify under oath in front of Parliament. It did happen in a previous Parliament when Stephen Harper was here. The Liberals joined with us, I suppose in some form of alliance they were happy to participate in then, to call the then Prime Minister Stephen Harper to testify under oath at committee.

The reason that was so serious was because the concerns and allegations under the Nigel Wright-Mike Duffy affair went right into the heart of the Prime Minister's Office. What had taken place had money exchange hands, which was rightly concerning to Canadians. My Conservative colleagues do not always want to remember those days, which is fair enough, but that was something that Canadians, including even Liberals in that case, wanted to know about what was going on in the Prime Minister's Office.

However, now the allegations that have been put forward into the public, on which the Prime Minister is constantly shifting stories, is that within his office the former attorney general may have received constant and unrelenting pressure to allow a plea deal to a company that had extensively lobbied the government for special treatment. That is special access. That is two sets of laws: one for specially connected people and companies, and another set for everyone else.

When we are dealing with this gravity of power and the potential abuse of that power, is it not time for Canadians to hear from the Prime Minister himself?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that a Conservative scandal was a $16 orange juice and paying taxpayers' dollars back where it was felt it did not pass the smell test. I think what we are talking about is absolutely on a different scale.

At the start of my comments, I spoke about the sponsorship scandal and how the Liberals had this sense of entitlement about how they could use taxpayers' dollars for their own purposes, their own gain. We are now hearing how the Liberals continue to do that. Whether it is the Aga Khan or some of the other issues where they have been found guilty of ethical violations, they continue to blur the boundaries to accomplish what they want. In this case, some of the most powerful people in this country pressured the former attorney general, a first nations woman, an accomplished woman. We were all proud of her when she took over that role, and she has been unceremoniously turfed because she did not do what they wanted her to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate, even though, as a Canadian, I would have preferred if this sad story had never happened.

What we want to know is how much political interference, by the Prime Minister or the PMO, occurred in a criminal case.

One of the cornerstones of our democracy is the separation between politics and justice. There has to be a wall between the two. However, unfortunately, there has obviously been political interference in a criminal case.

Let us review the facts. In 2015, criminal charges of corruption were brought against a large corporation in Montreal regarding its dealings in Libya. Unfortunately, this same company was found guilty of corruption less than a year ago in the case involving the McGill University Health Centre, or MUHC, in Montreal.

Then, on June 21, the government passed omnibus Bill C-74. At the very end of the bill, there is a measure concerning remediation agreements that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget.

Over seven or eight pages, the government clearly defined a process to allow a company that is facing serious international prosecution, as is the case here, to sign an agreement with the government. If, by chance, this were ever to happen, the bill explains the procedure.

I want to remind members that subsection 715.32(3) explicitly states that “the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest”. The prosecutor is the Government of Canada.

This omnibus bill passed with clauses regarding agreements, as defined earlier, that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. This happened on June 21.

In similar cases, the director of public prosecutions could look into the matter, make a decision and inform the respondent. This is exactly what happened. On September 4, the director of public prosecutions informed the company in question that she would be moving forward and that an agreement was not possible. There we go.

Nearly three weeks ago, The Globe and Mail reported that strong pressure on the former attorney general allegedly led her to quit her job, a very prestigious position in our parliamentary system if ever there was one.

What happened?

On September 17, the Prime Minister of Canada contacted the former attorney general to discuss this case. On December 5, the Prime Minister of Canada's principal secretary contacted the former attorney general to discuss this case. On December 19, Canada's top public servant, the most powerful man in the public service of Canada, the Clerk of the Privy Council, picked up the telephone and directly contacted the former attorney general. On January 14, the former attorney general was relieved of her duties by the Prime Minister. Those are the facts.

We now want to find out just how much undue pressure was applied to influence the former attorney general.

I should mention that last week, The Globe and Mail, the newspaper that broke the story that has been tarnishing the government's image and consequently Canada's image abroad for the past three weeks, published another story claiming that the former attorney general told cabinet that she had been subjected to undue pressure.

Was she subjected to undue pressure, yes or no?

Last week, Canada's top public servant clearly stated three times that, yes, there had been pressure, but that it was not undue pressure.

Of course it was not undue pressure. It was just pressure from the Prime Minister, his principal secretary and Canada's top public servant.

One, two, three people pressured the former attorney general about a specific matter, and that was not undue pressure? Clearly, there was undue pressure on Canada's former attorney general.

Canada's highest-ranking public servant testified that, yes, there was pressure, but it was not undue pressure. With all due respect to that important figure in our political hierarchy, I have something to say to him. If the question is whether the pressure was undue, I would rather hear the person who was pressured, not the party applying the pressure, say whether it was undue or not, whether it was appropriate or not. In this particular case, the end result was the former attorney general's departure, since she was relieved of her duties.

As I said, The Globe and Mail exposed the whole affair three weeks ago. What happened then? The government and the Prime Minister have treated us to a comedy of errors ever since. The Prime Minister changed his story at least five times over the first few days. He contradicted himself at least five times. He started off by saying that no one could comment on the matter due to cabinet confidence. Canada's highest-ranking public servant contradicted the Prime Minister last week when he said it was never discussed in cabinet.

The Prime Minister clearly stated that the continued presence of the former attorney general in cabinet spoke for itself. Fifteen hours later, she quit cabinet for good. It does not get much clearer than that. That is what happened.

A few days later, a teary-eyed Prime Minister apologized for not being quick enough to condemn the bad people who had attacked the former attorney general. An hour later, here in the House, she said she was eager to speak her truth.

I was here in my seat. The Prime Minister was 10 or 12 feet away from me. I can say one thing. If looks could kill, it would not have been pretty. He was not happy when the member said she was looking forward to sharing her version of events.

From the start, we have wanted everyone to testify, from the former attorney general to the Prime Minister's chief adviser or the Prime Minister himself. Initially, when we asked for that, government members called it a witch hunt and a distraction. Eventually, they realized it was the right thing to do. The country's top civil servant and the former attorney general can testify. That is a win.

We need the whole truth to come out. That is why, in this motion moved by the leader of the official opposition for the good of Canada, we are calling on the Prime Minister, the one who ignited this scandal, to give his side of the story.

Today I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say at least 10 times that the Liberals have confidence in the work of parliamentary committees, that they respect the committees. Let them prove it. The best way to shed light on this is to allow the key players in this affair, unfortunate as it may be, to give their version of the facts. So far we have only heard the version of Canada's top public servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council. God knows that that testimony was spectacular to say the least, given all the revelations there have been. He talked about the famous phone call that he himself had with the former attorney general during which he said there was no pressure and that he simply reminded the attorney general of the significance of her decision. There was nothing wrong with that. It is just the most senior public servant in Canada.

A few days earlier, the Prime Minister's principal adviser had set everything in motion. That is not a problem in the least. It is totally normal. Not to mention that, on September 17, the Prime Minister had a conversation with the former attorney general.

Canadians want the truth—the whole truth. The best way to get the truth is to allow the Prime Minister to testify in parliamentary committee.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite and his contribution to this debate.

When he appeared before the committee, Mr. Wernick said that the conversations with the former minister of justice were completely legal. He used the terms “lawful” and “appropriate”.

Since the member opposite represents a region in the beautiful province of Quebec, I would like to talk about how remediation agreements affect such a province. Paragraph 715.31(f) of the Criminal Code states that the purpose of such an agreement is:

to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons — employees, customers, pensioners and others — who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.

Does the member not agree that these provisions are designed to punish business executives who are responsible for criminal acts instead of the employees, who are not? Are these provisions not a valuable part of our Criminal Code?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again compliment my hon. colleague on his French.

First, I never said that it was illegal or inappropriate for the top official in Canada to call the former attorney general. I simply said that he pressured her. Now, I would like to remind members of what it says on page 534 of the government's omnibus bill. Subsection 175.32(3) reads as follows:

...the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest...

It is written in black and white. What happened, in the end? The company was notified of the decision of the director of public prosecutions on September 4. Political pressure was brought to bear after that. If the Liberals did not like that decision, all they had to do was take action beforehand. They did not abide by their own law and, to make matters worse, they did not respect the integrity of the director of public prosecutions.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for reminding us of those facts. However, since those facts were already set out several times today, I would like to ask a related but somewhat different question.

Over the past few hours, days and soon to be weeks, the Liberals have been defending themselves by saying that remediation agreements protect jobs. If I wanted to introduce a measure to defend and protect jobs, I would not have inserted it into an omnibus budget implementation bill. I likely would have made a big deal about what I was doing to address the issue. However, this provision was hidden in an omnibus budget implementation bill.

Does this show that the Liberals are trying to give themselves tools to help friends of the party rather than defend Canadians?