Debates of Feb. 25th, 2019

Justice

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that under 10 years of Stephen Harper, they had no respect for committees. The Conservatives have chosen a new leader, but it remains a party of Stephen Harper that has no regard for committees, and the Conservatives continue to undermine their work. We on this side know that Canadians should have confidence in their decisions. We will let the committees do their important work.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 4, the director of public prosecutions decided that SNC-Lavalin was not entitled to a remediation agreement, and the blitz to try to influence the former attorney general began. The Prime Minister tried to influence her at a meeting on September 17, and his top adviser and friend followed suit on December 5. Many others in the Prime Minister's inner circle also tried the same trick.

Did the Prime Minister clearly try to influence the former attorney general?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member continues to make claims, but let us look at the facts. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the former Minister of Justice to take.

On this side of the House, we respect the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We know that the members are capable of doing their job, and we have confidence in their work.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now, the government is changing its story day by day, getting up to all kinds of monkey business in an attempt to influence our justice system. The director of public prosecutions made her decision on September 4. She confirmed that decision on October 9. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister and his cronies repeatedly tried to get her to change her mind.

We want to know whether the Prime Minister will agree to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to answer all of the opposition's questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the director of public prosecutions confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently.

The Conservatives keep talking out of both sides of their mouths. In French, they claim they would not dream of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles says. However, in English, it is a different story, as we heard from the member for Carleton, who is not hiding the fact that he wants to shut this company down. The Conservatives need to stop their doublespeak and start being clear with Canadians.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on December 5, Gerry Butts met with the former attorney general to discuss the SNC-Lavalin matter. On December 6, the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself wrote a letter to SNC-Lavalin, refusing to meet with SNC-Lavalin anymore and directing SNC-Lavalin to the Attorney General's office.

I would like to know what happened between December 5 and December 6 that caused the Prime Minister to make that decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is important to note is that the justice committee has members from all parties recognized in this House. They are working together to have witnesses appear. Witnesses are answering tough questions.

However, it is also important to note that the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company and the NDP leader met with representatives of the company. The Conservative deputy leader herself, who just asked the question, said at the justice committee, “I do not want the impression to be on the record that I think there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin....”

At the justice committee, the Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, in December, the Prime Minister—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. The hon. member for Milton.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, only the Prime Minister can answer these questions, and that is why we are asking him to appear before the justice committee.

The second question I would like to ask is this. Between September 4 and October 10, did the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister's Office or the Clerk of the Privy Council give assurances to SNC-Lavalin that they would overturn the decision of the former attorney general?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that that member of the Conservative Party continues to undermine the work of the justice committee as well as the work of the commissioner. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is looking at this matter. The justice committee is looking at this matter. We are the government that increased resources.

Let the record show that on this side we respect the work of committees, we respect the work of officers of Parliament and we respect the independence of the judicial system. That is a clear contrast from what the Conservatives stand for.

Natural Resources

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are suffering the consequences of climate change and paying the price for the Liberal government's half measures.

Last week, the National Energy Board once again recommended that the government move forward with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. We know what is coming next. The Liberals are going to hide behind the NEB to justify their bad decision regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline and their failure to protect the environment as they should.

How can Quebeckers trust the Liberals not to do the same in the case of energy east?

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know that we campaigned in the last election on a commitment to protect our environment and grow the economy at the same time. That includes steps that are going to get our resources to new markets so that our provinces in the western part of our country do not take a haircut on their resources.

However, I want to highlight for the member that we are moving forward with a number of measures, including over 50 to contribute to the fight against climate change. We are putting a price on pollution. We are making the largest investment in the history of public transit in Canada. By 2030, 90% of our electricity will be generated from clean resources.

We are in a new age in Canadian politics when it comes to protecting our environment. I invite the NDP to join the train.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has claimed that climate change is the fight of his life. He has claimed that there is no relationship more important to him than that with indigenous peoples and he has claimed that he really, really cares about protecting our west coast.

When the National Energy Board said that the Trans Mountain pipeline will, one, have major impacts on our climate; two, significantly damage indigenous rights and title; and three, potentially wipe out the southern resident killer whale population, it seems like this decision would be a no-brainer.

This is a test for the Prime Minister. Between the principles he claims to hold and a pipeline he so desperately wants to build, what is it going to be?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we are following the clear guidelines that have been given to us by the Federal Court of Appeal. We instructed the National Energy Board to undertake this review, and they have given us that report on Friday. We will carefully analyze and look at it.

At the same time, we are moving forward with meaningful consultation with indigenous communities to understand their concerns and offer accommodation and work with them to find solutions to the outstanding issues.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister conspired to halt the criminal trial of a corporation accused of corruption.

My question has to do with the December 18 meeting between the PMO and the office of the former attorney general. We know that Gerald Butts and Katie Telford spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister. We also know that they, along with the Prime Minister, have all the power in the Liberal government.

Canadians want to know why the Prime Minister asked those two individuals to meet with the chief of staff to the former attorney general on December 18.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job.

Our government increased resources to committees so that they could do this important work. The clerk told the committee last week that the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the justice minister to make.

Although this member claims to have no intention of hurting SNC-Lavalin employees, the member for Carleton said something altogether different.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member can accuse me, but the one thing we Conservatives want is the truth, her truth.

The Prime Minister changed his story every day for two weeks. No two versions have been the same. On top of that, he has given himself the right to speak on behalf of the former attorney general.

Will the former attorney general be allowed to speak freely at this much-touted committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what the Prime Minister just said. Later today the government will confirm that the member will be able to address relevant matters at the committee, while ensuring that the two active court cases are not jeopardized. We continue to welcome the studies by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot seem to take no for an answer. When the former attorney general said that, no, she was not going to give SNC-Lavalin a deal, he was not happy, so he sent in his two top people, Telford and Butts, the two people who spoke directly for him, to do some persuading.

On December 18, they meet with the chief of staff to the then attorney general to discuss the SNC-Lavalin deal. What did Telford and Butts say at that meeting, and what did they threaten would happen if SNC-Lavalin did not get the deal?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member continues to confirm that the Conservatives will speculate rather than look at the facts.

We on this side have respect for the justice committee and we have respect for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner because they are doing their important work. We know that both the justice committee and the commissioner are looking at this file. We will not undermine the work of the justice committee. We on this side will not undermine the work of officers of Parliament. We on this side will not undermine the independence of the judicial system, as the Conservatives continue to do.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Prime Minister sent in his highest-ranking people, who speak on his behalf, to pressure and persuade the former attorney general through her chief of staff. Canadians deserve to know what kind of pressure was applied to their attorney general. The only person who knows is the Prime Minister, and the buck stops with him. Therefore, will he come to the justice committee? Will he finally stop evading and answer some questions truthfully and openly?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about what we know. We know that the Conservative leader met with representatives of the company. We know that the leader of the NDP met with representatives of the company. We know that the Conservative deputy leader herself said at the justice committee, “I do not want the impression to be on the record that I think there is anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin”.

We also know that the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed, “At every opportunity, verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.”

We on this side will continue to respect the independence of the judicial system and the rule of law.

Public Services and Procurement

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

Mr. Speaker, what a milestone. The Phoenix fiasco began three years ago, and the Liberal government still has yet to find a solution.

Public servants have been living this nightmare for three years, and the government refuses to say when this fiasco will be fixed. An internal government memo says it could take 10 years. Public servants continue to provide services every day, and they are still having problems getting paid properly.

The government has turned its back on these families. Public servants must get the money they are owed immediately.

When will the Liberals fix this, once and for all?

[Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that Canada's public servants deserve to be paid on time and accurately for the important work they do. More than 170,000 cases have been cleared from the backlog since January 2018, and we are working very hard to accelerate the progress being made every month.

We continue doing this important work. We will not stop until this is fixed.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been three years since the ill-fated Phoenix rollout and we are still hearing the same answers we heard three years ago when the whole thing started. It is a shame. Federal workers have lost homes and have had strain put on their families. Even some simple things would help, like changing the law so that they do not have to pay back the gross pay on the net pay that they received.

When SNC-Lavalin wanted legal changes to get out of criminal charges, that got done. In fact, they rolled out the red carpet. Why should workers continue to have their lives put on hold while the government is distracted protecting its well-connected buddies?