Mr. Speaker, based on this last intervention, we can all agree there is a complex legal regime that surrounds confidentiality and is something that needs to be discussed and analyzed quite thoroughly in a non-partisan arena. As we have seen over the last few days, it has become quite partisan, to the point of creating what has been called an unholy alliance between the Conservatives and the NDP.
I know a lot of the NDP members from Montreal are out pulling votes. I gladly provided them with a map of Outremont for their benefit. The joke is on them because they do not do door-to-door all that much.
In any event, I will get on with the core of my speech.
I would like to address the House on a very important aspect of this debate, one our government takes very seriously, which is our integrity regime that governs how we do business with suppliers. Let me be clear about where our government stands on this issue. Simply put, unethical business practices should have no place in the Government of Canada's business at all. We do not, and will not, stand for it. Canadians should not, and will not, stand for it.
The fact is that corporate wrongdoing imposes significant, economic and social costs that can weaken competition and threaten the integrity of our markets. It can also place barriers on our economic growth and significantly increase the cost and risk of doing business. Additionally, it undermines public and investor confidence.
I want to assure Canadians that protecting the integrity of our public programs and services is one of our highest priorities. How we do business with suppliers is by no means an exception. The fact is that the Government of Canada spends approximately $20 billion per year on procurement contracts, real property agreements, the management of Crown-owned properties and rental payments on over 1,690 lease contracts across the country.
These are significant dealings that call for a robust and effective integrity regime, which is precisely what we have. It helps foster ethical business practices, ensures due process for suppliers and upholds the public trust in those dealings. As the government's central purchasing agent and real property manager, Public Services and Procurement Canada is deeply committed to ensuring the highest ethical standards in everything it does. Fraud, collusion and corruption have absolutely no place in our dealings. That is precisely why PSPC has a rigorous framework around prevention, detection and enforcement. The framework is firmly based on the values of fairness, transparency and accountability, and it is focused on delivering real results for all Canadians.
In 2015, Public Services and Procurement Canada put in place a government-wide integrity regime aimed squarely at ensuring the government did business with ethical suppliers in Canada and abroad. As part of this work, PSPC conducts more than 20,000 integrity verifications annually on contracts and real property transactions. The names of ineligible and suspended suppliers are posted on the department's website.
While our integrity regime is strong, our government is committed to making it even more effective in the fight against corporate wrongdoing. In fact, since taking office, this government has taken significant steps forward to do just that. Our commitment to Canadians has always been to ensure our approach remains transparent, rigorous and consistent with best practices in Canada and abroad.
In everything we do, we believe consultations are an important step in ensuring clear and transparent laws and policies fair to all. Our approach to improving and modernizing how we deal with corporate misconduct is no different. In 2017, we conducted a public consultation to seek input on expanding Canada's tool kit to address corporate wrongdoing. Government officials consulted over 370 participants and received 75 written submissions.
In keeping with our commitment to transparency, we released a report that summarized the views of those who participated in this consultation process. The report is available to all Canadians online, and I encourage all members to read it.
Based on what we have heard, last year we began the work to update and enhance our approach. Those actions included a number of provisions that we are discussing today for remediation agreements, equivalent to the Canadian deferred prosecution agreements, which are essentially an additional tool to hold corporations to account. Let me underscore the words “deferred prosecution agreement”. It is not something that was conjured up yesterday. I would point the House to a number of provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada that date back to early 2000 that deal with how we treat corporations.
Dealing with corporations that have committed serious offences is important for the integrity of our markets, the integrity of Canadians, but sentencing has to deal with justice, fairness and proportionality. I know the Conservatives have criticized us for suggesting that we need to protect jobs in this country, but the provisions that allow us to do that, or that allow prosecutors to do that for that matter, are in black and white in the Criminal Code.
Let me read for the House, section 718.21 of the Criminal Code, which tells about which factors the court considers when imposing a sentence. We are not talking about a deferred prosecution agreement, and I will be quite clear about that. This is when a company has been found liable and the court needs to consider factors in sentencing. It reads as follows:
A court that imposes a sentence on an organization shall also take into consideration the following factors:
(a) any advantage realized by the organization as a result of the offence;
(b) the degree of planning involved in carrying out the offence and the duration and complexity of the offence;
(c) whether the organization has attempted to conceal its assets, or convert them, in order to show that it is not able to pay a fine or make restitution;
(d) the impact that the sentence would have on the economic viability of the organization and the continued employment of its employees;
(e) the cost to public authorities of investigation and prosecution of the offence;
(f) any regulatory penalty imposed on the organization or one of its representatives in respect to the conduct that formed the basis of the offence;
(g) whether the organization was - or any of its representatives who were involved in the commission of the offence were - convicted of a similar offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body for similar conduct;
(h) any penalty imposed by the organization on a representative for their role in the commission of the offence;
(i) any restitution that the organization is ordered to make or any amount that the organization has paid to a victim of the offence; and
(j) any measures that the organization has taken to reduce the likelihood of it committing a subsequent event.
We have heard in the House over the last week, in various political panels, that these were novel regimes designed to whitewash actions of a corporation. They are quite the contrary. People who are saying that have no particular understanding of what the Criminal Code considers as fairness, justice and proportionality in sentencing.
I do not discount partisan read, but I question the people who are suggesting this particular knowledge of the Criminal Code. The provisions I cited date back to about 15 years.
The remediation agreements are similar in the objectives that they seek, and I need to highlight them here as well. For purposes of my next quote, I am citing section 715.31 of the Criminal Code, which talks about remediation agreements and underscores their purpose. It reads as follows:
The purpose of this Part is to establish a remediation agreement regime that is applicable to organizations alleged to have committed an offence and that has the following objectives:
(a) to denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harm that the wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;
(b) to hold the organization accountable for its wrongdoing through effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;
(c) to contribute to respect for the law by imposing an obligation on the organization to put in place corrective measures and promote a compliance culture;
(d) to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) 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.
There has been a lot of discussion about how this has been taken in Quebec, the reaction in Quebec and the alleged willingness of Quebeckers to glance over this. I mentioned in a prior speech that the rule of law is as equally important in Quebec as it is in any other province. However, we hear this narrative coming back into the Conservative discourse particularly. They are thinking that Quebec will somehow let these issues off the hook faster than they would in other provinces. I find it disgusting. We have told them to say it in French and they do not. If one aspires to lead this country, one needs to hold a discourse that has the same narrative across this country, in both official languages. I am not hearing that from members of the opposition.
I also heard a member of the opposition suggest that a member of Parliament, conveniently from Montreal, was appointed to be Minister of Justice and Attorney General, which somehow insinuates that he would be more lenient on a company that has its headquarters in my riding. Before I get into the substance of it, let me remind this House of the merits of the current Attorney General. He has a Ph.D. from Yale. He served as a professor at McGill University for many years and has given impeccable legal advice throughout a distinguished career. To have a member of Parliament stand up and question his integrity is a disgrace. We can talk about bashing Montreal MPs. I am one. The member can bash me, that is okay, but I do not stand it for any of my colleagues. Regarding the allegation that he made against the current Attorney General, I would invite him to say it outside of the House.
What we have talked about today, and what we will continue to talk about presumably over the next few days, is a regime that is intended to put a company that has admitted its crime, paid its dues and taken steps to ensure the measures it is accused of cannot and will not happen again is given a deferred prosecution agreement. That means that if it violates that agreement, it can be prosecuted. It does not mean it is off the hook. However, it does allow it, for example, to compete internationally against similarly situated companies that may or may not have benefited, and more often than not may have benefited, from similar regimes in projects that require that type of regulatory framework.
As I mentioned before, SNC-Lavalin can defend itself. It has capable lawyers. However, let no one in this House suggest that the deferred prosecution regime was intended for any particular company. It is a regime that balances three things, proportionality, justice and fairness, to allow companies not to have terminate innocent employees, for example, among other things. Any member of Parliament who is suggesting that this is a Quebec thing not only does not understand Quebec but also does not understand the company they are levelling accusations against. It has most of its employment outside Canada, and most of its Canadian employment outside of Quebec.
The enhanced policies that I have set forth expand on policies that are already in existence but that we have sought to make better. In certain circumstances, companies can be declared ineligible or suspended from doing business with the government. These policies also provide flexibility in determining periods of ineligibility to ensure that they are proportional, and based on the nature and the context of the offence and the steps taken by the suppliers to address misconduct. I would also note that under our current policy, a supplier found guilty of committing an offence may be declared ineligible for a period of up to 10 years.
The ineligibility and suspension policy is an important component of the integrity regime. It sets out when and how a supplier may be declared ineligible or suspended from doing business with the government for a period of up to 10 years.
Allow me to inform this House about some of the things we learned and how we have taken action to address feedback gathered during those consultations, specifically as it pertains to our integrity regime.
First and foremost, it was encouraging to see that participants were fully supportive of fair, proportional and transparent measures that enable the government to take action against corporate wrongdoing. They also supported measures that ultimately hold companies accountable for misconduct.
Among the majority of stakeholders, there was a call for additional discretion and flexibility within the integrity regime, specifically into the provisions of the ineligibility and suspension policy. As we look to strengthening the regime, we know that we must strike a balance by considering more flexibility in the policy that directs it and expanding the list of circumstances that could result in ineligibility.
Let me come back to the matter currently under debate. I am a bit perplexed at the request to have the Prime Minister appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Over the past two weeks, I have seen the Prime Minister answer 40 questions on the matter for a total of 45 minutes and that does not include the questions that we all heard today. We have had questions from six MPs and two party leaders—the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of his own party, the name of which escapes me, the hon. member seated at the back near the leader of the Green Party. Obviously the NDP House leader also asked questions of us.
I analyzed the questions, and I do not want to repeat all of them, but obviously the Conservatives' questions were disrespectful and implicated the Prime Minister's principal secretary, Gerald Butts, an individual who served our country with honour and integrity. I want to emphasize that. Canadians are indebted to him. The Conservatives wanted to call into question that individual's dignity and the way he served our country, no matter what the cost.
I know there is one member of the NDP who will laugh at this, but I wanted to compliment the parliamentary leader, who called for the waiving of solicitor-client privilege. The Prime Minister answered that question very respectfully. I will tell him because he is not in the House. I do not want to point out someone's absence from the House. The NDP's questions were more respectful than those of the Conservatives, with few exceptions. There was one question about lifting the confidentiality regime. Obviously, we would need to debate that to determine why confidentiality should be waived. There are cases before the courts. We have to look at striking a balance, achieving a proportionality, before confidentiality can be waived, whether we are talking about cabinet confidences or solicitor-client privilege.
In my private practice, I was subject to solicitor-client privilege. Any time we wanted to waive that privilege, all of the potential impacts had to be examined.
There are two cases before the courts. There is talk of an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. Obviously, these considerations could harm the interests of Canadians and third parties. This is something that must be figured out between the former attorney general and cabinet as such.
I am sure—and this will make the debate less partisan—that this will be settled among lawyers in a sober and deliberate way, and that the former minister of justice and attorney general will have the chance to speak candidly.
